YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
FOR THE RESURRECTION
OF JESUS CHRIST

BY
KIRSOPP LAKE, M.A. (Oxon.)
STAMENT EXEGESIS AND EARLY C
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF* LEIDEN

NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
LONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE
i9°7„

Professor Kirsopp Lake, (Oxon.), of the University of Leyd
Who is to teach in the Cambridge School during the first part of the next Academic Year.

CONTENTS

PASKS
Introduction . . . . . 1-12
CHAPTER I
The Account of the Resurrection of the
Lord given by St Paul .... 13-43
CHAPTER II
The Narrative of the Resurrection in Mark
and the Parallel Synoptic Passages . 44-79
CHAPTER III
The Non-Marcan Narratives in Matthew and
Luke ; the Acts ; the Spurious Conclu
sions of Mark ...... 80-124
CHAPTER IV
The Narrative of the Resurrection in the
Fourth Gospel. ..... 125-147
CHAPTER V
The Accounts of the Resurrection in Apo
cryphal Books ...... 148-165

viii CONTENTS
CHAPTER VI PAHES
The Reconstruction of the Earliest Tradition 1 66-239
CHAPTER VII
The Facts which are behind the Earliest
Tradition . . .... 240-279
Appendices ... 280-284
Index  285-291

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
FOR THE RESURRECTION OF
JESUS CHRIST
INTRODUCTION
The present essay is intended to be an inquiry into the
historical evidence for the Resurrection of the Lord.
It attempts to discuss this with adequate fulness,
but without transcending the boundaries of historical
research, and passing into the region of psychology
and philosophy, or dealing with points which are not
important for its actual purpose.
It is, however, desirable to begin by pointing out the
existence of another method of studying, in order to
draw attention to its advantages and limitations, and
also to indicate what can and cannot be done by the
method actually followed.
It has sometimes been stated that the proper method
of dealing with the Resurrection is not to discuss it as
an event in history, but as something which can be

2 THE RESURRECTION
proved by the witness of religious experience. This
kind of statement seems to be partly true and partly
false. It is true that for spiritual facts only spiritual
evidence is ultimately decisive ; and any inquiry into
them must be based on the recognition of this truth.
For such an inquiry the best starting-point is the
consciousness of the individual. It is the claim of
Christianity that as a religion it helps men to become
conscious of direct communion with a higher spiritual
power and to recognise that human life is eternal as
well as temporal, while the Christian community consists
of men who enjoy this consciousness and have made
this recognition. It is clear that in a certain sense
this covers the doctrine which the Resurrection implies
— the existence of an eternal life (in the case as well of
Christians as of Christ) which cannot be conquered
by death, because it is exalted above both space and
time. The main outlines of this position have been
very beautifully expressed by Professor Inge in his
Bampton Lectures (pp. 325 f.) on Christian Mysticism,
in which he says : —
"The men to whom we naturally turn as our best
authorities in spiritual matters are those who seem
to have been endowed with an tmima naturaliter
Christiana, and who have devoted their whole lives
to the service of God and the imitation of Christ.

INTRODUCTION 3
" Now it will be found that these men of acknowledged
and pre-eminent saintliness agree very closely in what
they tell us about God. They tell us that they have
arrived gradually at an unshakable conviction, not
based on inference but on immediate experience, that
God is a spirit with whom the human spirit can hold
intercourse ; that in him meet all that they can imagine
of goodness, truth, and beauty ; that they can see his
footprints everywhere in nature, and feel his presence
within them as the very life of their life; so that in
proportion as they come to themselves they come to
him. They tell us that what separates us from him
and from happiness is, first, self-seeking in all its forms ;
and, secondly, sensuality in all its forms ; that these are
the ways of darkness and death, which hide from us
the face of God; while the path of the just is like a
shining light which shineth more and more unto the
perfect day. As they have toiled up the narrow way,
the Spirit has spoken to them of Christ, and has
enlightened the eyes of their understandings, till they
have at least begun to know the love of Christ which
passeth knowledge, and to be filled with all the fulness
of God."
Few would deny the real value of this line of
argument, or that it represents the driving power
which makes religion a living force, and distinguishes

4 THE RESURRECTION
it from theology, — the attempt to translate into the
language of time, and to give intellectual expression
to the things of eternity which are perceived by the
spirit. On the other hand, such a method has its limitations ;
and there is a tendency in some schools of thought to
pass beyond their boundaries. It is, for instance, a
confusion of thought when men say that spiritual
experience can guarantee the historical fact of the
Resurrection of the Lord. From the nature of the case
it cannot possibly prove anything about the events of
the history of Jesus. It can, and does, throw light on
the meaning of events which are historically vouched
for by other means ; but it cannot take the place of
these means. Spiritual experience, which is the basis
of religion, is the revelation of God and of the Spirit ;
but it would tell no one anything about the historic
Christ, if he knew nothing from other sources.
Historically, however, Christians are men who, having
the witness of the Spirit in themselves, believe either
that it is identical with the risen Christ himself — that,
as St Paul said, the Lord is the Spirit — or that the
Spirit which inspires their lives is identical with the
Spirit which inspired his. Thus for Christians it is
true that this argument, in connection with the know
ledge of history, leads to the assurance that Christ is

INTRODUCTION 5
eternally alive. But, apart from that knowledge of
history, it can never tell even Christians anything about
the story of his Death and Resurrection. As Dr Inge
says, in the continuation of the passage just quoted :
"The inner light can only testify to spiritual truths.
It always speaks in the present tense ; it cannot guar
antee any historical event, past or future. It cannot
guarantee either the gospel history or a future judg
ment. It can tell us that Christ is risen, and that he
is alive for evermore, but not that he rose again the
third day." Indeed, one might even say with truth
that this argument is so far independent of historical
facts that those who are impressed by it — who, in the
mystic phrase, "know that they have passed from
death unto life" — would hold their faith as to the
eternal life, both of themselves and of their Master,
quite unshaken, even if there were no proof of any
appearance after death ; for assuredly the proof of
eternal life does not consist of reappearances in time
and space, when the life has once been released from
those limitations.
If, therefore, we wish to investigate the facts, in order
to establish our knowledge of history, we must adopt
the method of historical research. This is an entirely
different method. It has nothing to do with religious
consciousness, except when this is regarded as a fact of

6 THE RESURRECTION
history, the development of which may be traced just
as the development of any other historical phenomenon.
The method of historical research, though compli
cated in practice, is simple in theory, and much unneces
sary controversy would be avoided if the theory, and
the possibilities which it offers and does not offer, were
more consistently recognised and remembered.
The first task of the historical inquirer is to collect the
pieces of evidence ; the second is to discuss the trust
worthiness and meaning of each separate piece ; and the
third is to reconstruct the events to which the evidence
relates. If one may adopt a metaphor from the law
courts, he has to play in turn the parts of solicitor,
barrister, and judge, for he has to draw up the case, to
argue its meaning, and to decide on its merits. Such
an inquirer is necessarily bound by the limitations of
evidence. The evidence of even the best witnesses
can in the end represent nothing more than their
belief; and if the witnesses differ, either the point at
issue must be left open, or an explanation must be
given of their difference. It is, of course, impossible to
apply the laws of evidence to historical problems with
the same rigour as obtains in a law court, but in principle
the judge and the historian are both guided by them,
and the qualities which are demanded for the one are
equally necessary in the other. The only difference

INTRODUCTION 7
is that the historian, unlike the judge (at least in
England), is allowed to give an open verdict.
This method will be followed in the present essay.
It is, as its title shows, an investigation into history,
and is concerned primarily not with the spiritual
evidence of religious experience, but with the testimony
of early Christian literature.
The origin of the early Christian literature, which
supplies the evidence for any inquiry into the fact
either of the life of Jesus or of the development of the
early Church, is, it need hardly be said, far too elaborate
and difficult a problem to be discussed in the present
place. But anyone who writes on topics connected
with it owes it as well to himself as to his readers to
give some sort of statement of his views as to the
growth of this literature, and the way in which it
ought to be treated, even though it be impossible in so
short a space to give the proofs.
For the first generation of Christians the sources of
authority were the Old Testament and the Teaching of
the Lord. The former was written and the latter was
oral, but as time went on Christians began to ask for
written statements bearing on the life and teaching of
Christ. Probably these statements took three forms —
a collection of passages bearing on the fulfilment of

8 THE RESURRECTION
prophecy by Christ ; a collection of his sayings ; and a
description of his life. Of the two first kinds no unmixed
examples are extant, but the third is represented by the
gospel of Mark. A little later there came the inevitable
attempt to facilitate instruction by combining these
three types of documents into one. Of these attempts
we have in the canonical New Testament two examples.
Matthew represents a combination of Mark with at
least one document which gave the sayings of the Lord,
probably also with one which gave prophecies and
their fulfilment, and with fresh material of various
kinds drawn by the compiler from other sources. In
the same way St Luke compiled his gospel from Mark,
at least one document containing sayings which was
also used in Matthew, and from special sources of his
own. As the preface to Luke shows, this gospel was,
unlike Matthew, a definite attempt to reconstruct the
course of events by the help of evidence of all kinds,
and the manner in which Mark is edited shows that St
Luke had not, especially towards the close, a very high
opinion either of the style in which Mark was written,
or of its version of events. Thus there is a close con
nexion between the first three gospels (generally called
the Synoptic Gospels), owing to their being so largely
based on the same sources.
A somewhat different tendency is represented by the

INTRODUCTION 9
Fourth Gospel, which seems rather to have been an
attempt to give an explanation of the place of the Lord
in the scheme of the universe. The form in which the
narrative is given is historical, but the interest of the
writer is theological and philosophical. Possibly he was
acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels or with their
sources, but, except in one or two cases, made no direct
use of them.
Going on a little further, one finds still at work the
same tendency to build up new documents out of old
ones. Just as one generation compiled the Synoptic
Gospels, at least partly, out of previously existing docu
ments, the next made new gospels out of them, with the
help of other traditions. Of this process we have an
early and important example in the Gospel of Peter, and
a later one in the Acts of Pilate, sometimes called the
Gospel of Nicodemus, though there is room for doubt
whether the latter was not intended to be regarded more
as a religious romance. There are also extant various
other fragments which belong to the same type, the
characteristic of which is a free paraphrastic combination
ofthe gospel narratives and their embellishment with
legendary additions. Probably the famous fragments
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews belong to
this class.
Still a little later, before the period which produced

10 THE RESURRECTION
the last class of document was finished, the feeling arose
which ascribed a special sanctity to the four gospels, which
thus became " canonical." But this did not prevent the
continuance of the natural desire to reduce the four to
one document. The result was the growth of harmonies
which combined the Canonical Gospels into one long
continuous account. In the end none of these attempts
won popularity permanently, but they exercised much
influence on the text, and on the interpretation of the
gospels. The most important was the Diatessaron of
Tatian, which is still extant, though in a corrupt text.
The rest have perished.
Returning to the earliest period, quite a different type
of literature is represented by the epistles of St Paul.
Here we have, in the opinion of all but a very few
critics, in the main genuine letters of the apostle. Some
of them may possibly be false, some may represent
combinations of fragments of letters (2 Corinthians pro
bably does this), and the text of all of them may be
corrupt in places ; but the one which is important for
the present purpose, 1 Corinthians, is probably the most
certainly genuine of the whole collection.
How can this mass of material best be used ? So far
as the epistles are concerned there is not so much diffi
culty. They are the letters of an almost contemporary
writer ; but of course their evidence, as the evidence of

INTRODUCTION 11
letters always is, is frequently allusive rather than direct,
and it is not always easy to be certain to what the
allusions refer. The evidence of the other documents is
a much more difficult and complex problem. It is no
longer possible, in the light of the results of research, to
say that we must build our arguments on the gospels.
That is insufficient: we must build on the sources of
the gospels, and the sources are not all or always of
equal value. Where, as is more or less the case with
Mark, we have an early source which has been used by
the other gospels, the matter is simpler, but it is ex
tremely difficult when the source is no longer extant.
In that case we are obliged to try to reconstruct it. To
do this is usually impossible, if a verbal reconstruction
be required ; but if the attempt be confined to the
general outlines of the tradition represented, good results
are often possible from the comparison of allied though
independent narratives, and by attention to the general
influences which were likely to modify its representation.
When in this way the sources or traditions underlying
the gospels and kindred documents have been recon
structed, and the material has thus been simplified, it is
necessary to compare the results, and attempt by this
comparison to reconstruct first the earliest tradition, and
then the actual events which gave rise to it. It is hardly
necessary to say that this is by no means an easy thing

12 THE RESURRECTION
to do, and it is needful constantly to remember that the
first rule for all such work is that it is not sufficient to
make a choice between two conflicting traditions, but
that the rejected traditions have also to be explained.
It is not enough to say that an event probably happened
in one particular way ; it is also necessary to show why
people ever thought that it happened in any other.
In the following chapters an effort will be made to
follow out this method. The existing narratives will
first be given, and so far as seems necessary commented
on, showing when possible their relations to one another
or to their sources, and the traditions which lie behind
the narratives. Next these traditions will be compared,
and an attempt will be made to explain the existence of
those which are rejected. Finally there will be con
sidered the bearing of the results thus reached on the
question of the nature of the facts which gave rise to
the tradition. It must also be mentioned that in the
quotations from the New Testament the translations
of the English versions will be used as a basis, but
will not always be followed exactly if there seem to
be reason for adopting another rendering.

CHAPTER I
THE ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION i
OF THE LORD GIVEN BY ST PAUL
The main source of our knowledge of St Paul's
teaching on the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, as
distinct from its theological importance for Christians,
is 1 Cor. xv., and any investigation of his evidence
must necessarily deal with this passage.
It is of course well known that the purpose of 1 Cor.
was to provide answers to certain definite difficulties
which had arisen in the church at Corinth. Among
these difficulties one of the chief was connected with
the hope of a resurrection of the departed faithful.
It is probable, though for the present purpose im
material, that St Paul had learnt (either from the
epistle sent to him by the church at Corinth, or
1 Using the word in the general, somewhat loose sense. Of course,
in the strict sense of the word, there is no account of the Resurrection
— the actual moment of resuscitation — in any canonical book.
13

14 THE RESURRECTION
from the verbal information of Stephanus, Fortunatus
and Achaicus) that there was a party among his
converts at Corinth which did not look for any life
beyond the grave. The fact that they had no further
hope is rendered certain by 1 Cor. xv. 12, "How say
some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead ? " but their reasons are not so plain. The most
probable view, based upon 1 Cor. xv. 35 ("But some
one will say, How are the dead raised, and with what
body do they come ? "), is that they found it impossible
to conceive of life apart from the body, and were
therefore persuaded that the obvious dissolution of
the flesh at death must be the end of life. St Paul's
answer to these doubters was that the general pro
position that there is no resurrection of the dead is
negatived by the fact of the Resurrection of Christ.
This point he explains in verses 1-20 : —
But, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I
preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also
ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye keep it fast,
what argument I used in preaching unto you, unless ye
have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of
all that which I also 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 ; and that he was seen of Cephas ; then of the
twelve ; after that, he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 15
now, but some are fallen asleep ; after that, he was seen
of James ; then of all the apostles ; and last of all he was
seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am
the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called
an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But by the grace of God I am what I am : and his grace
which was bestowed upon me did not prove in vain ; but
I laboured more abundantly than they all : yet not I,
but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore
whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye
believed. Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from
the dead, how say some among you that there is no resur
rection of the dead ? But if there is no resurrection of the
dead, then hath Christ not been raised : and if Christ hath
not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith is
also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ;
because we testified of God that he raised up Christ : whom
he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, then hath not Christ been
raised : and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is
vain ; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are
fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we
have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the first-
fruits of them that slept.
In the following passage he explains the place of
the Resurrection of Christ in the scheme of the
universe in a manner which is very important for the
understanding of Pauline doctrine in general, but
throws no light on the problem under discussion. The
same may be said of the next paragraph, in which he

16 THE RESURRECTION
emphasises the fact that the resurrection of the dead
is implied by the custom of baptism for the dead — a
custom which, whatever it may have been, was clearly
in use among his readers — and by the constancy of
Christians under persecution.
Having thus stated the positive grounds for belief
in the resurrection, St Paul goes on to deal with the
objection raised by the Corinthians that the body is
dissolved by death, and cannot be raised. He argues
that this is not a valid objection, but is surmounted by
a consideration of the method of the resurrection, which
will change the nature of the body, just as a seed is
changed by the process of germination. He recognises
an element of truth in the Corinthians1 contention
that a body of flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of heaven ; this he says that he admits
(tovto Se <pr}iJ.i), but he maintains that not all bodies
are of the same kind, and that the resurrection body
will not be of flesh and blood. He does not state
the source of his views on this point ; but it is fair
to assume that, just as he established the future fact
of the resurrection of Christians by his knowledge of
the past fact of the Resurrection of Christ, so he bases
his view of the nature of the resurrection body of
Christians on his knowledge of the nature of the
resurrection body of Christ.

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 17
This argument he sets out in verses 35-58 : —
But some one will say, How are the dead raised up ?
and with what body do they come ? Thou fool, that which
thou thyself sowest is not quickened, except it die : and
that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that
shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some
other kind ; but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased
him, and to each seed its own body. All flesh is not the
same flesh : but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh
of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial : but the
glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial
is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one
star diifereth from another star in glory. So also is the
resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption ; it is
raised in incorruption : it is sown in dishonour ; it is raised
in glory : it is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power : it
is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body. If
there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body ; so,
too, it is written, " The first man Adam became a living
soul " ; — the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But
that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural ; and afterwards that which is spiritual. The first
man was of the earth, material : the second man was
from heaven. As was the material, such are they also
that are material : and as was the heavenly, such are
they also that are heavenly; and as we have borne the
image of the material, we shall also bear the image of the
heavenly. But I admit this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption
inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We
2

18 THE RESURRECTION
shall not all sleep,1 but we shall all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump :
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this cor
ruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality. But when this mortal shall have
put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, " Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy
sting?" The sting of death is sin; and the power of
sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us
the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore,
my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know
that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
For our present purpose a consideration of these
extracts from St Paul's early teaching must begin with
the connexion which exists in verse 3 between the
three verbs buried, raised, and appeared. The meaning
of the first cannot be doubted. It can only mean that
the dead body of Jesus was laid in the grave ; but the
1 In these extracts from I Cor. xv. there are many points in which
the text either is uncertain, or might justifiably have been differently
translated. These have been passed over as immaterial to the questions
under discussion. But at this point there is a curious variant in the
text which deserves notice. Some authorities read, ' ' We shall all sleep,
but we shall not all be changed," and some, " Wc shall all rise, but we
shall not all be changed." On the purely documentary evidence, it
would be difficult to decide between these variants, but the text adopted
is the only one which seems really consistent either with St Paul's
argument here, or with his general teaching. That all would die before
the Parousia is just what was not expected by the first generation.
Cf. esp. Westcott and Hort, New Testament in Greek, vol. ii. p. 118.

THE ACCOUNT GD7EN BY ST PAUL 19
connexion of this with what follows is not so easily
determined. Does St Paul mean that that which was
buried was in every sense identical with that which was
raised and seen ? Does he mean that the appearance
is the proof of the Resurrection, and that the first
appearance took place on the third day, or is this
reference a definition of the date of the Resurrection,
regarded as a separate event from the first appearance
of the risen Christ, of which no definite date is given ?
These are problems which are far more easily stated
than answered. It is possible that they defy any
certain solution, owing to the fact that St Paul was
writing a letter and not a theological treatise, and
that he is giving a summary of his teaching to the
Corinthians in order to remind them of what they had
formerly heard, not to tell them something new. His
account of the Resurrection is not controversial, but
a statement of the common undisputed ground upon
which he could base an argument for the purposes of
what really was controversial. We have to endeavour
to reconstruct the non-controversial basis of his
arguments, which he only sketches, from the fuller
details of the controversial section which follows, and
it is not surprising that the task is difficult, and in
some cases perhaps impossible.
The first question then is — Does St Paul mean that

20 THE RESURRECTION
that which was buried in the grave was in every sense
identical with that which was raised and seen ?
In the highest sense it is certain that St Paul did
maintain this identity of that which was raised with
that which had died and had been buried. At the
same time, there is also a sense in which he did not
believe in the resurrection of the flesh, and the difficulty
is to discover exactly what this sense really is.
The proof of the former is to be found not in
any direct statement, but by a reversal of St Paul's
argument. In this chapter and elsewhere he is basing
his teaching as to what will happen to Christians at
their resurrection on what has already happened to
Christ; it is therefore a perfectly sound method of
argument to reverse this process and to reconstruct
his views as to the Resurrection of Christ, to which
he only alludes, from the full statement which he
gives of his hopes for the resurrection of Christians.
If this method be followed, there can clearly be no
doubt that he believed in the complete personal
identity of that which rose with that which had died
and been buried.
The proof that there is also a sense in which St Paul
did not believe in the resurrection of the flesh is to
be found especially in 1 Cor. xv. 50, " But this I admit,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 21
kingdom of God." In the simplest sense of the words
it is thus clear that the resurrection of the flesh was
rejected by St Paul ; but it is a mistake to assume that
this implies that St Paul thought that the flesh and
blood either of Christ or of Christians remained or
would remain in the grave, in the form, as we should
say, of decaying matter, after the resurrection. The
evidence points to his belief in a kind of transubstantia-
tion of the body from flesh and blood into spirit, and
in this sense he not merely held the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body, as distinguished from the
resurrection of the flesh, but in so far as the flesh was
changed into spirit, he may even be said to have held
the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, if " resur
rection " be taken to include this process of change.
This evidence may be found in a consideration of
verses 42-44, in which the point of the metaphor of
the seed is that what is raised, though in one sense
the same, in another sense is different from what was
sown. Still more plainly is this shown in verses 51-52,
" We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed . . .
and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we (i.e.
the living) shall be changed. For this corruptible must
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality." The same thing may be seen outside
this chapter in 2 Cor. v. 2, " For verily in this we groan,

22 THE RESURRECTION
longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which
is from heaven : if so be that being clothed we shall
not be found naked. For indeed we that are in this
tabernacle do groan, being burdened ; not for that we
would be unclothed, but that we would be clothed
upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of
life." Or still more simply in Phil. iii. 20-21, " For our
citizenship is in heaven ; from whence also we wait for a
saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ : who shall fashion anew
the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to
the body of his glory, according to the working whereby
he is able even to subject all things unto himself."
These passages1 make it abundantly plain that St
Paul expected some change in the human body at its
resurrection which can not unfairly be described as a
transubstantiation, in the sense that he expected it to
consist no longer of flesh and blood, but at the same
time did not expect that this result would be obtained
by the spirit taking to itself another body, and leaving
behind the old material body. This seems the most pro
bable statement of St Paul's position. It is perhaps true,
that it is more certain that St Paul looked for a change
in the attributes and properties of the body than that
1 For a full treatment of these passages, and * discussion of the
development of thought which can probably be traced in them see
R. H. Charles, Eschatology, esp. pp. 379 ff.

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 23
he regarded this change as absorbing, if the phrase may
be used, the whole of the mortal body without leaving
any remains ; the former is far easier to prove than the
latter, and it would be possible to argue that the
language in 2 Corinthians looks forward to the casting
off of the body of flesh and blood and the putting on of
a new spiritual body, rather than to a transformation
from carnal to spiritual ; but one ought probably to
be led to reject this view by the later evidence of the
epistle to the Philippians (as to the authenticity of
which it is difficult to feel doubtful), which can scarcely
be forced into harmony with such an interpretation.
The result, then, of an examination of the passages in
which St Paul speaks of the nature of the resurrection
body of Christians points to the fact that 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.
The question now arises whether St Paul derived this
view of the resurrection body entirely from what he had
heard or seen of the risen Lord, or was partly influenced
by contemporary Jewish ideas. If there was no trace
of this doctrine of the transubstantiation of flesh and
blood to spirit at the resurrection in contemporary

24 THE RESURRECTION
Jewish thought, the Pauline doctrine must be based on
some special fact to which no definite allusion is made
in the epistles. If, on the other hand, the doctrine is
to be found in Jewish literature, it is possible that
St Paul explains the resurrection body in the light of
his inherited ideas on the subject, and in this case it
becomes desirable to compare the Jewish and Pauline
forms of the doctrine, as the points in which the latter
differ from the former are likely to be those which the
apostle derived from his knowledge of the Resurrection
of Christ.
Now there can be little doubt that the Pauline
doctrine of a transubstantiation of the body at the
resurrection is one which was in the main familiar to
the Jews. The evidence for this view has been col
lected, among others, by Mr H. St J. Thackeray in his
work on The Relation of St Paul to Contemporary
Jewish Thought. The most important passage is to be
found in the Apocalypse of Baruch,1 chapters xlix.-li.
It is introduced by a question put to God : —
" In what shape will those live who live in thy day ?
or how will the splendour of those who are after that time
continue ? Will they then resume this form of the present,
and put on these entrammelling members, which are now
1 For the history of this book, probably written by Pharisees in the
first century a.d. , see R. H. Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch, and the same
writer's article on ' Apocalyptic Literature ' in Encyclopcedia Biblica.

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 25
involved in evils, and in which evils are consummated, or
wilt thou perchance change these things which have been
in the world as also the world ? " God's answer was :
" Hear, Baruch, this word, and write in the remembrance
of thy heart all that thou shalt learn. For the earth will
then assuredly restore the dead, which it now receives, in
order to preserve them, making no change in their form, but
as it has received so will it restore them, and as I delivered
them unto it, so shall it raise them. For then it will be
necessary to show to the living that the dead have come
to life again, and that those who have departed have
returned. And it will come to pass, when they have
severally recognised those whom they now know, then
judgment will grow strong, and those things which before
were spoken of will come. And it will come to pass that
when that appointed day has gone by, that then shall the
aspect of those who are condemned be afterwards changed,
and the glory of those who are justified. For the aspect
of those who now act wickedly will become worse than is
that of those such as suffer torment. Also (as for) the glory
of those who have now been justified in my law, who have
had understanding in their life, and who have planted in
their heart the root of wisdom, then their splendour will
be glorified in changes, and the form of their face will be
turned into the light of their beauty, that they may be
able to acquire and receive the world which does not die,
which is then promised to them."
And a little further on in the book of Baruch we read
that they
"Shall be made like unto the angels, and be made
equal to the stars, and they shall be changed into every
form they desire, from beauty into loveliness, and from
light into the splendour of glory."

26 THE RESURRECTION
This is the most important passage for the present
purpose ; but, as Mr Thackeray shows (cf. esp. op. cit.,
pp. 112 ff.), many of the details of St Paul's ideas and
even language can be paralleled in other Jewish docu
ments. The metaphor, for instance, by which the
resurrection body is regarded as a garment is found in
the book of Enoch, and the simile of the grain of corn
is found in Rabbinical literature.
Thus the general result of a comparison between St
Paul's teaching and contemporary Jewish thought is
to show that the greater part of his ideas as to the
resurrection body were taken from Judaism. But, if
the book of Baruch be a fair guide, there is one im
portant detail which cannot be traced in Jewish litera
ture. The idea of a transformation to a more spiritual
and more glorious form of existence is comparatively
common, but in Jewish thought it took place after the
resurrection from the dead, not simultaneously with it.
The book of Baruch, for instance, looks forward to a
resurrection of the dead in their present form in order
to secure their recognition by the living, and then to a
gradual change to a new method of life. On the other
hand, St Paul looks forward to a sudden change, " in the
twinkling of an eye," when that which is material will
become spiritual. This seems to be definitely Pauline
and Christian, and cannot be attributed to the influence

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 27
of Jewish thought. It is accordingly natural to trace
it to his knowledge of the nature of the resurrection
body of the Lord, the first-fruits of the Resurrection,
in the light of which knowledge he re-formed his
ideas on the Resurrection generally. Arguing back
wards, we may therefore say that St Paul believed
that the resurrection body of the Lord was from
the beginning spiritual, and not material. It became
so at the moment of resurrection, and it became so
suddenly, not, as the influence of Jewish thought
would have led him to suppose, after an interval of
renewed material, or, if one may so say, of semi-
material life.
At the same time it is important to notice that the
influence of Jewish thought would have persuaded St
Paul that the Resurrection implied that the old
material body was changed into a new spiritual one,
not that it was, as it were, left behind.
It is now necessary to ask whether St Paul means to
distinguish the fact of the Resurrection from the
appearances of the risen Lord. Does he mean that
the appearances are the proof of the Resurrection and
that the first appearance took place on the third day,
or does he refer to a definition of the date of the
Resurrection regarded as a separate event from the

28 THE RESURRECTION
first appearance of the risen Christ, to which no
definite date is assigned?
Many scholars have held the former view, and think
that the statement of the appearances of the risen
Christ is intended to be the proof of the previous
statement that he rose on the third day. It is im
possible to say that this opinion is entirely untenable,
but the argument, which is at once an exposition of its
weak point, and the strongest evidence for the alterna
tive view, is that it requires that St Paul should have
said "and was seen on the third day," not "and was
raised on the third day." It is possible that this is
merely an accidental looseness of expression on St Paul's
part, but it cannot be denied that, if we interpret the
passage strictly, a distinction is made between the
Resurrection on the third day and the appearances of
the risen Lord. The latter were the positive evidence
on which St Paul relied to prove the existence of a
living Lord and his conquest over death ; but he had
other reasons for fixing the third day as the day of the
Resurrection. In attempting to determine what these reasons may
have been, there are only two alternatives: either St
Paul meant to give his reason when he said " according
to the scriptures," in which case the third day was
merely a deduction from scripture ; or he was referring

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 29
to some fact which he did not mention, and did not
regard as evidence for the Resurrection.
In favour of the view that the third day is merely
a deduction from scripture is a comparison of St
Paul's words, "raised the third day according to the
scriptures," with his earlier statement, "died for our
sins according to the scriptures." There is no doubt
that in the latter case he means that the reason for
attributing an atoning value to the death of Christ is
to be found in the Old Testament. He does not mean
that the historical fact of the death of Jesus was to be
proved by scripture, but that the religious value which
he attributed to it had been foretold by the prophets.
In the same way, it is possible that, when he says that
Christ was raised on the third day according to the
scriptures, he does not mean merely that the Resurrec
tion had been foretold, but that, as the Resurrection
had taken place, and was attested by the appearances
which he goes on to relate, he was justified in fixing
the date of the Resurrection on the third day, because
of the prophecies which could be found in the Old
Testament, and had no doubt formed part of his
instruction to his converts. Just as the value of the
death of Christ was determined by the Old Testament,
so the date of the Resurrection was determined by the
same means.

30 THE RESURRECTION
This is at first sight a powerful argument ; it is no
doubt partially correct, but its weakness is found when
one tries to form some idea as to what prophecies St
Paul could have been using in reference to the third
day. The only evidence we can use for this purpose
is supplied by early Christian literature not connected
with St Paul. It would appear from Matt. xii. 40
that the story of Jonah in the whale's belly was
regarded as a prophecy of the Resurrection, but the
force of this parallel is much weakened by two con
siderations. In the first place, Jonah is related to have
been three days and three nights in the whale, whereas
the Resurrection on the third day does not seem to
mean a greater interval after death than one night and
part of two days. If, therefore, the story of Jonah were
responsible for the "third day" in the story of the
Resurrection, one would have expected a greater degree
of coincidence. The discrepancy may legitimately be
regarded as pointing to the fact that " the third day "
rests upon some other foundation, and that its con
nexion with the prophecy was an after-thought. In the
second place, though the connexion of the Resurrection
with the story of Jonah belongs to an early stratum in
early Christian literature, it probably does not belong
to quite the earliest, for there is little doubt that in
Luke xi. 29-32 we have a better representation of the

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 31
incident recorded in Matt. xii. 40, and in this the
reference to the Resurrection and to Jonah's sojourn in
the whale's belly is not mentioned. This also suggests
that it was the Resurrection on the third day which
suggested the interpretation of Jonah, rather than that
the third day was due to the influence of Jonah.
Other passages from the Old Testament which have
been suggested as possible sources for the dating of
the Resurrection on the third day are Hosea vi. 2,
" After two days will he revive us : on the third day
he will raise us up, and we shall live before him " ;
and 2 Kings xx. 8, " What shall be the sign that the
Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up into the
house of the Lord the third day ? " — a passage which
refers to Hezekiah's recovery from illness. In the
absence, however, of any citation of these passages in
the New Testament, it does not appear probable that
they are the source of St Paul's dating the Resurrection
on the third day.
Still, though the evidence for thinking that prophecy
is the origin of St Paul's connexion of the third day
with the Resurrection is weak in this direction, it re
mains true that the form of his statement in 1 Cor. xv.
points to this conclusion. Even though there are no
passages in the Old Testament which, looked at by
modern eyes, sufficiently account for the fact, it must

32 THE RESURRECTION
be remembered that we have but comparatively little
knowledge of the Jewish interpretation of the Old
Testament, especially in connexion with the Messianic
hope, among the Jews in St Paul's time. Moreover,
it is certainly true that if we try to discover what
evidence from the Old Testament St Paul used to
prove that the death of Christ was " for our sins," we
do not find it very easy to show that he relied on
evidence which strikes us as particularly convincing.
It is possible that the parallelism goes some way. In
the case as well of the Resurrection as of the death
of Christ, St Paul started with the fact, and may then
have tried to use the Old Testament to explain it ;
in the one case to define its meaning for mankind,
in the other case to fix its date.
The possibility, therefore, that the " third day " is
due to a direct or indirect deduction from the Old
Testament certainly cannot be disregarded. At the
same time it is plain that we do not possess evidence
strong enough to justify us in thinking that this is
a certain solution of the matter. If we reject it, we
are driven back to the belief that St Paul knew some
other reason for dating the Resurrection on the third
day. What this reason can have been we cannot say ;
we can only be almost certain that it cannot have
been anything which he was able to rank as first-hand

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 33
direct evidence for the Resurrection. If it had been,
it is improbable that he would not have quoted it in
his recitation of the evidence, and we are justified in
thinking that he considered it to be of a nature not
to be used in this way. Granting the Resurrection,
the unknown fact enabled him to say that it took
place on the third day ; but either it was not direct
evidence for the Resurrection itself, or was of such a
kind that he did not use it as the basis of his teaching
at Corinth.
What such a fact can have been — whether, for in
stance, it can have been knowledge of the women's visit
to the tomb, or of a prophecy by Christ, or of contem
porary beliefs attaching importance to the third day —
must be discussed later in connexion with the comparison
of all the various traditions as to the Resurrection.
The evidence on which St Paul bases his teaching
of the Resurrection is the appearances of the risen
Lord. Other facts he may have known, but he does
not adduce them as evidence. The main points
which he alleges are plain. They are that the risen
Jesus was seen by Peter, by "the twelve," by more
than five hundred brethren at once, by James, by all
the apostles (as distinguished from the twelve), and,
lastly, by himself.

34 THE RESURRECTION
How far these appearances of the risen Lord can
be identified with those mentioned in the gospels is
an obviously difficult question, which it will be more
proper to discuss later. It is, however, well to emphasise
at once that St Paul does not recognise any difference
between the appearance to himself and the appearances
to the other witnesses. In attempting to define the
nature of the appearance to St Paul, we have unfor
tunately no direct account in St Paul's own writing
on which we can rely. At the same time, we have in
the Acts (see pp. 116 ff.) an account of his conversion
and of the appearance of the Lord which probably
belongs to the oldest part of the book and was derived
by St Luke from St Paul. It would seem from this
that the appearance of the Lord at his conversion
was of the nature of a sudden vision, which convinced
him that he had to deal with Jesus of Nazareth, living
and triumphant over death. The whole tendency of
the narrative goes to exclude the possibility that he
saw anything of the nature of a material form, and we
are justified in not hesitating to regard this as probably
an accurate description of what he experienced, because
it so completely agrees with the deduction drawn from
1 Cor. xv. that St Paul's belief was that the risen Lord
was not flesh and blood.
The view that St Paul means that all the appearances

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 35
of the risen Lord were of the same immaterial kind
as that to himself does not rest merely on the fact
that he draws no distinction between them. The
whole of his argument in 1 Cor. xv., to the effect that
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven,
is based on the parallelism between the Resurrection
of Christ and the resurrection of Christians. Is it
possible to suggest that St Paul was aware of evidence
which showed that the risen Lord had a body of
flesh and blood ? Or is it conceivable that he would
have spoken as he did about the resurrection of Christians
if he had known all the time that the first-fruits from
the dead had been of a different character ? The
answer to these questions can scarcely be doubted ; and
it must be noticed that in reality this also excludes
the suggestion which has sometimes been made that
St Paul is speaking here, if one may so say, of the
permanent condition of the resurrection body of
Christ, and would not have excluded the possibility
that the first few appearances of the risen Lord were
of a more material nature than the later ones. This
would be to adopt the Jewish view quoted above from
the Apocalypse of Baruch, that at the resurrection
there will be a gradual transubstantiation of the
body. Had St Paul known that the transubstantiation
of the resurrection body of the Lord had been of

36 THE RESURRECTION
this gradual nature, there would have been no reason
for his not accepting this ordinary Jewish view in
his teaching about the general resurrection. He quite
clearly excludes this idea : the resurrection is to be
sudden and complete, "in the twinkling of an eye,"
so far as the change of the nature of the body is
concerned ; and inasmuch as this view is not borrowed
from Jewish sources, it must point to his belief that
the resurrection body of the Lord had been of this
changed nature from the beginning, and that no one
had ever seen the risen Lord in such a form as to
support any other conclusion.
So much seems unquestionable. Highly probable,
though not equally certain, is the view that St Paul
means that the appearance to St Peter was the first
appearance of the risen Lord. This is certainly the
impression which one gets from reading what he says ;
but it must be conceded that it is possible that St Paul
is only giving a selection of the appearances known to
him. It is plain that he intends to give the chrono
logical order of the appearances which he narrates, so
that the appearance to St Peter must at least have been
the earliest of those he records, but it is not equally
certain that he did not know of others which were
earlier ; it is unlikely that he did so, but it is possible.
Whether the appearances were in Galilee or Judaea

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 37
is left absolutely open by St Paul; he gives no hint
as to locality.
The chronology of the appearances is also equally
vague. All of them took place between "the third
day" and the conversion of St Paul, but there is no
clue as to whether the first one was on "the third
day " — indeed the suggestion is rather that it was not
— or later ; nor is there any clue as to whether
St Paul's conversion was separated from the other
appearances by any considerable lapse of time.
It is perhaps well to mention one objection x which
has sometimes been made to the authenticity of this
passage. It is said that the appearance to the twelve
is an anachronism, as, at the time referred to, Matthias
had not yet been chosen. Even if this be true
it is hypercritical ; " 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. St Paul
means the men who were known as " the twelve,"
and is not concerned with the arithmetical accuracy
of the phrase at any given moment.
One other question remains. In 1 Cor. xv. 3,
1 The ablest indictment of the authenticity of I Corinthians is
W. C. van Manen's Paulus : I am, however, quite unable to share my
predecessor's views on this point. An adequately full treatment of
them is given in C. Clemen's Paulus : sein Leben und Wirken.

38 THE RESURRECTION
St Paul says, "I delivered unto you that which I
also received." Does this mean, as it naturally would,
that St Paul was handing on a tradition which he
had found existing among Christians at his conversion,
or does it refer, as has been sometimes suggested, to
a vision or revelation ?
The only method of dealing with this point is
to examine passages in which St Paul seems to make
similar use of information as to the life and teaching
of our Lord. The main passages are 1 Cor. xi. 23,
1 Thess. iv. 15, and 1 Cor. vii. 6.
In the first of these passages St Paul is speaking
about the institution of the Eucharist, and prefaces
his account by saying, " I received of the Lord that
which also I delivered unto you," and then gives an
account of the institution which is roughly the same
as that in the Synoptic Gospels. It differs, however,
from what is probably the earliest text of the Third
Gospel, with which it might have been supposed to
show special affinity, in that the latter places the cup
before the bread, an order to which evidence is also
given by the Didache. It is therefore probable 1 that
1 This view would, however, be disputed by many who have made a
special study of the history of the Eucharist. The question obviously
cannot be discussed here, but a special reference may be made to
the interesting treatment in A. Andersen's Bas Abendmahl and in
W. Heitmuller's Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus.

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 39
St Paul was referring to some tradition, which he
regarded as representing the direct commands of the
Lord, similar to the Marcan account of the institution
of the Eucharist.
In the second passage (1 Thess. iv. 15) St Paul is
speaking about the Parousia, in connexion with diffi
culties as to the hope of the resurrection of the faithful.
In Thessalonica these were chiefly concerned with the
question whether those who remained alive would have
any advantage at the Parousia over those who had
died. St Paul tells them that those who are alive will
be taken up together with those that slept " to meet
the Lord in the air," and he says that he makes this
statement "by (iv) the (or a) word of the Lord."
Here we seem to have a choice between a knowledge
of the teaching of Christ, interpreted no doubt in the
light of Jewish Apocalyptic doctrine, and a vision or
revelation. Dr A. Resch, in his Paulinismus und die
Logia Jesu, p. 339, thinks that an identification can
be made between this passage and Mark xiii. 26 f. ;
and without going so far as this, it must at least be
admitted that a common tradition as to the teaching
of Jesus may lie behind the passage in 1 Thess. and
the eschatological discourse in Mark xiii.
In the third passage (1 Cor. vii. 10) St Paul is re
ferring to the question of divorce : " Unto the married

40 THE RESURRECTION
I give charge, yea, not I, but the Lord, that the wife
depart not from her husband . . . and that the
husband leave not his wife ; but to the rest say /, not
the Lord," etc. Here it is certainly easier to think
that St Paul is making use either of his knowledge of
the teaching of Jesus, whether derived from a written
or an oral source, than that he refers to a vision which
had instructed him on some points but not on others.
If it be thought to find a place in the gospels which
may be regarded as representing the source used by St
Paul, there can be little doubt but that it must be
looked for in Mark x. 11-12. This view becomes even
more probable if we adopt the suggestion of Professor
Burkitt1 that the historical cause of the discourse in
Mark is to be found in the scandalous conduct of
Herodias, and that the Old Syriac text should be
preferred which places the case of the woman before
that of the man, thus reading, " That woman which
leaveth her husband, and becometh the wife of another,
doth indeed commit adultery; and that man which
leaveth his wife, and taketh another, doth indeed
commit adultery." It will be seen that this text
(found also in a few Greek MSS.) agrees with St Paul
in placing the case of the woman before that of the
1 In Evangelion Da Mepharreshe, vol. ii. p. 250, and in the Journal
of Theological Studies, vol. v. pp. 628 ff. (July 1904).

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 41
man, which is not the natural order. If Professor
Burkitt's suggestion be correct, there is an historical
reason for this order in our Lord's discourse, but it is
difficult to see that there is any reason for it in St
Paul's epistle, unless he is quoting some tradition of
the teaching of the Lord which is singularly like our
Second Gospel. It is also worth noticing that the Old
Syriac, supported by Codex Beza? and the Old Latin
version, presents a further textual variant, which is
at once closer both to St Paul and to the facts of
Herodias' conduct, in that it reads, "leaveth her
husband," instead of " puts away her husband."
The evidence of these passages, supported as they
might be by others of less importance, all of which
have been collected by Dr Resch, is not sufficient to
supply demonstrative proof, but seems to render it
probable that St Paul was acquainted with some
formulated tradition as to the teaching and history of
our Lord, and that he is referring to this tradition
when he says, in 1 Cor. xv. 3, " For I delivered unto
you first of all that which I also received."
If this be so, the description of the evidence for the
Resurrection of the Lord represents not only St Paul's
preaching to the Corinthians, but, at least in part, also
the tradition which he had found in the Church at his
conversion, or at his first visit to Jerusalem.

42 THE RESURRECTION
It is, however, probably impossible to divide these
verses into two parts — the original " preaching " which
St Paul received, and the additions which he made to
it himself. It is of course obvious that in any case the last verse
of all, giving his own experience, is an addition which
St Paul has made to what he received, and it is
impossible to prove that it is only this verse which he
so added ; but there is not sufficient evidence for going
any further with confidence. It is thought by some
that there is a break after the end of verse 5, or
perhaps after the account of the appearance to Cephas,
and it is true that slight changes in the construction of
the sentence may be noted ; they are, however, surely
quite insufficient to justify any precise definition of the
point at which the tradition which St Paul had re
ceived comes to an end and his own additions begin.
All that can be said is that what he received un
doubtedly includes the appearance to Cephas ; that
what he added is at least the appearance to himself:
the intervening appearances perhaps belong to one
source, perhaps to the other.
An examination, therefore, of the evidence of St Paul
leads to the result that he believed the risen Lord to
have appeared to himself and to other disciples in a
manner which left no room for doubt as to his triumph

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ST PAUL 43
over death. He thought that the body of the risen
Lord no longer consisted of flesh and blood, but that a
transubstantiation into spirit had taken place. This
transubstantiation he believed to have taken place on
the third day, and this belief was either based on a
deduction from the Old Testament, or on some fact
which he does not adduce as evidence of the Resurrec
tion, and nowhere defines in his epistles. It is highly
probable that he believed the first appearance of the
risen Lord to have been to St Peter, but there is no
evidence to show where it took place. It is almost
certain that he derived some part of his teaching as
to the appearances of the risen Lord from the early
tradition which obtained, probably in Jerusalem, when
he became a Christian, but it is impossible to define
exactly the limits of his use of this tradition.

CHAPTER II
THE NARRATIVE OF THE RESURRECTION
IN MARK AND THE PARALLEL SYN
OPTIC PASSAGES
As was said in the Introduction, the result of modern
criticism is to emphasise the close connexion between
the Synoptic Gospels, and to explain it as due to the
use of a common source. This fact has to be taken into
account in considering any narrative which is found in
more than one gospel. Many of the details still remain
in many ways doubtfid, but it is now generally held to
be proved that the first and third evangelists 1 made use
of a document which was, both in language and contents,
so closely related to Mark that the only question is
whether it was or was not quite identical with it. Mark
1 As a matter of convenience, I have adopted the custom of writing
St Matthew, St Mark, etc., when I mean the persons, and omitting the
St when I mean the books, independently of their authorship, or the
redactors who produced the canonical text.
44

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 45
xvi. 9-20 is an undoubtedly later addition, which has to
be considered separately. It seems probable that this
document was already in existence about the close of
the seventh decade of the first century, and it was used
by the two other synoptic writers, probably before, and
certainly not long after, the beginning of the second
century. When, therefore, 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 obscurities or
ambiguities in their source, which they tried to clear up,
though they did not do so always in the same way, or
in ways which were consistent with one another. Thus,
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, if they seem to be
contrary to the real meaning of the source ; though it
is of course always necessary to ask whether they may
not represent some early and independent tradition.
Moreover, there is always the possibility to be con
sidered that our Mark is not absolutely identical with
the original source. Especially is this the case when

46 THE RESURRECTION
Matthew and Luke agree in omitting, for no apparent
reason, some detail which is recorded in Mark. Under
such circumstances, there is always an a priori case for
the view that the canonical Mark has an interpolation
which was not yet in the text which was used by
Matthew and Luke.
The further question of the sources used in Mark is
perhaps insoluble. According to the earliest tradition,
St Mark used his recollections of the teaching of St
Peter, whose interpreter he was. Most critics recognise
the substantial truth of this tradition, but it is of course
very improbable that he confined himself to any one
source — the writers of the first century did not do such
things — and, therefore, one can never say with certainty
that any one passage belongs or does not belong to the
Petrine source, or to some other tradition known to
Mark. Furthermore, some critics have thought it
possible to detect doublets — two accounts of the same
incident — in Mark, and in consequence have assumed
that he used written and probably Aramaic documents.
However this may be, it is at least certain that for
any investigation into the life or any part of the life
of our Lord Mark must hold a principal place, and
the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke must be
considered in relation to it, and not separately. It
is this task which will be attempted, so far as the

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 47
narratives of the Resurrection are concerned, in the
present chapter.
For this purpose the narrative may be taken to begin
with the account of the burial in Mark xv. 42, and
to go down to the end of the genuine text in xvi. 8.
For convenience of discussion it may be divided into
six sections — (1) the burial; (2) the visit of the women
to the tomb ; (3) the appearance of the young man at
the tomb ; (4) the message of the young man ; (5) the
conduct of the women ; (6) the appearance of the risen
Lord. (1) The burial. — The account in Mark xv. 42-47
is as follows : —
And when even was now come, because it was the
Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph
of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, who also himself
looked for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly
unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate
marvelled if he were already dead : and calling unto him
the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any
while dead. And when he knew it of the centurion, he
granted the corpse to Joseph. And he bought a linen
cloth, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen,
and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a
rock, and rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses
beheld where he was laid.
Narratives which betray direct literary dependence
on this account (or on the document which lies behind

48 THE RESURRECTION
it) are found in Matthew xxvii. 57-61 and Luke xxiii.
50-56. In the original account there are only three points
on which it is not explicit : (a) the motive of Joseph
of Arimathaea ; (b) the character and position of the
grave ; and (c) the position of the women. Naturally
the redactors of the dependent documents directed their
attention to the elucidation of these three points, and
as the result of their efforts different answers are given
to each question in Matthew and in Luke.
The account in Matthew is as follows : —
When even was come, there came a rich man of
Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus'
disciple : this man went to Pilate, and asked for the body
of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded it to be given up.
And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean
linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he
had hewn out in the rock : and he rolled a great stone to
the door of the tomb, and departed. And Mary Magda
lene was there, and the other Mary, sitting over against
the sepulchre.
It will be seen that the answer to the first point is
that Joseph was a rich disciple ; to the second, that it
was a new tomb which Joseph himself had made in
the cliff; and to the third, that the women sat opposite
the grave and watched him. Matthew omits the fact
that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrim, and
says nothing about Pilate's hesitation.

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 49
Luke follows a somewhat different line. His account
is as follows : —
And, behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councillor,
a good man and a just (he had not consented to the
counsel and deed of them), a man of Arimathaea, a city
of the Jews, who looked for the kingdom of God. This
man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. And
he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid
him in a tomb of hewn stone, wherein never man had yet
lain. And it was the Preparation day, and the sabbath
was dawning. And the women also, which came with
him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the tomb,
and how his body was laid. And they returned, and
prepared spices and ointments ; and rested on the sabbath
day according to the commandment.
Luke's answers, therefore, are that Joseph was a
good and just man, who, although a member of the
Sanhedrim, had not agreed with his colleagues, and
took this method of showing his sympathy with a
wrongfully convicted man. Sympathy, rather than
discipleship, is the explanation of Joseph's conduct.
So far as the tomb is concerned, Luke partly follows the
same line as Matthew, emphasising the fact that it was
a new tomb, but, unlike Matthew, his words suggest a
misunderstanding of its nature. According to Mark it
was a grave cut out of the rock, i.e. in the side of a cliff,
as was usual in Jerusalem ; but for Luke this descrip
tion was apparently unintelligible, and he therefore 4

50 THE RESURRECTION
altered the description into a " tomb of hewn stone " :
a far less probable type of grave in the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem.
The position of the women he defines in the same
spirit as, but in different language from, that of
Matthew, and omits their names altogether. Like
Matthew, Luke omits the fact of Pilate's hesitation, but
preserves the mention of Joseph's membership of the
Sanhedrim. On the other hand, he omits the closing
of the tomb by rolling a stone before its entrance.
Is there anything in these alterations which points
to the knowledge of a superior tradition, or can they
be explained as merely the work of the redactor ?
The latter is almost certainly the case with most of
them. It is surely clear that the discipleship of
Joseph is merely the interpretation which Matthew
put on the statement that he was " waiting for the
kingdom of God," and the omission to mention
Joseph's membership of the Sanhedrim is the result
of that interpretation. The statement by Matthew
that Joseph was rich, and by Luke that he was "just
and good," are similarly rival paraphrases of the original
evcrxviuwv, which, as Phrynicus the grammarian explains,1
had obtained in vulgar speech the meaning of rich,
though it properly means " of good standing." Luke
1 See H. B. Swete, The Gospel according to St Mark, p. 391.

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 51
interpreted it according to its literary use, Matthew
according to its colloquial meaning. The statement
in Luke that the tomb was made of hewn stone is
clearly an attempt to explain the phrase " cut out of
the rock (or cliff)," which was not easy for a stranger
to understand, and its explanation in this way may have
led to the omission of any mention of the stone which
was rolled against the opening of the tomb.1 It is in
structive to notice that the later scribe who restored this
last detail in the so-called Western text, also altered
the Lucan word, " hewn out of the stone " (\a£evT<p),
back to the original word for " cut out " (XeXaTOfievw).
These alterations can therefore be explained as the
work of redactors who were using Mark. But there
are three omissions common to Matthew and Luke
which demand notice and give rise to doubt whether
the document which they used was not an earlier form
of Mark, rather than our Mark itself. In other words,
there are three places in which it is legitimate to ask
whether Mark has not been interpolated.
The first is the clause " because it was the Prepara
tion," or, as one might quite as well translate, " because
it was Friday." This clause does not reappear in
Matthew, and the similar clause in Luke is connected
1 But the stone is implied in Luke xxiv. 2. Either St Luke forgot
his previous omission, or the latter was, after all, accidental.

52 THE RESURRECTION
with the action not of Joseph but of the women. More
over, it is a little inaccurate to suggest that Joseph
was induced to hasten by the approach of the Sabbath.
Sunset, not the Sabbath, was the time which was the
limit for burying a criminal, according to the law of
Deuteronomy. Finally, it is remarkable that this clause
is introduced by a particle (e7rei) which does not come
elsewhere in Mark. If it were not that the witness
of Luke is doubtful, this cumulative evidence would
probably be sufficient to justify one in regarding this
clause as a secondary feature in Mark, not part of the
original document which was used in Matthew and
Luke. As it is, the balance of argument is against it,
but not decisively.
A somewhat similar result is reached by a considera
tion of the omission both by Matthew and Luke of
Pilate's hesitation. The agreement between the two
later gospels suggests the question whether this passage
is not an interpolation of our Mark, and formed no part
of the original Marcan document. The arguments are
fairly equally divided. On the one hand, there is no
reason why either Matthew or Luke should have omitted
this incident if it had been part of their source, and it
is of course still more unlikely that they would have
both accidentally omitted the same section. Also, it is
certainly true that there is a very harsh change of

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 53
subject in xv. 46, which disappears if verses 44-45 are
omitted, and that the word iSwp^a-aTO in verse 45 is
not found elsewhere in the New Testament except in
2 Peter i. 3. On the other hand, it may be argued that
there is no reason for such an interpolation, that it was
probably omitted by Matthew and Luke because it
seemed unimportant, and that eSwpriaaTO is a peculiarly
suitable word if we take it in connection with evtrxrifinov,
in the sense of rich ; the implication being that Joseph,
the rich man, was prepared to bribe Pilate, but to
his surprise obtained his request without bribery. It
is probably impossible to choose between these two
lines of argument. Verses 44-45 may be an interpola
tion in Mark, or their omission by both Matthew and
Luke may be merely a coincidence.
The third point of this kind is concerned with the
mention or omission of the women's names, and
especially the identification of the second Mary as the
mother of Joses (or James). If this were part of the
original Marcan document, how is it that Matthew only
speaks in a vague way of " the other Mary," and that
Luke omits all mention of the names of the women ?
It is possible that to a later generation the names were
less interesting than to that which Mark addressed, and
so slipped out of the narratives ; but Luke, at least, shows
elsewhere no signs of a tendency to omit names, and in

54 THE RESURRECTION
general it is true that the later literature, so far from
leaving out names of people and places, consistently
invents them. Abundance of detail (which, as a rule,
does not bear investigation) is a marked characteristic
of Apocryphal gospels. There is therefore something
to be said for the view that the original Marcan docu
ment did not give any names in Mark xv. 47, and
that this form was used by Luke ; 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. There is a certain amount of textual confusion
in Mark at this point, which might be pressed into the
service at this point of this hypothesis, and it could, of
course, also be applied to Mark xv. 40. The chief
objection to it is not so much its complicated character,
for complex problems call for complex solutions, but
the difficulty of applying it throughout the gospels,
since it has at least not yet been proved that an earlier
edition of Mark was used by Luke than by Matthew.1
Still, for the present purpose these three points are
not of the first importance. Nothing turns on the
mention of Friday, on the hesitation of Pilate, or on
the precise names of the women who watched Joseph.
1 See A. Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, and St Luke's
Gospel in Greek, for arguments in favour of this theory.

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 55
The really important thing is, that in none of the
points in which the dependent narratives supplement
Mark do the alterations appear to be anything more
than redactors' suppositions, which may or may not be
correct, but at least have no special authority.
(2) The visit to the tomb. — The Marcan account, as
preserved in Mark xvi. 1-5, is as follows : —
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices,
that they might come and anoint him. And very early
on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb at
sunrise. And they said among themselves, Who shall
roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb ? And
they looked up, and saw that the stone was rolled away,
for it was very great.
Directly dependent accounts are found in Matt, xxviii. 1
and Luke xxiv. 1-2.
This account also is in Mark simple and intelligible ;
according to it, immediately after sunset, when the
Sabbath rest was over, the women, who had noticed
where the grave of Jesus was, bought spices in order to
pay to the body of their Master those last tributes of
respect which Joseph had omitted. They were obliged
to wait for the approach of daylight to fulfil their
purpose, but as soon as it was light they went to the
grave. As they went they discussed the possibility
that they would have difficulty in entering the tomb

56 THE RESURRECTION
because of the stone which closed its entrance, but on
looking up they saw that it was open, and the writer
explains that they were able to see this from a distance
because of the size of the stone.
There are nevertheless two points on which the
narrative may easily be misunderstood or give rise to a
desire for amplification.
(a) In the first place, a superficial reading would
not make it quite clear that the text implies a whole
night's interval between the Sabbath which was past
and the first morning of the week which was dawning.
If the reader were accustomed to a reckoning of time
which counted the beginning of each day from sunrise,
he would be inclined to interpret "early on the first
day of the week " as implying that the first day of
the week was then beginning, and that the Sabbath
had only then ended. This point seems to have
affected both the First and Third Gospels.
The former says : —
Late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn towards
the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the
other Mary to see the sepulchre.
This statement implies a reckoning of days in which
the dividing line was sunrise, not sunset. It would
surely have been impossible for anyone who felt that
the Sabbath ended at sunset to speak of the hour before

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 57
the dawn of the first day of the week as late on the
Sabbath day. It is usually said that d\/<-e tov a-afifiaTov
must mean "after the Sabbath," but there does not
seem to be any evidence for such a use of d^e, nor is
there any evidence, as has sometimes been suggested,
that the Jews in the time of Christ employed two
divisions of time, one the usually known system of the
law, by which the day began and ended at sunset, and
another, which divided the days at sunrise, and was
used only for the purposes of daily life. The most
probable view, therefore, is that the redactor of the First
Gospel made a slight mistake in his interpretation of
the Marcan source.1 Owing to his omission of the
names of the women, and of the fact that they bought
spices to anoint the body, the two Marcan phrases,

1 Some commentators have found a difficulty in this phrase, which
represents ava-rfiKavros rov fi\(ov. It is argued that this ought ito
mean after the sun had risen, and that there is a contradiction between
this and the statement in the same verse that the women came very
early, on the ground that in the East ' ' very early " cannot mean after
sunrise. It is possible that this view underlies the reading of D and
some other MSS. which have avareWovTos instead of avartlXavTos.
This difficulty is, however, groundless. The proper force of the aorist
participle is timeless, and the more accurate translation of dvaniXavTos
toS riKiov is merely " at sunrise.'' The difference between it and
avareKhovTos toS r)\iov, "while the sun was rising," is minute, but
perceptible, though it consists rather in the attitude adopted by the
writer to the event which he is describing than in any difference in the
event itself. Greek can express this difference of attitude by a change
of participle ; English cannot.

58 THE RESURRECTION
" when the sabbath was past," and " very early on
the morning of the first day of the week," were
brought together and seemed to refer to the same
event. Probably he preferred the phrases with which
he replaced the Marcan ones, as representing the
facts less ambiguously.
Much the same is probably true of the Third Gospel,
though the matter is here somewhat more complicated,
as Luke has rather freely rearranged the notes of time.
These are as follows : —
In Luke xxiii. 54 he says : —
And it was the day of the preparation and the sabbath
began to dawn.
It will be noted that the R.V. says, "And the
sabbath drew on " ; but, as the revisers note in the
margin, the Greek should be translated as above.
There is no evidence for iTri<j>wcrKeiv in Greek in any
sense except a reference to sunrise, nor is there any
reason to think that Luke is here using an Aramaic
source, and the English version is due to the attempt
to harmonise the gospels.
In Luke xxiii. 56-xxiv. 1 the writer says : —
And they returned and prepared spices and ointments.
And on the sabbath they rested according to the com
mandment. But on the first day of the week at early
dawn they came unto the tomb.

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 59
I suggest that the explanation of this rearrange
ment is to be found in the fact that Luke did not
fully understand or had momentarily forgotten the
Jewish time-reckoning, and thought that, according to
the law, Joseph of Arimathaea and the women had the
whole of Friday evening and night at their disposal.
Paraphrasing the Marcan account under the influence
of this opinion, he naturally thought that the women
prepared the spices during the night before the
Sabbath, and came to the tomb as soon as the Sabbath
was over — that is to say, on the dawn of the Sunday.
It is true that this account does not strictly agree
with the Marcan narrative; but the latter would
scarcely be intelligible to a reader who did not
recognise the Jewish method of reckoning days. Any
one who used it in ignorance or forgetfulness of this
system would be impressed chiefly by two facts : first,
that the women observed the law of the Sabbath ;
and, secondly, that they took to the tomb, at the
earliest possible moment, spices which they had already
prepared. Reckoning time on the non-Jewish system,
this would mean that they rested from sunrise on
Saturday till sunrise on Sunday. In this case they
must have prepared their spices during the night
between Friday and Saturday. This is precisely the
Lucan narrative, and therefore one is justified in think-

60 THE RESURRECTION
ing that the reason for the difference between the
Lucan and the Marcan account is not due to the use
by Luke of an ultimately different tradition, but to
an attempt to interpret the Marcan document in
forgetfulness of the method of reckoning time em
ployed by the Jews.
(b) In the second place, the account in Mark obviously
suggests the question as to who rolled the stone away,
but gives no answer to it. It is not unfair to say that
the tendency of writers of the first century was to
explain whatever was not obvious by the suggestion
of miraculous intervention, and to emphasise more and
more at each repetition of the story its wonderful
character. In the present instance Luke did not
amplify or explain the point which Mark left open ; but
Matthew (as will be seen later) follows a very obvious
development of the tradition, and suggests that the
stone was moved by an angel who came down from
heaven ; but this is part of the non-Marcan tradition
used by Matthew, and must be dealt with later on. It
is only necessary here to notice that it is inserted to give
an answer to the question suggested by the Marcan
account. One other point remains to be considered in connexion
with Matthew : Why is the account shortened by the
omission of the women's purpose to anoint the body,

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 61
or rather by a substitution of a desire to see the
grave ? The answer is to be found in the combination of
the two causes. In the first place, Matthew had adopted
a tradition of a guard at the tomb, which rendered the
suggestion of anointing practically impossible ; and, in
the second place, he 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. As will
be seen later, it seems likely that a development of this
view led to the definite statement at a later time that
Joseph actually did anoint, but Matthew does not go
so far ; the redactor was contented with representing the
visit of the women in such a way as not to conflict with
his view of Joseph of Arimathaea.
Thus the shortening in some respects and amplifica
tion in others in Matthew can (if one may assume the
result of the discussion of the non-Marcan tradition used
in Matthew) be satisfactorily explained, and does not
suggest that we have here the traces of a really valuable
tradition. The shortening in Luke, and the confusion
in the notes of time so far as they have not already been
dealt with, seem to be entirely stylistic and to need no
further explanation.
(3) The young man at the tomb. — The account of
what the women saw at the tomb is contained in Mark

62 THE RESURRECTION
xvi. 5. Dependent narratives are found in Matt, xxviii.
2-5 and in Luke xxiv. 3-5.
And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man
sitting on the right side, clothed in a white garment ; and
they were astonished.
As it stands in Mark, this account gives rise at once
to two questions: Did they see for themselves that
the grave was empty ? and who was the young man who
appeared to them? Neither question is answered in
Mark, but before considering the bearing of this fact,
it is first necessary to ask whether the version given
above represents the original text. According to it, the
women entered the tomb and found a young man
seated within on the right hand. No other meaning
can be extracted from it, or ever could have been, in
the presence of the word ei<reX6ovo-ai in verse 5 and
the reference contained in the corresponding ££eXdovcrcu
in verse 8. But in the case of neither of these words
is the text perfectly certain. The former is in the
Vatican MS. weakened to eXOovcrai, while the latter is
not represented in the Arabic Diatessaron, and in some
MSS. is altered to aKovaavTe^. The weight of textual
evidence is against these alterations, but, on the other
hand, transcriptional probability is in their favour. It
is unlikely that later scribes would have introduced
changes in the text which were calculated to weaken

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 63
the evidence for the belief that the women had made
a complete examination of the tomb, and if these
changes be made, the text of Mark would leave it
doubtful whether the women saw the young man on
the right hand of the inside or of the outside of the
tomb; for eXOovcrai eh to fj.vrifji.etov need not mean
more than "when they came to the tomb." Is it
possible that this represents the original form of the
narrative? In the absence of other evidence, it may
not be ill-advised to consider the evidence of a com
parison with the two other gospels, Matthew and Luke,
which are closely based on the Marcan narrative, and
of the Fourth Gospel and the Gospel of Peter, which
follow it with greater freedom. It has already been seen,
in cases in which the Marcan document is undoubtedly
ambiguous or difficult, that the dependent narratives
adopted divergent methods of elucidating the points at
issue ; it may therefore be allowed to reverse this argu
ment and see whether the dependent narratives in the
present case support the suggestion that the ground
document was ambiguous. They certainly seem to
do so. Matthew represents the angel, who is in his
narrative the equivalent of the young man of Mark,
as seated on the stone which he had just rolled away ;
he was therefore regarded by Matthew as outside the
tomb. It is equally plain that Luke regards the two

64 THE RESURRECTION
men, who in his narrative represent the Marcan young
man, as appearing within the tomb. Furthermore, the
Fourth Gospel and the Gospel of Peter narrate that
the women did not enter the tomb, but stooped down
and saw an angel or angels sitting within. These two
last accounts may quite well represent an attempt at
conflation between two traditions which differed, or
were not explicit, as to the position of the women and
the angel with regard to the tomb, and so far they
support the suggestion, which is rather strongly made
by Matthew and Luke, that the ground document was
ambiguous on this point. The weak point in this
argument is that it does not take account of the
possibility that Matthew altered the Marcan docu
ment owing to the influence of the story of the watchers.
It could be argued that the angel had to be kept in
the presence of the watchers and of the women, and
that the word aireXdovcrai in verse 8 is a proof that the
ground document of Matthew contained an account of
an actual entry into the tomb. This is perhaps not a
convincing argument, but it may be taken as practically
balancing the previous one. It is impossible finally
to decide between the two. I think that the balance
of probability remains slightly in favour of the view
that the original Marcan document narrated the story
of the vision at the tomb in such a way as not to

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 65
state plainly that the women entered the tomb, but
I should not be prepared to put emphasis on the
argument. Returning to the dependent narrative in Matthew
and its use in Mark, one finds that this section has
been completely absorbed in the non-Marcan tradition,
which describes the descent of a "great angel of the
Lord " to roll away the stone. The point of connexion
is that the message which in Mark is delivered by the
young man, is in Matthew delivered by the "great
angel." Thus the actual words of Mark have dis
appeared, but in such a way as to show how the
two points were elucidated which in Mark are left
unexplained. With regard to the examination of the grave,
Matthew probably but not certainly excludes it. That
is to say, the women are represented as seeing the angel
before they actually enter the tomb ; but it is possible
that the " Come see " of Matt, xxviii. 6, combined with
the " departed quickly from the tomb " of Matt, xxviii. 8,
is intended to imply that the women afterwards entered
and examined the tomb. In any case this is not
strictly in agreement with Mark, but how far it
differs depends on the answer to the previous question
as to the exact text of the original Mark.
As to the identity of the young man, he is in
5

66 THE RESURRECTION
Matthew a " great angel of the Lord," but the develop
ment and importance of this view will be best dealt
with later.
In Luke similar but not identical answers are given.
The narrative in Luke xxiv. 3-5 reads as follows : —
And they entered in, and found not the body. And
it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel :
and as they were perplexed and bowed down their faces
to the earth, etc.
Much of this seems to be due to stylistic alteration
and attempts to elucidate the point left doubtful in
Mark. In the first place, emphasis is laid on the entry of
the women into the tomb, and the addition is made
that they could not find the body. Is it necessary to
suppose that this addition is anything more than the
comment of the redactor? Surely not. It was the
almost universally held opinion of early Christians that
the Resurrection necessarily implied that the tomb was
empty, and Luke only reflects this fact, perhaps all the
more because the narrative is at least partly directed
against the Docetic heresy.
In the second place, though the word " angel " is not
used, it is scarcely open to doubt that the meaning is
that the two men were supernatural beings. So far as

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 67
their character is concerned, this is quite a natural
interpretation, for a writer in the first century, of the
ambiguous " young man " of Mark. But why are there
two men in Luke instead of one ? The answer is not ]'i
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 ; it will, however, be more convenient to discuss
this more fully at a later point, when an attempt will
be made to bring together and trace the development of
the various forms in which the original " young man " is
represented in various books (cf. pp. 185-7). Whether
the change which converted the " young man " of Mark
into the " two men " of Luke was made for the first time
by St Luke and is merely redactorial, or is due to his
knowledge of some other tradition, is not easy to say,
but there are signs elsewhere that the "Jerusalem
tradition " which he also used has caused him to modify -,
the Marcan narrative, and it is probable that the " two
men " are also due to this cause. Here, then, we have
for the first time in Luke a probable trace of knowledge
of a tradition not identical with Mark, and of alterations
which seem to point to something more than the
ordinary desire of a redactor to explain his source.
Whether the tradition is really ultimately separate
from the Marcan is another question, — in this particular

68 THE RESURRECTION
case probably it is not, — but for the present all that
is being asked is how far the alterations from Mark
in Matthew and Luke can be explained as due to
merely redactorial rewriting, and how far they imply
the existence of other traditions, which were known to
and influenced the redactors. It is, however, not out of
place to point out that just as Luke shows no sign of
knowledge of the tradition of the " great angel of the
Lord" who rolled away the stone, so Matthew shows
no sign of knowledge of the tradition of " the two
men." (4) The message to the women. — The message which
the young man delivered to the women was, according
to Mark xvi. 6-7, as follows : —
And he saith unto them, Be not astonished : Ye seek
Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified : he is risen ; he is not
here : behold the place where they laid him. But go, tell
his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into
Galilee : there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
This simple and intelligible message in itself gives
no rise to doubt as to its meaning, yet in the other
gospels, in Matt, xxviii. 5-7 and in Luke xxiv. 5-7, it
appears in forms which vary rather considerably, and
even the textual tradition of Mark is not perfectly
certain. To begin with the latter point. Codex Bezse
reads (correcting solecisms of spelling) : /mr) <po/3ei<r6e, tov

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 69
Irjcrovv £t]TeiTe tov errravpO}/x.evov, yyepdrj, ovk ea-Ttv coSe,
'iSeTe eicel [rov] tottov miTod otrov eOyicav avTW, which
must be translated, " He is risen, he is not here, lo, there
is the place where they laid him." This reading
probably lies behind the Old Latin version, and it is by
no means impossible that it is the original text. If so,
it is easy to see why it was altered, for the natural
meaning of the distinction between "here" and
"there" might be taken to imply that the women
were not looking in the right place, and such a
possibility would soon be excluded by the correction
of the scribes.
In Matthew the account is not essentially altered,
but is a little expanded. It runs as follows : —
. And the angel answered and said unto the women,
Fear not ye : for I know that ye seek Jesus, who was
crucified. He is not here : for he is risen, as he said.
Come, see the place where he lay. And go quickly, and
tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead ; and lo, he
goeth before you into Galilee ; there shall ye see him : lo,
I have told you.
It is noticeable here that the emphasis laid on the
"ye" is due to the influence of the non-Marcan
tradition of the guard at the tomb; the mere state
ment that the Lord was risen is expanded by bringing
the Resurrection into connexion with a prophecy 'of
Jesus, which, however, is not quoted ; and the statement

70 THE RESURRECTION
that he is not in the tomb is changed into an invitation
to come and examine it. Also, in the second part of
the message, the reference to Peter is omitted, the
direct statement of the Resurrection is repeated, and
" as he said unto you " is changed into " lo, I have
told you." These changes do not seem to be important ;
they are merely stylistic, intended to make the story
more vivid, and neither add to nor take from the sense
of the narrative in Mark.
In Luke the message runs as follows : —
And as they were afraid and bowed down their faces
to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living
among the dead ? He is not here but is risen ; remember
how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, etc.
It has thus been changed from a command to go
into Galilee into a reference to words spoken in Galilee.
This abandonment of Mark was rendered necessary by
the view adopted later on in Luke that the appearances
of the risen Lord took place in the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem, and that the disciples remained there and
did not return to Galilee. It does not show that St
Luke was unacquainted with Mark, but that he rejected
it in favour of the Jerusalem tradition. The story has
thus been so much altered that one cannot say with
confidence whether the change was actually made by
St Luke or had already been made in the Jerusalem

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 71
tradition which he used. In other words, one cannot
be certain of the exact point at which he definitely
changed from using Mark to using the Jerusalem
tradition. In any case the Lucan version of the
message to the women is so entirely coloured by the
Jerusalem tradition that it must be discussed with the
rest of the specially Lucan narrative, and the question
will ultimately have to be faced whether it can be
reconciled to the Marcan account, and what the relation
of the two traditions, as distinguished from the Marcan
and Lucan documents, really was to each other.
(5) The conduct ofthe women. — Our knowledge of what
the women did after receiving the message of the young
man is sadly limited by the imperfect preservation of
the conclusion of Mark. All that we have which quite
certainly belongs to the original document is contained
in Mark xvi. 8.
And they came out and fled from the tomb, for
trembling and panic seized them, and they said nothing
to anyone, for they were afraid of 
It is impossible to say what the women were afraid
of, but it is much more likely that an object originally
followed eipo&ovvTO yap than that it was used absolutely,
though the latter construction might be considered
possible if it were not for the strangeness of a sentence
ending with yap. It is therefore probable that the

72 THE RESURRECTION
sentence originally ran, "for they were afraid of the
Jews," or some such phrase.
By a consent which is one of the problems of New
Testament criticism, the dependent documents either
abandon the use of Mark at this point or change its
meaning. In the Gospel of Peter alone is the sense
preserved, as will be seen later. In Matt, xxviii. 8 an
exactly opposite meaning has been introduced, though
the words have been so largely retained that it is plain
that the writer was acquainted with and under the
influence of Mark. It reads : —
They departed quickly from the tomb with fear and
great joy, and ran to tell his disciples —
which is exactly what Mark says that they did not
do — and then goes on to follow a different tradition.
Obviously the redactor knew Mark, but rejected it at
this point in favour of another tradition. In Luke also
Mark has already been abandoned, and the Jerusalem
tradition has permanently taken its place. Moreover,
the early Church so far agreed with this dislike of the
end of Mark that it lost all memory of the genuine
conclusion, and replaced it by the late and inferior com
position which is discussed on pp. 120 ff.
We can, therefore, form no certain judgment as to
what the genuine Mark represented the women as doing
after they fled from the tomb, beyond that it is clearly

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 73
intended that they did not report what they had seen.
One may, it is true, with a probability that almost
amounts to certainty, suggest that Mark went on to
explain how they came ultimately to tell their ex
perience,1 probably after the news of the appearance of
the risen Lord in Galilee had become known ; but the
deliberate silence of the women at the beginning — which
is the main point — is perfectly plain, for the statement
is quite emphatic, and it is difficult to understand how
anyone could ever have suggested that it means anything
else. (6) The appearances ofthe risen, Lord. — In spite of the
arguments of Wellhausen (in Das Evangelium Marci),
few people will ever doubt that the original Mark
ended with an account of the risen Lord to the disciples
in Galilee, to which the narrative seems clearly intended
to lead up. The question is whether it is possible to
recover the contents of this last part of Mark either
from indications elsewhere in the gospel or from
other sources which may have used the complete
Mark. So far as the former is concerned, there are three hints
given in the earlier part of Mark. The first of these
1 Professor Schmiedel is inclined to think that the meaning of Mark
is that the story is told for the first time. This seems to me un
warranted by the evidence : but certainly the suggestion of Mark is
that the silence of the women was not broken immediately.

74 THE RESURRECTION
is in Mark xiv. 27. According to this the Lord
said : —
All ye shall be offended, for it is written, I will smite
the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.
This must be intended to prepare the way for the
desertion of Jesus by the disciples, and their flight to
their homes. Moreover, it would seem that, according
to Mark, this actually took place after the betrayal.
The arrival of Judas with the soldiers was the signal
for the flight — either to their homes or to hiding — of
the disciples : " They all left him and fled." Only one
followed him to his trial ; and he denied him shortly
afterwards. There is no hint given that any of the
disciples were present at the crucifixion. All had fled :
only a few women remained, and they watched the last
moments of their Master from afar.
The second indication is given in Mark xvi. 7 — the
message of the young man — which clearly points to a
concluding scene in which the risen Lord appeared in
Galilee to his disciples.
Thirdly, the special emphasis in Mark xvi. 7 on St
Peter as distinct from the other disciples suggests that
the first appearance in Galilee was to him, though
probably it was not the only one. It is scarcely
necessary to point out how much in keeping this view is
with the traditional connexion of St Mark with St Peter.

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 75
Thus all the hints which can be gathered from Mark
point to the probability that the lost conclusion implied
a return to Galilee by the panic-stricken disciples,
followed by an appearance of the risen Lord to St Peter
and to the others. This view has the advantage that it
not merely agrees with but explains the silence of the
women, which is perfectly intelligible if the disciples,
to whom they would naturally have narrated their ex
perience, were not within reach.
It is possible that Mark also contained more : that,
for instance, it describes the return of the disciples to
Jerusalem. Such a continuation would be natural
enough in a narrative written by Mark the Jerusa-
lemite, whose mother's house seems to have entertained
St Peter at a later period; but there is no evidence
of its existence.
There is only one really serious objection to this
reconstruction. It is said that the exact wording of
Mark xvi. 7, as well as of xiv. 28, " But after I am
risen I will go before you into Galilee," implies not a
flight into Galilee, but rather that the risen Lord would
lead the disciples into Galilee from Judasa. If this
were certainly the meaning of Mark, one would have
to admit that it is inconsistent with the indications
just mentioned. It is, however, surely not necessary
to take the passage in this way. Two suggestions are

76 THE RESURRECTION
possible : (a) It is quite probable that the meaning is,
"I will be in Galilee before you," and there is then
no real difficulty ; for the criticism which finds a con
tradiction with this rendering seems to forget that
from Jerusalem to Galilee is rather a long journey.
We might even paraphrase a little more freely : " You
will all be scattered and return to your homes in
Galilee, but as soon as you reach home I will appear
to you; in spite of the fact that you left me in
Jerusalem to be crucified and buried, you will find me
in Galilee as soon as you arrive there." I fail to see
that there is any impossibility in this interpretation,
or that it leaves any difficulty in reconciling Mark xiv.
27 and 28. (b) It is possible that the meaning is, " I
will be your leader in Galilee." It is notorious that
in late Greek the difference between eh (into) and iv
(in) was lost. In a literary style an effort was made
to preserve it, but in the non-literary Greek of the
New Testament it simply did not exist, eh meant
m or into according to the context. It is one of the
results of recent criticism to establish more and more
firmly the fact that the New Testament, especially Mark,
was written in non-literary Greek, though the later
text-recensions consistently polished its roughness and
removed its literary solecisms. This view also answers
the critical difficulty and is worth consideration. There

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 77
is, however, a slight advantage in the former explana
tion, as it applies a little more easily to Mark xvi. 7.
It only remains to ask whether it is probable that
there are any extant documents which embody this
lost conclusion of Mark. This question can only be
settled by comparing the other gospels with the
reconstruction, based on information derived from
Mark itself, which has just been indicated. Of extant
documents, Luke and John, to the end of chapter xx.,
may be ruled out as only referring to appearances in
Jerusalem or the neighbourhood, and the spurious
conclusion of Mark is almost certainly a compilation
based on the other gospels. There remain Matthew,
John xxi., and the Gospel of Peter. All these have
some superficial claim to represent the conclusion of
Mark and have found support. But perhaps the
most general, as well as the most probable opinion, is
that, while all three represent the Galilean tradition,
none can be proved to have made direct literary use
of Mark. If any of them has, the Gospel of Peter is,
I think, the most likely. It will therefore be best to
postpone the consideration of this point to that of
the other documents concerned, and to the general
discussion of the Galilean tradition of the appearances
of the risen Lord.
In any investigation, such as that which has just

78 THE RESURRECTION
been ended, there is always the danger of succumbing
to the tyranny of details, and of not seeing the wood
for the trees. It will therefore be advisable, even at
the risk of illogical repetition, to summarise in a few
lines at this point the general development of events
which Mark has been seen to imply.
Before his betrayal, but when coming events were
casting their shadow on his spirit, our Lord had fore
told that the disciples would leave him. The event
justified his prophecy. The presence of Judas with
the soldiers was the signal for the flight of the
disciples ; either at once, or after a short interval
of hiding,1 they returned disheartened to Galilee to
pick up, if they could, the broken threads of the life
which they had once abandoned at the bidding of
Jesus. Only a few women remained to the end, and
watched the last moments of their Master from afar
off. They did not watch long, for death came quickly,
and the body was hurriedly buried, as they saw, by
Joseph of Arimathaea — why, we are not told. Thg
next day was the Sabbath, but on the following day*
the women tried to make up the deficiencies of the
burial ; but on going to the grave they were terrified
by the appearance of a young man who told them
1 As is shown on p. 162, the evidence of the Gospel of Peter, such
as it is, points to an interval of hiding.

THE NARRATIVE IN MARK 79
that their Master's body was not there, but that he
was risen and would join his disciples in Galilee.
They fled from the tomb, and told no one what had
happened to them ; for the disciples had gone, and
they were afraid of the Jews. In Galilee the risen
Lord was seen by Peter, and by the rest. Their
courage and faith returned, and they came back to
Jerusalem to tell their new confidence that their
Master had been triumphant over death. With their
return to Jerusalem a fresh period begins, and this, if
not the return itself, was probably outside the scope of
Mark ; but we may at least say that it implied, even if
it did not state, that when the women saw the disciples
there was an immediate exchange of experiences.
Such seems to be the main purport of Mark, if one
tries to form a reasonable view of its meaning, without
being influenced by other accounts, or by dependent
narratives. How far Mark can be trusted is of course
a matter which can only be discussed after a similar
i|»estigation of the other accounts. But one may be
flowed to emphasise at once the apparent absence
all mythological embroidery, and the simple, self-
consistent character of the narrative. These points are
not everything ; but they at least mean that Mark is
the evidence of a witness who comes into court with a
good character for trustworthiness.

CHAPTER III
THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES IN MAT
THEW AND LUKE; THE ACTS; THE
SPURIOUS CONCLUSIONS OF MARK
Besides using Mark, it is practically certain that the
redactors, both of Matthew and Luke, used another
document1 containing chiefly the teaching of Jesus.
This document is, however, of little or no importance
for the present purpose, as it is improbable that it
contained any account of the Passion or Resurrection.
But in addition to this, both Matthew and Luke show
signs that their editors have made use of special
traditions, either written or oral. In Matthew this
tradition seems to have been derived from Jewish
Christian sources, and in Luke there is some reason for
tracing it ultimately (though perhaps indirectly) to
Jerusalem. Further traces of the same tradition are
perhaps to be found in the Fourth Gospel, though
1 Formerly called the Logia, but now usually referred to as Q.
80

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 81
it was probably not known in a documentary form.
These specially Matthean and Lucan narratives will be
treated in this chapter ; and, as the community of
authorship of Luke and Acts is almost undisputed,
those passages will also be dealt with in which the
Acts supplies evidence as to the appearance of the
risen Lord; and, finally, the spurious conclusions of
Mark will be discussed.
I. The Specially Matthean Details
The details in the Matthean account of the Resurrec
tion which are not directly derived from Mark are —
(1) the resurrection of the saints at the moment of the
Lord's death ; (2) the watch at the grave ; (3) the
great angel at the tomb; (4) the appearance of the
risen Lord to the women ; (5) the appearance to the
eleven disciples in Galilee.
(1) The resurrection of the saints. — Matt, xxvii. 52
relates the story of the rending of the veil of the
temple at the moment of the Lord's death, and says
that there was a great earthquake. It continues : —
And the tombs opened and many bodies of the saints
who slept were raised, and after his resurrection came out
of the tombs, and entered into the holy city and appeared
to many.
The meaning of this short but marvellous statement
is plain, and its value as a historical statement is not at
6

82 THE RESURRECTION
present under discussion. There is no other trace of the
tradition in the New Testament, but it plays a great
part in apocryphal literature, as will be seen in chapter v.
(2) The watch at the grave. — This story is found
in Matt, xxvii. 62 ff. ; it runs as follows : —
Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Prepara
tion, the chief priests and Pharisees were gathered together
unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver
said, while he was yet alive, After three days I rise again.
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until
the third day, lest haply his disciples come and steal him
away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead :
and the last error will be worse than the first. Pilate said
unto them. Ye have a guard : go your way, make it as sure
as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure,
sealing the stone, the guard being with them. Now late
on the Sabbath day ... an angel of the Lord descended
from heaven . . . and for fear of him the watchers did
quake and became as dead men. . . . Some of the
guard came into the city and told unto the chief priests
all the things that were come to pass. And when they
were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel,
they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye,
his disciples came by night, and stole him away while we
slept. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will
persuade him, and rid you of care. So they took the
money, and did as they were taught : and this saying was
spread abroad among the Jews and continueth unto this day.
The meaning of this story is thus that the Jews had
heard rumours that Jesus had prophesied his Resurrec
tion, and desired to have the tomb guarded until after

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 83
the third day, in order to prevent any attempt to
manufacture evidence of the fulfilment of his prophecy
by stealing the body. Pilate either said to them, " Take
a guard " or " You have a guard " — the second transla
tion is perhaps grammatically better, but the context
is strongly in favour of the former. A guard was
accordingly set, and witnessed the descent of the angel,
but was bribed by the Jews to say that it had slept on
its watch and that the disciples had come and taken
the body away.
This story is also found in other documents, and its
development must be traced later, when these have
been discussed. Here it is only necessary to notice
that it is combined in Matthew with the Marcan
account and with the story of the descent of the great
angel. It would seem that the redactor recognised
that it was inconsistent with Mark, which he con
sequently altered, as has been pointed out on p. 61.
(3) The great angel at the tomb. — This story is found
in Matthew xxviii. 2 ff. It runs as follows : —
And, behold, there was a great earthquake ; for an
angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and
rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance
was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow : and for
fear of him the watchers quaked, and became as dead
men. And the angel answered and said unto the women,
Fear not ye, etc.

84 THE RESURRECTION
And the message of the young man of Mark to the
women then follows. As is the case with the previous
incident, the development of this story must be traced
after other documents have been discussed in which it
is also found. Here it is only necessary to notice that
in Matthew the great angel replaces the young man
of Mark, and that although it would seem that his
purpose was to roll away the stone in order to permit
the Resurrection, no description of the latter is given.
(4) The appearance to the women. — According to the
Matthean redaction of Mark, as given in Matthew
xxviii. 8,
The women departed quickly from the tomb with fear
and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.
This is a complete reversal of Mark's meaning, and is
apparently intended to leave room for the following
addition in xxviii. 9 : —
And behold Jesus met them, saying, All hail ! And
they came and took hold of his feet and worshipped.
Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not ; go tell my brethren
that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
This tradition is not found in any other early docu
ment, and it will be convenient to discuss it now, as it
is only in appearance separate from Mark.
It has often been maintained that it can be traced
back to the lost conclusion of Mark ; but it is surely

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 85
plain that the wording of Mark really excludes it, and
that the redactor of Matthew recognised this when
he rewrote the Marcan narrative as to the conduct of
the women. "They said nothing to anyone" cannot
refer to a few minutes, and be intended merely to mean
that they did not speak to passers-by as they went
home. It is the description of their settled attitude to a
closed episode, and the episode certainly could not have
been regarded as closed had the writer meant it to lead
up to an appearance of Jesus only momentarily later.
At the same time, the close coincidence of the words
attributed to the risen Lord with the message of the
young man points to a connexion with the Marcan
narrative. The explanation is almost certainly to be
found in the suggestion that this appearance of the
Lord is a doublet of the appearance of the young man.
It has already been seen that the identity of the young
man is left entirely open in Mark. Two hypotheses
naturally presented themselves : one, that the young
man was an angel ; the other, that he was the risen Lord
himself. The former was adopted in Matthew, when
the redactor identified the young man with the great
angel of the Lord who rolled the stone away from the
sepulchre. But it would seem that he was also
acquainted with the alternative explanation. There
fore he followed his usual practice and inserted both

86 THE RESURRECTION
forms. The identity of the message remains to prove
that it is really one incident which is thus recorded in
two forms, and it is well known that the tendency to
give doublets when two traditions existed as to one
incident, though found in all the gospels, is especially
characteristic of Matthew.1 It is possible that the
redactor was influenced in his choice by knowledge
of a tradition of appearances at Jerusalem, but the
view given above seems quite sufficient to account
for the fact without any further complication. This
incident has therefore no claim to be regarded as
more than a secondary product of the Marcan tradi
tion, with no historical value.
(5) The appearance to the disciples in Galilee. — This
incident is described in Matt, xxviii. 16-20.
But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the
mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when
they saw him, they worshipped him : but some doubted.
And Jesus came unto them and spake unto them, saying,
All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on
earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I commanded you : and, lo, I
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
1 In Hora Synopticce, Sir John Hawkins gives twenty-one instances
in Matthew, one in Mark, and ten in Luke. This is a conservative
estimate, and many students would give more.

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 87
Textually this passage gives rise to a difficult problem
in verse 19. The facts may be summarised as follows.
The text as given above is found in all MSS. and
versions ; but Eusebius of Caesarea, in his frequent
quotations of this verse, frequently, if not always,
used a text giving it in the form, "Go ye therefore
and make disciples of all the nations in my name" —
omitting all reference to baptism. The obvious
suggestion is that this form was found in MSS.
known to Eusebius, though no longer extant. Possibly
Hermas (c. 140 a.d.), and probably Justin Martyr,
show acquaintance with the same form. These facts
were first pointed out by Mr Conybeare, and no other
explanation has been offered, except that Eusebius
may have concealed his knowledge of the ordinary
text under the influence of the Disciplima arcani, which
forbade Christian mysteries to be made known to the
heathen. This is an unsatisfactory suggestion, for
Eusebius shows no sign of special respect for the
Disciplima arcani, and there is no reason why he
should have been silent on the baptismal formula
in commentaries on scripture, which were surely in
tended for the initiated. Thus it is probable that
Eusebius used MSS. which omitted the command to
baptise, and it is a question whether this is not really
the original text of Matthew, and the command to

88 THE RESURRECTION
baptise a later interpolation, due to the influence of
ecclesiastical custom. A decision on this point must
depend largely on considerations which cannot be
fully discussed here. The main argument in favour
of the usual text is the alleged improbability that
all existing MSS. and versions should agree in a
wrong reading; but against this may be set the view
of many students of the text that no existing MSS.
or versions do more than represent comparatively
late recensions; the probability that baptismal use
undoubtedly very early influenced the text ; and the
improbability, in view of the great importance attached
to baptism, that such a form as the Eusebian text of
Matt, xxviii. 19 could ever have been evolved out
of the ordinary text. Moreover, those who ascribe an
early date to Matthew ought naturally to be inclined
to prefer the Eusebian text, for they are then relieved
from the well-known difficulty caused by the fact
that in the Acts baptism is always in the name of
Christ (or a similar expression), and never in the
Trinitarian formula. The balance of argument seems
to be in favour of the Eusebian text.
It has often been maintained that this incident is
based on the lost conclusion of Mark, which it may
thus be taken to represent. • The arguments in favour
of this are in reality two. In the first place, up to

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 89
this point Matthew has followed Mark fairly closely,
though with alterations intended to explain his source,
and to make room for other documents or traditions.
There is therefore an a priori presumption that in
the following passage the redactor would have made
use of Mark had it been known to him. In the second
place, this passage narrates an appearance of the risen
Lord in Galilee, such as it is reasonable to suppose was
found in Mark. But against these arguments three
objections, of which two are serious, can be alleged.
First, the emphasis laid upon Peter in Mark xvi. 7
suggests that the narrative was leading up either to
an appearance to him separately, or to one in which
he played an important part. Of this there is no
trace in Matthew. Secondly, Matthew implies quite
a different view of the course of events from Mark.
The latter represents the disciples as scattered and
returning to Galilee in despair. The former makes
them go in a body to Galilee, in consequence of the
message of the women, in order to see the Lord.
Thirdly, the general character of the narrative is
later in tone than Mark. This last objection is in
any case too subjective to be important, and the
adoption of the Eusebian text in verse 19 deprives
it of part of its force ; but the two others are very
weighty, and suggest that the redactor of Matthew,

90 THE RESURRECTION
though acquainted with the tradition of an appearance
of the Lord in Galilee, was not using Mark, perhaps
because Mark, when it came into his hands, was
already mutilated. Thus this section may be regarded
as one of the pieces of evidence which have to be
considered in any attempt to discuss or to reconstruct
the Galilean tradition as to the appearances of the
risen Lord, but cannot be regarded as adequately
representing the lost conclusion of Mark.
The interpretation of the passage as it stands only
gives rise to one serious difficulty. What is the mean
ing of " the mountain where Jesus had appointed
them " ? It is uncertain whether this should be taken
as "had appointed as a meeting place," or "had
appointed them as apostles"; but the former is the
more probable. The most popular guesses at the
identification of the mountain connect it with either
the Mount of Transfiguration or with the Mount of
the Sermon on the Mount. But there is no evidence
for any of these suggestions, and it is more probable
that " the mountain " (to opos) means not " the par
ticular mountain," but " the mountain district of
Galilee," and the reference is merely to the message
of the women.

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 91
II. The Specially Lucan Narrative
Up to the account of the experience of the women at
the tomb, Luke follows Mark. Various alterations are
indeed made, but the literary dependence can scarcely be
doubted. After that point, either the changes intro
duced into the Marcan narrative are so great that
either literary dependence can no longer be proved, or a
new tradition (written or oral) is being followed. The
balance of probability is perhaps not decisively in favour
of the latter alternative, but it is safer, at least for the
present purpose, to adopt it. The narrative may be
divided into (1) the experience of the women at the
tomb ; (2) the message of the two men to the women ;
(3) the conduct of the women and of the disciples ; (4)
the appearance on the road to Emmaus ; (5) the
appearance to the general body of disciples ; (6) the
speech of the Lord to the disciples ; (7) the Ascension.
(1) The experience of the women at the tomb. — The
account of this incident is given in Luke xxiv. 3 f.
But when they entered in, they found not the body ;
and it came to pass while they were perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel ; and
as they were affrighted, and bowed down their faces to
the earth, they said unto them 
Many early authorities add the words " of the Lord
Jesus " as a definition of " the body." Perhaps this is

92 THE RESURRECTION
the original text, though it seems more probable that it
is an explanatory addition ; but in any case it makes no
difference to the sense.
As was pointed out in dealing with the Marcan
narrative, this incident might well be merely a para
phrastic amplification of Mark, if it were not for the
mention of the " two men " in place of " the young
man." This seems to point to the probability that
another tradition than Mark is being followed, and,
if so, the examination of the tomb implied by the
words "they did not find" may also be due to this
source. There is no difficulty in understanding the meaning
of the passage, which presents no ambiguities. Accord
ing to it the women entered the tomb and looked for the
body, and while they were doing this two men, obviously
intended to be supernatural beings, came and spoke to
them. The value of this record, and its ultimate relation
to the Marcan tradition, is of course another matter ;
but its meaning is quite plain.
(2) The message of the two men. — This is given in
Luke xxiv. 5.
Why seek ye the living among the dead ? Remember
how he spake unto you while he was yet in Galilee, saying
that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands
of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise
again.

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 93
Many ancient authorities for the text add the words,
" He is not here but is risen," immediately after the
introductory question. Probably, however, they are
an early addition from Mark or Matthew ; but for
the present purpose the point is unimportant, as the
words do not add anything to the meaning of the
passage. It has been thought that this is merely a rewriting
of the Marcan account, in order to make room for a
tradition recording appearances in or near Jerusalem,
but not in Galilee. It may be so ; and in this case
perhaps the addition to the text referred to above must
be regarded as genuine. But the difference from Mark
is so great that it is possible to think that another
tradition has been preferred and followed.
In the explanation of the passage, which is otherwise
quite simple, some difficulty is caused by the attempt
to identify the prophecy in Galilee. It is natural to
look for this in Luke, and reference may be made to
three passages, (a) Luke ix. 22 —
The Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and
be killed, and the third day be raised up.
(b) Luke ix. 44 —
The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of
men.

94 THE RESURRECTION
(c) Luke xviii. 31 ff.—
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that
are written by the prophets shall be accomplished unto
the Son of man. For he shall be delivered up unto the
Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and shamefully treated,
and spit upon : and they shall scourge and kill him : and
the third day he shall rise again.
Of these three passages the last seems to be excluded
by the fact that it was not spoken in Galilee, and the
second, though it alone contains the phrase " shall be
delivered into the hands of men," seems equally im
probable, as it contains no allusion to the Resurrection.
Thus the first alone remains, and it is curious that,
according to Luke, this was spoken in the neighbour
hood of Bethsaida, and thus possibly, though not
certainly, in Galilee; but according to Mark, which
is here the source of Luke, in the neighbourhood of
Caesarea Philippi in Ituraea. This gives some support
to the view that the form of the message is Lucan, and
that the reference to Galilee is due to a knowledge of
Mark, and to a consequent wish to present a message
leading up to an appearance in Jerusalem, in a form
which by mentioning Galilee explained and corrected
the Marcan statement that the women were told that the
disciples would see the Lord in Galilee.
(3) The conduct of the women and of the disciples.
— The description of the result of the message is

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 95
wholly different from that in Mark. Luke xxiv. 8-11
says : —
And they remembered his words, and returned, and
told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest. It
was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother
of James ; and the other women that were with them,
told these things unto the apostles. And these words
seemed to them as idle tales, and they disbelieved them.
A serious textual problem is raised by the following
verse —
But Peter arose, and ran unto the tomb ; and stooping
down and looking in, he beheld the linen clothes laid by
themselves, and departed to his home, wondering at that
which was come to pass —
which has been omitted above from the end of this
section. This is probably an interpolation from the
tradition which lies behind John xx. 6. Westcott and
Hort regarded it as a "western non-interpolation,"
and even without accepting the textual theory which
that phrase implies, it is difficult to see how the addition
can be defended. It is more or less Lucan in style, but
it should be noted that although Luke often uses
" arose " (dvaa-Tag), he always makes it precede the name
of the person referred to, instead of following it, as in
the present case. At the same time, the point is not
quite certain, and it is possible that the verse should
be added.

96 THE RESURRECTION
So far as the meaning of the passage is concerned,
it presents no difficulty. The women delivered the
message to the disciples, who had not left Jerusalem
and apparently did not intend to do so. If verse 12
be accepted, St Peter had, according to the most
probable translation, got a house in Jerusalem. But
the disciples did not believe the news; not even (if
verse 12 be followed) though St Peter went to the tomb
and saw that it seemed to be empty.
(4) The appearance on the road to Emmaus. — The
account of this, according to Luke the first appearance
of the risen Lord, is given in Luke xxiv. 13-35.
And, behold, two of them went that same day to a
village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem three
score furlongs. And they talked together of these things
which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while
they talked together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew
near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden
that they should not know him. And he said unto them,
What communications are these that ye have one with
another, as ye walk ? And they stood still looking sorrowful.
And one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said
unto him, Art thou only a sojourner in Jerusalem, and
dost not know the things which are come to pass there
in these days ? And he said unto them, What things ?
And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth,
which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God
and all the people : and how the chief priests and our
rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and
crucified him. But we had hoped that it had been he which

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 97
should redeem Israel: yea, and beside all this, to-day is
the third day since these things were done. Moreover,
certain women of our company made us astonished, which
were early at the sepulchre ; and when they found not his
body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision
of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of
them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found
it even so as the women had said : but him they saw not.
And he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not the
Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory ?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he ex
pounded unto them in all the scriptures the things
concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the
village, whither they were going : and he made as though
he would go further. But they constrained him, say
ing, Tarry with us : for it is toward evening, and the
day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took
the bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
And their eyes were opened, and they knew him ; and he
vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another,
Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with
us by the way, while he opened to us the scriptures ? And
they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem,
and found the eleven gathered together, and them that
were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and
hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things
were done in the way, and how he was known of them in
the breaking of bread.
Among many interesting textual variations in this
passage there are three which are important for the
meaning, (a) In verse 13 some good authorities read

98 THE RESURRECTION
160 instead of 60 furlongs ; but the evidence is in itself
insufficient, and the reading is almost certainly due
to an attempt to make the distance given correspond
better with the facts on the probably erroneous view
that the best known Emmaus is intended, (b) In the
same verse some early Latin authorities take Emmaus
as the name of one of the disciples, and read " by name
Cleopas and Emmaus." The addition of the name
Cleopas is no doubt a gloss from verse 18, but the
reading as a whole implies the Greek text found in
Codex Bezae, in which it is ambiguous whether the word
translated "called" refers to the disciples or to the
village (reading ovoftaTi instead of § ovofxa). This is
an interesting reading, as it explains the tradition found
in St Ambrose that the companion of Cleopas was
called Amon, but there is no real doubt that the
ordinary text is right, (c) In verse 34 the Latin and
Syriac translations of the participle " saying " leave it
ambiguous who the speakers were, who said, " The Lord
is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon." If it
be in the nominative, it must refer to Cleopas and the
unnamed disciple ; if in the accusative, it refers to the
eleven. The Greek MSS. as a rale read the latter
(XeyovTa?); but Codex Bezas has the nominative
(Xeyovreg), and this reading seems to be implied by
Origen, who frequently states that the companion of

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 99
Cleopas was Simon. This reading has therefore quite
good authority, especially as it may be represented both
by Latin and Syriac MSS. It is, however, a question
which is probably insoluble whether the reading in the
nominative (Xeyovres) produced the tradition as to
Simon, or the tradition produced the reading : which
ever came first would inevitably give rise to the other.
Turning to the interpretation of the story, three
points give rise to difficulty in an otherwise straight
forward narrative. These are, the locality of Emmaus,
the names of the disciples, and the reference to an
appearance to Simon.
The earliest tradition as to Emmaus is found in
Eusebius. He identifies Emmaus with the city of that
name on the road to Joppa, which was known at a
later time as Nicopolis ; but this gives a distance which
would reduce the narrative to an absurdity by implying
a distance of about forty miles, and is also improbable
owing to the description of Emmaus as a village, for
Emmaus-Nicopolis was a fairly large and well-known
town. It is far more probable that another Emmaus
(or Ammaus) is intended, which Josephus mentions in
B.J., vii. 6. 6. He says that this was thirty furlongs
from Jerusalem, and had been given by Vespasian to a
band of soldiers. It is almost certainly to be identified
with the modern village of Kuloniyeh, thirty-four

100 THE RESURRECTION
furlongs from Jerusalem, which seems to preserve in its
name the Arabic transliteration of the Latin Colonia.
The only difficulty of this identification is that Luke
says that it was sixty furlongs distant. This may be
merely inaccuracy, or an attempt to give the length of
the walk there and back. It should be noted that
some MSS. of Josephus also give sixty furlongs, but
this is probably due to assimilation to Luke. This
identification of Emmaus is much the most probable,
though in view of the discrepancy as to the distance it
is not absolutely certain. A fuller discussion, dealing
also with other suggestions, can be found in the
Encyclopaedia Biblica. According to this view the
walk of the two disciples was a short two hours out
and the same back — rather a long walk, but nothing
improbable. The names of the disciples is a more difficult question,
though it admits of less discussion. The earliest tradi
tion is that of Origen, who identified the other disciple
with Simon. This probably implies the reading
\iyovTeg, which has just been discussed and is possibly
right. Whether Simon means Simon Peter or Simon
the Cananaean is of course another point. In St
Ambrose the tradition is found that a certain Amon
was with Cleopas, but this tradition is certainly based
on the erroneous reading of the Latin MSS. mentioned

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 101
above, which takes Emmaus as the name of a man. A
still later tradition found in Epiphanius identifies the
unnamed disciple with Nathanael, but for what reason
does not appear. The evidence for the earlier traditions
is conveniently set out in Dr A. Resch's Ausserccmonische
Paralleltexte zu Lucas.
The reference to an appearance to Simon is a most
difficult problem, which depends on so many subsidiary
questions that it cannot be solved with any certainty.
Following the text of Westcott and Hort, which
omits the visit of Peter to the grave and reads Ae'yoi/Ta?
in verse 34, the only possible view is that reference is
made to an appearance to Simon (whether Simon Peter
or another remains uncertain) which is not recorded
in Luke. Those commentators who take this view
generally identify this appearance with that to Cephas
referred to in 1 Cor. xv. 5. But is it really credible
that St Luke, probably the most literary of the evan
gelists, would have left this disconnected reference to
an event which is not described in the gospel?
Yet if a different solution be looked for, it is not easy
to find one. It is possible to turn to textual emenda
tion, but no quite satisfactory suggestion is forthcoming.
If Luke xxiv. 12 were genuine it would be possible to
think that the meaning is that in the light of the
experience of Cleopas the disciples saw that St Peter's

102 THE RESURRECTION
visit to the grave was the equivalent of an appearance.
But this is extremely harsh, and textual probability is
against the genuineness of the passage. A preferable
alternative is to read XeyovTes in verse 34, thus identify
ing Simon with one of the two disciples, for though the
evidence for this reading is small its quality is good.
In this case the reference to the eleven must be loosely
interpreted in the sense the " rest of the eleven," rather
than strictly numerically, since, in the absence of Simon,
one of their number, the eleven could not have been
gathered together.
A counsel of despair would be to regard the words
"and has appeared to Simon" as an addition to the
original text under the influence of 1 Cor. xv. 5.
A more subtle but quite important suggestion is
of a different kind. It is possible that this incident in
Luke is a misunderstood and half-forgotten reminiscence
of the first meeting between Christians who had fled to
Galilee, and there seen the risen Lord, and others who,
remaining in Jerusalem, had had the same experience.
This suggestion has much in its favour ; but the objec
tion to it is that it implies Luke's knowledge of the
Galilean tradition, his suppression not merely of its
connexion with Galilee, but even of the appearance
to St Peter which it contained, and nevertheless his
betrayal of these facts by a single unnecessary phrase.

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 103
If he had suppressed the Galilean tradition so far,
surely he would have gone a little further. Personally
I find the suggestion so difficult to reconcile with the
general manner in which he generally uses his sources,
that, though I am inclined to accept the suggestion
as to the historical genesis of the phrase, I would
nevertheless have the courage of despair and think that
St Luke himself did not write it. It was added to the
text almost at once by someone who knew that some
such phrase had been the greeting which the returning
Galileans gave to their friends at Jerusalem, but did
not perceive that it was inconsistent with the rest of
the narrative in Luke.
With the exception of these points the story is plain.
Two members of the Jerusalem community went out
to Emmaus on the third day after the Crucifixion,
knowing, but unconvinced by, the story of the women.
On the road they met a stranger who joined in their
evening meal at Emmaus. During the meal he took
bread and blessed it and gave it to them ; they
recognised that he was the Lord, but he vanished.
They then returned to Jerusalem, and reported their
experience. Whether this story has claims to be re
garded as history is a different question, but at least its
meaning is plain.
(5) The appearance to the assembled disciples in

104 THE RESURRECTION
Jerusalem. — This incident is narrated in Luke xxiv.
36-43. And as they thus spake, he himself stood in the midst
of them. But they were terrified and affrighted, and sup
posed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them,
Why are ye troubled? and wherefore do thoughts arise
in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is
I myself : handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as ye see me have. And while they yet dis
believed for joy, and wondered, he said unto them,
Have ye here anything to eat ? And they gave him a piece
of a dried fish. And he took it, and did eat before them.
There are many variants in the text, but the only
one of any importance is the addition or omission of
" and saith unto them, Peace be unto you " in verse 36,
and of " and when he had said this, he showed them his
hands and his feet " in verse 40. These are two more
of the so-called " western non-interpolations " alluded
to on p. 95, and probably ought to be omitted from
the text of Luke ; but the point may be left open for
the present purpose, as the sense of the two passages
is clearly implied in the context.
So far as the meaning of the passage is concerned,
there are no difficulties of interpretation. It is a clear
statement of the material character of the body of the
risen Lord, and its identity with the body which was
crucified. This is proved by the attention which is
drawn to the hands and feet, and by the partaking of

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 105
food with the disciples. It is not expressly stated that
the coming of the Lord was not an entry into the room
in the ordinary manner, but the fear of the disciples
seems to imply that it was rather a sudden appearance
in a supernatural manner.
(6) The speech of the Lord. — According to Luke
xxiv. 44-49, the risen Lord gave the following address
to the assembled : —
And he said unto them, These are my words which I
spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things
must be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses,
and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might
understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is
written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise from the
dead the third day : and that repentance and remission of
sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations,
beginning at Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these things.
And, behold, I am sending forth the promise of my Father
upon you : but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed
with power from on high.
There are here no textual points of importance, and,
except in one point, the meaning of the speech is plain.
It recognises Jerusalem as the centre of the Christian
community, gives a commission to preach to all nations
"in the name" of Christ, and a command to remain
in Jerusalem until they receive power from on high.
This is all quite plain, but the statement, " I am

106 THE RESURRECTION
sending forth the promise of my Father," is not so
easy. No doubt the present tense has here the force of
a future, but what was the promise referred to? One
would expect a reference to something in the gospel. If
so, it must be the prophecy of John the Baptist, " He
shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Otherwise it must be thought that the reference is to
various passages in the Old Testament, which promised
the gift of the Spirit. A comparison with Acts seems
to justify the former view (cf. p. 113).
(7) The Ascension. — It is doubtful whether this
title is justified by the gospel, which in the most
probable text (xxiv. 50-53) runs as follows : —
And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he
lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to
pass, while he blessed them, he parted from them. And
they returned to Jerusalem with great joy : and were con
tinually in the temple, blessing God.
As it stands, two points are plain in this account :
first, that it is a direct continuation of the previous
account; secondly, that it was intended to describe a
final separation between the Lord and the disciples.
But that this separation was effected by means of an
ascension depends on the text. As given above, there
is no trace of this view, but many authorities add " and
was carried up into heaven, and they worshipped him "

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 107
after " he parted from them." Westcott and Hort
were undoubtedly right in regarding these words as a
" western non-interpolation," and their removal forces
us to say that the gospel describes a last separation of
the risen Lord from the disciples, but does not define
this as an ascension into heaven.
Thus the Lucan account, after it diverges from Mark,
is concerned exclusively with Jerusalem and with the
events of the third day after the Crucifixion. Accord
ing to it the disciples never left Jerusalem, and the
command of the risen Lord was that they should not
do so. It describes an appearance of " two men " to
certain women who went to the tomb early on Sunday
morning. These men announced the Resurrection, and
were believed by the women, who, however, failed to
convince the disciples. Later on in the same day two
disciples who had been going to Emmaus saw the
risen Lord, and at once returned to Jerusalem to tell
the others. It is possible, but, according to the fore
going discussion, not probable, that an intermediate
appearance to St Peter is implied, though not described.
While the two disciples were narrating their experiences,
the Lord appeared, delivered a last address to the
disciples, led them out to Bethany, blessed them, and
finally departed from their sight. It is remarkable
that both in this account and in that of the appearance

108 THE RESURRECTION
on the road to Emmaus emphasis is laid on the fulfil
ment of prophecy by the Lord, and on the fact that he
partook of food. It is also plain that the incidents are
intended to follow one another without a break. It is
indeed sometimes said that there may be a break in the
continuity at verse 44, for it is not expressly stated
that the words " and he said to them " were spoken
on the same day ; but this is an impossible interpreta
tion. The obvious intention of the writer is to
continue the narrative, and he does so with a phrase
so characteristic of Luke (elirev Se) that it is found
fifty-nine times in Luke, fifteen times in Acts, and only
once more in the rest of the New Testament. It will
be found by any who care to look up these places
that the phrase nearly always must indicate the
continuation of a narrative, and never necessarily does
the contrary. Therefore the evidence of style cor
roborates the general impression given by the narrative,
and it may be taken as indisputable that Luke is
intended to give a continuous series of events,
beginning with the dawn of the third day, with no
intervals between them.
One is then forced to inquire whether this account is
physically conceivable, and many critics have answered
this question in the negative. The difficulty is that in
verse 29 we are told " the day is far spent." If that

THE NON-MARCAN NARRATIVES 109
really means just before sunset, it is impossible to find
room for the other events before darkness. But it
might possibly mean no later than three hours before
sunset. The walk from Emmaus to Jerusalem (four
miles) could be done by men in a hurry in forty
minutes, and it would then be possible to find room for
the other events before nightfall. Thus, though un
doubtedly difficult, the Lucan narrative of the events
on the first day of the week does not seem to be so
inconceivable as is sometimes stated. There is nothing
in its statements as to time or place which makes it
impossible that St Luke meant to give a continuous
narrative, or condemns the story in itself. It is of
course a contradiction of Mark, but the choice between
the two narratives must be made in another chapter.
III. The Narrative m the Acts
The Acts, like Luke, is probably a composite work,
compiled, as is stated in the preface to the gospel, from
various sources of information. But for the present
purpose it is unnecessary to do more in the distinction
of sources than to recognise the probability that there
are two main divisions. In the first place, in the open
ing chapters of the Acts, which record the history of
the Church at Jerusalem, there is a narrative closely
connected with the so-called " Jerusalem tradition " in

110 THE RESURRECTION
the gospel ; and, in the second place, the latter half of
Acts is connected with St Paul, and at least partly
based on a " travel document " representing St Luke's
own experiences as a companion of St Paul.
Naturally, in neither part is there an actual narrative
of the Resurrection ; but in the former there is an
account of the last appearance and ascension of the
Lord ; and either in or connected with the second part
are accounts of appearances of the Lord to St Stephen
and to St Paul.
(1) The Ascension. — In connection with the end of
Luke come the opening paragraphs (i. 1-14) of the
Acts. These run as follows: —
The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all that
Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he
was taken up, after that he through the Holy Spirit had
given commandments unto the apostles whom he had
chosen : to whom also he shewed himself alive after hjs
passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty
days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom
of God : and, being assembled together with them, com
manded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait
for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye heard of
me, for John baptised with water ; but ye shall be bap
tised with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When
they therefore were come together, they asked him, say
ing, Lord, dost thou at this time restore again the king
dom to Israel ? And he said unto them, It is not for you
to know times or seasons, which the Father hath appointed
by his own power. But ye shall receive power, when the

THE ACTS 111
Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be my
witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and Samaria,
and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he
had said these things, while they beheld, he was taken
up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And
while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went,
behold, two men stood by them in white apparel ; who
said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into
heaven? this Jesus, which was taken up from you into
heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him
go into heaven.
Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount
called Olives, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's
journey distant. And when they were come in, they
went up into the upper room, where abode both Peter,
and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas,
Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus,
and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These
all continued with one accord in prayer with the women,
and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
The text of this passage is full of variants, the
discussion of which, though full of importance for
textual criticism, would be out of place here ; it should,
however, be noted that the general effect of their study
is not to suggest that one form of text is demonstrably
better or worse than another. The future may possibly
produce a far sounder text. At present all that can be
said, is that the ordinary Greek text represented above
seems to have been in use at Alexandria in the third
century, and perhaps elsewhere. But there is convinc-

112 THE RESURRECTION
ing evidence that in other places, both in the second and
third centuries, texts (one cannot speak of a text) were
in use which differed considerably from this : we have,
however, very imperfect knowledge of their readings.
Thus one ought not to put too much weight on any
theory which would be liable to be destroyed by a small
variation in the text. At least two such variations are
noteworthy : (a) The omission of the words " was taken
up " (aveXrifj.<pdt]) in verse 2. This is directly attested by
some good Latin authorities, and indirectly by a lack of
agreement among the witnesses as to the exact place in
the sentence in which it should be inserted. It is, how
ever, far more clear how the sentence should run if the
omission be made. St Augustine, for instance, using an
Old African text, also omitted " whom " after " apostles,"
and reads, " about all things which Jesus began to do
and to teach on the day on which he chose his apostles
by the Holy Spirit, and commanded them to preach the
gospel." (b) There is some slight evidence, collected
by Blass in his Editio minor of the Acts in the so-
called " Roman " text, which points to the possibility of
the omission of " by the space of forty days."
The meaning of the passage as a whole would offer
no difficulty if it were not for the necessity of comparing
it with Luke. It seems plain that it is intended to
give a more extended account of the last address and

THE ACTS 113
parting from the disciples. Verse 4 clearly corresponds
to Luke xxiv. 49, and the reference to the baptism of
John is the interpretation of "the promise of the
Father." In the same way the account of the Ascension
may be naturally regarded as an expansion of the ex
pression " he parted from them " in Luke xxiv. 51. But
any further comparison leads to difficulties. If the
text of Acts be correct, the Ascension took place forty
days after the Resurrection ; but according to Luke on
the evening of the Resurrection. Again, according to
the text given above, the gospel is stated to have con
tained an account of the Ascension ; but according
to the most probable text of Luke this is not the case.
Of these two difficulties the second is much the less
important. " Was taken up " in Acts may quite well
be a somewhat inaccurate reference to the " was parted
from them" of the gospel. The former difficulty is
much more serious. There is an irreconcilable con
tradiction between Acts and Luke. Two explanations
are possible : (a) The words " forty days " in Acts may
be an interpolation in the text. As has been said,
there is some evidence for this view, but this is not
the foundation for the suggestion, which is more of
the nature of a conjectural emendation. The im
portant facts are not the possibly accidental omission of
the words by a single writer, but, first, the improba- 8

114 THE RESURRECTION
bility of so direct a contradiction between Luke and
Acts, and, secondly, the evidence of the Epistle of
Barnabas, and of the old Syriac calendar, which regard
the Ascension as having taken place on a Sunday,
whereas the fortieth day after the Resurrection must
have been a Thursday, (b) It is possible that, in the
interval between writing the gospel and the Acts, St
Luke became acquainted with a more detailed tradition
which he preferred and used in the Acts. On the whole
this is the more probable view, as the account in Acts is
so much more elaborate than in the gospel, and it is
improbable that St Luke would have omitted the
appearance of the two men and the prophecy of the
second coming had he known of them when writing
the gospel.
Putting aside these two difficulties, the following
points are important : (a) An obvious emphasis is laid
on Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and the rest of the
world as divisions of missionary work ; and this emphasis
seems to find its explanation in the way in which in the
rest of Acts the development of the Church is traced
through these four divisions, (b) The fact that the
gift of the Spirit had not yet been made is much more
emphasised than it is in the gospel. This naturally
leads up to the account of the Day of Pentecost ; and
it may fairly be suggested that it points to the existence

THE ACTS 115
of some view which St Luke was implicitly combating.
(c) It is natural to identify the " two men " who
appeared to the disciples and foretold the second coming
with the " two men " who appeared to the women at
the grave.
Did St Luke obtain this tradition, found in Luke and
Acts, from a written source ? Such a question can, from
the nature of the case, only be answered with diffidence.
The only evidence is that of style. If we accept the
overwhelmingly probable view that the we-clauses in
Acts were written by St Luke, we have in them some
fair indication of his style, and it is possible to trace the
same style in the alterations made by him in his use of
Mark. Now, if one goes through the last verses of
Luke and examines them for the evidence of Lucan
style, one finds hardly a single verse which is free from
some such indication. This points strongly to the
conclusion that St Luke is certainly not using a written
Greek source; it is just conceivable that he is using an
Aramaic source, and giving a very free translation ; but
the most probable view is that he is relating oral
tradition. The same conclusion holds good, and for
the same reasons, for the beginning of Acts, but not to
quite the same extent. The evidence of style, though
pointing in the same direction, is not quite so marked.
Personally, I think that the balance of probability, at

116 THE RESURRECTION
least for chapter i. of the Acts, is somewhat strongly in
favour of oral tradition, rather than a written source,
but Harnack is apparently inclined to pay considerable
attention to the suggestion of an Aramaic source.
(2) The appearance to the dying St Stephen. — This
appearance is recorded in Acts vii. 55-59.
But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly
into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing
on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the
heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the
right hand of God. But they cried out with a loud voice,
and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
and cast him out of the city, and stoned him : and the
witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet,
whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling
upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
This account differs from the previous ones in Luke
and Acts in that it represents a vision of heaven rather
than an appearance on earth. But it does not other
wise offer any problems. The significant allusion at
the end of the narrative to the young man named Saul
points to the probability that St Luke obtained his
knowledge of the incident from St Paul.
(3) The appearance of the risen Lord to St Paul. —
St Paul claims in 1 Cor. xv. to have seen the Lord
himself. There is no account of this appearance extant
in the epistles, but in the Acts accounts are given in
three places : in Acts ix. 1-9 (in the story of the

THE ACTS

117

conversion of St Paul) ; in Acts xxii. 6-10 (in St Paul's
defence before the Jews in Jerusalem) ; and in Acts
xxvi. 12-18 (in his defence before Herod Agrippa).
These three accounts run thus : —

Acts ix. 1-9.
And Saul, yet
breathing out threat
enings and slaughter
against the disciples of
the Lord, went unto
the high priest, and
asked of him letters
to Damascus to the
synagogues, that if
he found any of the
Way, whether they
were men or women,
he might bring them
bound to Jerusalem.
And as he journeyed,
it came to pass that
he drew near Dam
ascus : and suddenly
there shined round
about him a light from
heaven : and he fell to
the earth, and heard a
voice saying unto him,
Saul, Saul, why per
secutest thou me ?
And he said, Who
art thou, Sir? And
he said, I am Jesus
whom thou persecut
est : but rise, and go
into the city, and it
shall be told thee what
thou must do. And

Acts xxii. 6-10.
And it came to
pass, that, as I made
my journey, and drew
nigh unto Damascus
about noon, suddenly
there shone from
heaven a great light
round about me. And
I fell to the ground,
and heard a voice say
ing unto me, Saul,
Saul, why persecutest
thou me ? And I
answered, Who art
thou, Sir? And he
said unto me, I am
Jesus of Nazareth,
whom thou persecut
est. And they that
were with me saw in
deed the light ; but
they heard not the
voice of him that
spake to me. And I
said, What shall I do,
Lord ? And the Lord
said unto me, Arise,
and go into Damas
cus ; and there it shall
be told thee of all
things which are ap
pointed for thee to do.
And when I could not

Acts xxvi. 12-18.
Whereupon as I
went to Damascus
with authority and
commission from the
chief priests, at mid
day, O king, I saw
in the way a light
from heaven, above
the brightness of the
sun, shining round
about me and them
which journeyed with
me. And when we
were all fallen to the '
earth, I heard a voice
saying unto me, in the
Hebrew tongue, Saul,
Saul, why persecutest
thou me? it is hard
for thee to kick against
the goad. And I
said, Who art thou,
Sir ? And he said,
I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest. But rise,
and stand upon thy
feet : for I have ap
peared unto thee for
this purpose, to make
thee a minister and a
witness both of these
things which thou hast
seen, and of those

118

THE RESURRECTION

the men that journey
ed with him stood
speechless, hearing
the voice, but seeing
no man. And Saul
arose from the earth ;
and when his eyes
were opened, he saw
nothing : but they led
him by the hand, and
brought him into Da
mascus.

see for the glory of
that light, being led
by the hand of them
that were with me, I
came into Damascus.

things in the which I
will appear unto thee :
delivering thee from
the people, and from
the Gentiles, unto
whom I send thee, to
open their eyes, that
they may turn from
darkness to light, and
from the power of
Satan unto God, that
they may receive re
mission of sins, and
an inheritance among
them which are sancti
fied by faith that is
in me.

It will be seen that, though there can be no doubt
that the same incident is described, there is considerable
variation in the details of these three accounts. Ac
cording to the first account, for instance, St Paul's
companions stood ; according to the third they fell ;
according to the first they heard a voice, but saw no
one; according to the second they saw a light, but
heard nothing. Some critics have made use of these
variations to prove that St Luke is employing different
sources ; but it is much more likely that they are due to
careless writing, such as could be paralleled in the work
of many authors. For those who, with Harnack and
many othets, think that St Luke, companion of St Paul,
compiled the Acts, and like most historians of his day
illustrated his narrative at the proper points by ap-

THE ACTS 119
propriate speeches placed in the mouths of various
personages, there is no difficulty in believing that these
three accounts represent information which St Luke
obtained from St Paul. As to the exact details there
may be room for doubt ; but it is really of very little
importance whether St Paul's companions stood up or
fell down. What is really important is also indis
putable (unless by a general attack on the Lucan
authorship of the second part of Acts) — that St Luke
believed that the risen Lord appeared and spoke to St
Paul on the road to Damascus. It is also clear that
his description does not imply, but rather excludes, an
appearance of a material nature. It is not even stated
that St Paul's conviction that he was speaking to Jesus
was based on sight. It is here that the main difference
lies between the appearances to St Stephen and St Paul,
and the earlier appearances narrated in Luke and Acts.
According to Luke, the earlier appearances were those
of a person with a body of flesh and blood, while the
later ones were of an immaterial nature. St Luke
unquestionably intended the Ascension to mark the
dividing line between the two kinds of appearances.
His view was that the Lord appeared in material form
until the Ascension, and was then taken up into heaven
in that form in which he would come again to judge
the world. The appearances after this moment were

120 THE RESURRECTION
of a different kind and not in a material body. The
really important question, which will have to be faced
in a later chapter, is how far the evidence, especially of
St Paul, confirms or contradicts this theory of St Luke.
IV. The Spurious Conclusions of Mark
Of these there are two. The shorter is only found
in a few Alexandrian Greek MSS., and in one MS. of
the African version of the Old Latin translation. It
runs as follows : —
But they (i.e. the women) briefly reported all that was
commanded to those in the company of Peter ; and after
this Jesus himself appeared unto them (i.e. the disciples)
and sent out to them the holy and imperishable message
of eternal salvation, from the east and unto the west.
Whatever the exact origin of this statement may be
(Professor von Dobschutz thinks that it is an extract
from the so-called Preaching of Peter), it is clearly an
addition made to the already mutilated gospel by some
one who noticed the harshness of the conclusion, and
tried to repudiate the suggestion of the silence of the
women. For the purpose of the present discussion it
has no value.
The longer conclusion runs as follows : —
Now when he was risen early the first day of the week,

THE CONCLUSIONS OF MARK 121
he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had
cast seven devils. She went and told them that had been
with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when
they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of
her, disbelieved. And after this he was manifested in
another form unto two of them, as they walked and went
into the country. And they went and told it unto the
rest : neither believed they them. And afterward he was
manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat,
and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of
heart, because they believed not them which had seen
him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved ; but he
that disbelieveth shall be damned. And these signs shall
follow them that believe : in my name shall they cast
out devils ; they shall speak with Tongues : they shall
take up serpents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover. So then the Lord, after he had spoken
unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat on the
right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming
the word with signs following.
The origin of this passage is unknown. It is no
longer seriously disputed that it is not an original part
of the gospel, for it does not appear in the oldest Latin,
Syriac, or Egyptian versions, or in the oldest Greek
MSS., which, however, seem to betray a knowledge
of its existence, and reject rather than omit it, and
the internal evidence of style is also entirely unfavour-

122 THE RESURRECTION
able to it. In one MS. of the Armenian version it is
connected with the name of Aristion (Ariston) the
elder, possibly the contemporary of the " elder John "
of whom Papias speaks. It is impossible to say in
what district it was added, but there is perhaps rather
more to be said for the neighbourhood of Ephesus than
for anywhere else, and Harnack is inclined to think
that it was there deliberately substituted for the
genuine conclusion. The strongest argument for this
view depends on the suggestion that the incomplete
condition of Mark is due to design and not to accident,
and that in this case it is improbable that anyone
would have been content with cutting off the original
conclusion without supplying a substitute. It must
also be noted that the connexion of these verses with
the previous is so poor that they do not seem to have
been written for its present place. It is more likely
that it was taken bodily from some other document.
This remains true, whether we think that the mutila
tion of Mark is due to accident or design ; and it is
thus a tempting conjecture that the Armenian MS.
mentioned above preserves a correct tradition, and
that the "longer conclusion" was taken from the
" Narratives " of Aristion, of which Papias speaks
(though it is true that he nowhere states that he
knew them in a written form), to supply the lacuna

THE CONCLUSIONS OF MARK 123
made by the loss or abstraction of the genuine
conclusion. Regarded as a source of information for historical
research, the "longer conclusion" is scarcely more
valuable than the shorter. It is either based on the
Third and Fourth Gospels, or represents the same
tradition in a shorter and apparently inferior form.
A comparison of the details is sufficient to prove this
point, and can be shown most plainly in the following
tabular form : —
Mark xvi. 9 = John xx. 14-17 (Appearance to
Mary Magdalene).
Mark xvi. 10 = John xx. 18 (Report to the dis
ciples).
Mark xvi. 12 f. =Luke xxiv. 13-35 (The appearance
on the road to Emmaus).
Mark xvi. 14 ff. =Luke xxiv. 36-47 (The appearance
to the eleven).
Mark xvi. 19 =Luke xxiv. 51, or Acts i. 2 (The
Ascension).
There is between these passages no sufficient simi
larity to prove literary dependence, but it can scarcely
be doubted that the traditions are the same. The few
points in which Mark differs are unimportant, and it
is clearly unnecessary to pay any further attention to

124 THE RESURRECTION
this document for the purposes of an inquiry into the
historical evidence for the facts of the Resurrection,
though it is important for the history of the text of
the New Testament, and to some extent for the history
of the development of Christian doctrine.

CHAPTER IV
THE NARRATIVE OF THE RESURRECTION
IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL
The origin of the Fourth Gospel is still a problem which
remains unsolved. The traditional view is that it was
written in Ephesus, by St John the son of Zebedee,
in order to elucidate points which remained doubtful
in the other gospels. The external evidence is not suffi
cient either to prove or to condemn this tradition : that
is to say, it is so good that it in no way impugns it, but
is not so strong as to demonstrate it. On the other
hand, the internal evidence, though of a curiously
conflicting character, is on the whole decidedly hostile
to the traditional view. It is of course impossible here
to discuss this point at length ; it must suffice to express
the opinion that the most probable view is something
of the kind adopted recently by Professor Burkitt, that
the gospel was written by someone acquainted with
traditions derived from Jerusalem, who had in the
125

126 THE RESURRECTION
narrative an interest dogmatic rather than historical, and
desired to bring the figure of the Christ into relation
with a particular form of philosophy. It is also
desirable to note that the peculiar dogmatic contro
versy in which the writer was engaged forced him to
lay stress on everything which emphasised the unity
of Jesus with the Christ, and on the reality of his
humanity both before and after the Resurrection.
This point can be observed in the gospel, but is still
plainer in the epistles, which in all probability were
written by the same person, and in any case by someone
of the same school of thought. If this or any similar
view be adopted, the question of authorship becomes less
important, and may for the present purpose be left
undiscussed.1 A somewhat peculiar problem is raised by the last
chapter of the gospel. The book seems to be brought
to an end by the last verse of chapter xx., which says : —
" Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence
of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but
these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the
1 If the following investigation be correct, the historical value of the
Johannine account of the Resurrection is not great. But whether this
is a decisive argument against any particular theory as to its authorship,
turns on the question of the nature of the accuracy which we ought to
expect from writers of that generation. This is precisely the question
which is most difficult to answer, though critics of all schools have been
dangerously ready to assume a solution.

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 127
Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have
life in his name."
A more definite conclusion could not be imagined,
Moreover, any further investigations into the contents
of the book reveal a remarkable symmetry in arrange
ment which leads up to chapter xx. and demands
nothing more. Thus it is generally admitted that
chapter xxi. is an appendix and not part of the original
scheme of the gospel, but with that admission agreement
ceases. Some critics regard the chapter as an appendix
written by the author of the rest of the gospel ; others
think that it is the composition of another writer.
The strongest argument for the former hypothesis is
the style, which certainly has a close resemblance to
that of the rest of the gospel. At the same time, there
are also points of difference, and this argument is not
quite decisive against the possibility that the chapter
was written by someone who made a by no means
unsuccessful attempt to imitate the style of the gospel.
On the other hand, the second hypothesis is supported
by the contents. " The disciples," says Dr Moffatt, in
his Historical New Testament, "are mentioned with
quite a unique definiteness (the sons of Zebedee, Peter
as a fisherman) : the miracle attaches itself rather to
the synoptic tradition, the Fourth Gospel having its
own cycle of seven signs. The appearance of Jesus in

128 THE RESURRECTION
Galilee contrasts strangely with chapter xx., which is
unconscious of any appearances save those in Jeru
salem." These arguments are not singly convincing,
but their weight is cumulative, and, taken together,
they make up a strong case; but perhaps the most
decisive word has been spoken by M. Loisy, who
says: "The majority of critics are right in thinking
that the writer who had balanced his account of the
Resurrection with such artistic attention to details,
who had crowned the teaching of his book with the
confession of Thomas, and had taken leave of his
readers at the end of chapter xx., has not himself
destroyed the harmony of his work by the addition of
a badly-fitted appendix which breathes a different
spirit from all the rest." Thus the balance of evidence
seems to be decidedly in favour of the view that
chapter xxi. is an addition to the gospel, and that it
was not made by the original writer. If so (and indeed
even if it be made by the original writer) there can be
hardly any doubt as to the motive of the addition : it
was inspired by the knowledge of a tradition as to
appearances of the Lord in Galilee. The further
importance of this point will, however, be more suitably
treated later on, when considering the contents of the
chapter. The part of the gospel which is important for the

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 129
present purpose may be divided into four sections:
(1) the burial; (2) the events at the tomb; (3) the
appearances at Jerusalem ; (4) the appearances in
Galilee. (1) The burial. — The account of this is given in
John xix. 31-42, and runs as follows : —
The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that
the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the
sabbath day (for that sabbath day was an high day), be
sought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that
they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and
brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was
crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and
saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs :
but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and
forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that
hath seen it bare witness, and his witness is true ; and
that one knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
For these things were done, that the scripture should
be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And
again another scripture saith, They shall look on him
whom they pierced.
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of
Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate
that he might take away the body of Jesus : and Pilate
gave him leave. He came therefore, and took his body.
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to
Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes,
about an hundred pound weight. So they took the body
of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as
the manner of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place
where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the
9

130 THE RESURRECTION
garden a new tomb, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews'
Preparation; for the tomb was nigh at hand.
According to this, two attempts were made to bury
the Lord's body. The first was made by the Jews, and
was based on the requirements of the law. The refer
ence is not quite plain, but there is little doubt that
one of two explanations is right, and both turn on
Deut. xxi. 22 ff.
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death,
and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a
tree : his body shall not remain all night upon the
tree, but thou shalt surely bury him that day ; (for he
that is hanged is accursed of God ;) that thou defile
not thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for
an inheritance.
It is possible that the text in John is merely
a reference to these verses, and that the writer has
confused the Sabbath law with a law which was equally
applicable to any day of the week. Or possibly the
meaning is that the Jews desired to hasten the death
of the crucified because they would otherwise be in
a difficult position. If their victims lived until the
Sabbath they would be unable to bury them, and so
fulfil the law of Deut. xxi., without breaking the
Sabbath, which forbade work, and so burial, on the
Sabbath.

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 131
The other details connected with this part of the
account of the burial are unimportant for the present
purpose. It is probably hypercritical to say that
Pilate would not have consented to the infliction of
the " crurifragium "¦ — the leg-breaking — as that was a
distinct punishment in the Roman code ; and the
symbolical interpretation of the incident of the pierc
ing of the side, though important for the history of
doctrine, is unimportant for the investigation of the
Resurrection. The second attempt at burial was, according to John,
made by disciples, though secret ones — Joseph of
Arimathaea and Nicodemus. Apparently the suggestion
of the writer is that these two had intervened in time
to anticipate the burial which the other Jews were
beginning. They then gave the body of the Lord a
full and costly burial, omitting nothing which was
customary, and laid it in a new tomb in a garden which
was close to the place of crucifixion.
(2) The events at the tomb on the morning of the
third day. — The account of these events is given in
John xx. 1-18.
Now the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene
early, when it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth
the stone taken away from the tomb. Then she runneth,
and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple,

132 THE RESURRECTION
whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have
taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know
not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went
forth, and the other disciple, and went to the tomb.
And they ran both together : and the other disciple
did outrun Peter, and came first to the tomb. And he
stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying ; yet went he
not in. Then cometh Simon Peter also following him,
and went into the tomb, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with
the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by
itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came
first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed. For as yet
they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from
the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their
own home.
But Mary stood without at the tomb weeping : and as
she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the tomb.
And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the
head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus
had lain. And they said unto her, Woman, why weepest
thou ? She saith unto them, Because they have taken
away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
When she had thus said, she turned back, and saw Jesus
standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith
unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest
thou ? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto
him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where
thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus
saith unto her, Mary. She turned, and saith unto him in
Hebrew, Rabboni ; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith
unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to
the Father : but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I
ascend unto my Father, and your Father ; and to my God,

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 133
and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples
that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these
things unto her.
This account is clear and circumstantial, so that it
calls for but little comment. The following points are,
however, of importance : —
(a) If the text be correct, it would appear that the
writer means that he was convinced by the empty tomb,
but that St Peter was not. It is possible that the true
text in verse 8 is, " and they saw and believed," as is
read in the Old Syriac version ; but in any case the
meaning of the passage is not quite plain. " Believed "
in this gospel is generally used in the technical sense of
Christian faith ; but if that be the case here, the con
nexion with the following verse (" For as yet they knew
not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead")
is not obvious. This would naturally mean that the
disciples, being ignorant of the prophecy, did not believe
in the Resurrection. Is it not probable that "believed"
means " believed St Mary Magdalene's statement that
the Jews had taken away the Lord " ? It is clear that
the latter did not change her opinion, and remained
weeping at the tomb. This would be strange if the
disciples had drawn a different conclusion from the
evidence. (b) Whatever the meaning of the injunction " Touch

134 THE RESURRECTION
me not " may be, it is dependent on the fact that the
Ascension has not yet taken place, and implies that it
will take place soon.
(c) St Mary saw at the tomb the angels, who, how
ever, are quite functionless. They do nothing and tell
nothing. She also saw a young man, whom, after a
momentary mistake, she identified as the Lord.
(<f) From the position of the angels seen by St Mary,
taken in connexion with the hints given in verses 1, 5,
and 6, the nature of the tomb becomes evident. It
was a mausoleum, with the actual grave in the middle of
the floor; it was closed by a stone which had to be
" lifted," and it seems to be represented as a little lower
than the rest of the ground. The last point is perhaps
not quite clear, but the others are certain. Only so
could the angels have been seen, " sitting one at the
head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus
had lain," and r]pfj.ivov surely implies a stone lifted away
from the tomb — not rolled away from its entrance.1
(3) The appearances in Jerusalem to the disciples. —
John reports two of these appearances : the first was
to the disciples, in the absence of St Thomas, on the
1 It is sometimes said that the story implies a " loculus" — a kind of
shelf at the side of the tomb — by which the angels were sitting. But
this is surely not the plain meaning, and would never have been
suggested had it not been for the supposed necessity of finding a
meaning which could be harmonised with the synoptic account.

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 135
evening of the third day after the Crucifixion ; and the
second appearance was a week later, to the disciples,
including St Thomas.
The account of the former incident is John xx. 19-23,
and runs as follows : —
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of
the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples
were for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the
midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And
when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and
his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw
the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto
you : as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and
saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit : whose soever
sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; whose soever
sins ye retain, they are retained.
In this account there is nothing ambiguous or, at
least for the present purpose, calling for explanation.
It is apparently the same incident as is related in
Luke xxiv. 3 ff. It should be noted that it emphasises
and explains the reason why the doors were shut, and
differs from Luke in regarding the gift of the Spirit as
made then, not as promised for the future, and as
connected with the power of forgiving sin, rather than
with baptism, though it must be admitted that for the
early Church baptism and forgiveness were almost the
same thing.

136 THE RESURRECTION
The second incident is given in John xx. 24-29, and
runs as follows : —
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was
not wdth them when Jesus came. The other disciples
therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he
said unto them, 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. And
after eight days again his disciples were within, and
Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut,
and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see
my hands : and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my
side : and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas
answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou
hast believed : blessed are they that have not seen, and
yet have believed.
This incident also is described in a manner which calls
for few explanatory comments. It is, however, note
worthy that it implies that the Ascension had already
taken place. This appears from a comparison of
John xx. 17 (" Touch me not ; for I am not yet ascended
to the Father : but go to my brethren, and say unto
them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father ; and
to my God, and your God ") with John xx. 27 (" Reach
hither thy finger and see my hands, and reach thy hand
and put it into my side"). In the former passage
St Mary is told not to touch because the Ascension

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 137
has not yet been accomplished; in the latter passage
St Thomas is invited to touch. What conclusion can
be drawn except that the reason given in the former
passage no longer existed at the time referred to in the
latter ?
In both these appearances it is noticeable that stress
is laid on two points which, to modern minds, appear
contradictory. On the one hand, the body of the risen
Lord was flesh and blood, in so far at least that it was
tangible, and contained marks which were recognised
as proving its identity with the body which had
suffered and been buried. On the other hand, the
Lord made his appearance in each case in a room in
which the doors had been shut. The fact that no
difficulty was felt in combining these two points in the
same narrative without giving any explanation of the
apparent contradiction is obviously important for the
purpose of this investigation, but its exact bearing must
be reserved for a later chapter (cf. p. 220 f.).
(4) The appearance in Galilee. — This incident is
described in John xxi., which, as has already been
explained, is an appendix to the rest of the gospel,
though it is doubtful whether it was added by the
author, or by someone else who more or less success
fully imitated his style. It may be divided into two
parts : first, the appearance of the Lord and the draught

138 THE RESURRECTION
of fishes ; and, secondly, the so-called restitution of St
Peter. The former is contained in John xxi. 1-14, and
runs as follows : —
After this Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples
at the sea of Tiberias ; and on this wise manifested he him
self. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas
called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the
sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon
Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him.
We also come with thee. They went forth, and entered
into the boat ; and that night they caught nothing. But
when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the beach :
but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus
saith unto them, Children, have ye anything to eat ? They
answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net
on the right side of the boat, and ye shall find. They
cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for
the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom
Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when
Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his coat
unto him (for he was naked), and cast himself into the
sea. And the other disciples came in the little boat (for
they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred
cubits), dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as
they were come to land, they saw a fire of charcoal there,
and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them,
Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. Simon
Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes,
an hundred and fifty and three : and for all there were so
many, yet was not the net torn. Jesus saith unto them,
Come and break your fast. And none of the disciples
durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the
Lord. Jesus cometh, and taketh the bread, and giveth

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 139
them, and fish likewise. This is now the third time that
Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after that he was
risen from the dead.
It is plain that the main question here must be the
relation between this passage and the parallel account
of a wonderful draught of fishes in Luke v. 4 ff., which
runs as follows : —
And when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Put
out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught.
And Simon answering said, Master, we have toiled all the
night, and have taken nothing : nevertheless at thy word
1 will let down the nets. And when they had this done,
they inclosed a great multitude of fishes : and their nets
began to break. And they beckoned unto their partners
in the other boat, that they should come and help them.
And they came, and filled both the boats, so that they
began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell
down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me ; for I am
a sinful man, O Lord. For he was astonished, and all that
were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had
taken : and so were also James, and John, the sons of
Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said
unto Simon, Fear not ; from henceforth thou shalt catch
men. And when they had brought their boats to land,
they forsook all, and followed him.
Much has been written on this subject, but no decisive
results have been reached. It seems very improbable
that there is any literary dependence on either side;
the verbal similarity is not close enough to warrant
such a view. At the same time, the contents of the

140 THE RESURRECTION
two narratives so closely agree that there is a good case
for the view that we have to do with two traditions as
to one event. Moreover, there is an obvious connexion
between Luke v. 1-11 and Mark i. 16-20. The latter
is as follows : —
And as he passed along by the sea of Galilee, he saw
Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into
the sea : for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto
them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become
fishers of men. And straightway they forsook their nets,
and followed him. And when he had gone a little farther
thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his
brother, who also were in the boat mending their nets.
And straightway he called them ; and they left their
father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and
went after him.
St Luke clearly regarded the two accounts as alter
natives, and preferred the one which contained the story
of the wonderful draught of fishes to Mark, which
did not. Thus there is something to be said for the
suggestion that both in Luke v. and John xxi. we have
nothing more than elaborated (and in the latter case
misplaced) accounts of the call of St Peter, of which we
have a simpler and early narrative in Mark. But it is
not certain that this hypothesis ought to be adopted
without amendment. It is indeed probable that St
Luke regarded his narrative as a substitute for the
Marcan one, and it is probable that this preference

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 141
ought not to be followed ; it is also probable that the
Johannine account refers to the same event as the Lucan
one. But the doubtful point is whether St Luke or
the redactor of John xxi. ought to be followed in
the position they assign to their narrative. Was it
originally connected with the call or with the restitution
of St Peter ? If it be connected with the former — that
is, if Luke be right — then the Johannine passage is no
longer evidence for the details of an appearance of the
risen Lord in Galilee, though it still points to the fact
that the redactor of John xxi. knew the tradition of
such an appearance, even if he was ignorant of the
details. If it be connected with the latter — that is, if
the Johannine redactor be right — then it suggests the
possibility that this account really represents the
original Galilean tradition, and one form of this view
which has found much favour in Germany goes further
and connects it with the lost conclusion of Mark ; but
this theory must be dealt with a little later, as it
embraces both parts of John xxi.
The second part of John xxi. is verses 15-23, and
runs as follows : —
So when they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to
Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than
these ? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord : thou knowest
that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

142 THE RESURRECTION
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of John,
lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou
knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my
sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of
John, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved because he
said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he
said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest
that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young,
thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest :
but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy
hands and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither
thou wouldest not. And this spake he, signifying by what
death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken
this, he saith unto him, Follow me. Peter, turning about,
seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following ; which also
leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, who is he
that betrayeth thee ? Peter therefore seeing him saith to
Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do ? Jesus saith unto
him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ?
follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the
brethren, that that disciple should not die : yet Jesus said
not unto him, that he should not die ; but, If I will that
he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ?
This incident is generally known as the restitution of
St Peter. As there is no other account of such an
incident in any of the other gospels, there is no problem
connected with it of the same kind as the connexion of
the previous section with Luke v. 1-11. It is in this
present form closely connected with the wotfderful
draught of fishes ; but just as the evidence of Mark

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 143
shows that the earliest tradition of the call of St Peter
was not connected with a wonderful draught, but that
a later tradition established this connexion, so it is
possible that there was an earlier tradition as to the
restitution of St Peter which stood by itself.
The internal evidence of the passage does not tell
us much which is important for the present purpose.
It would seem to have been written after the death
of St Peter, and the most natural meaning of the last
verse is that the beloved disciple himself was also
dead, and that the story was published in consequence
of this, as an appendix to the gospel which he had
written, or was assumed to have written. But these
indications are not sufficient to date the document
with any exactness.
Taking this chapter as a whole, one now has to face
the theory of Rohrbach,1 adopted by Harnack, that
it represents the lost conclusion of Mark. There is
certainly not a little to be said for this hypothesis.
In all probability the lost conclusion contained an
account of an appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee ;
and Rohrbach urges with much plausibility that it
must also have contained some account of the restitu
tion of St Peter after his denial of the Lord. The
1 Cf. P. Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Marcusevangelium, and
A. Harnack, Chronologie, i. p. 696 f.

144 THE RESURRECTION
main objection to the theory is that the style of
John xxi., though peculiar in some points, is much
more Johannine than Marcan. If it really represents
the conclusion of Mark, it has been very freely edited.
This objection weighs so much with me that I am
inclined to accept Rohrbach's theory in only a modified
form. It seems to me improbable that John xxi.
represents the actual use of the actual Marcan docu
ment ; but it may, and probably does, represent the
same tradition. Thus it is evidence that the lost
section of Mark contained an account of an appearance
on the Lake of Galilee. Whether it contained an
account of a wonderful draught of fishes is more
doubtful. It is possible that it did, but to me it
seems more probable that the account in John xxi.
stands in this respect to the lost conclusion of Mark
just as the account of the call of St Peter in Luke
stands to that in Mark. In each case the earliest
narrative did not include a wonderful draught of
fishes; but there was probably a vague "unlocated"
tradition as to this, which different writers connected
with different incidents. On this, or on any similar
view, it is of course probable that the story originally
represented the first appearance of the risen Lord.
As the story stands at present it is the third appear
ance, and the redactor implies that for some reason,

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 145
which he does not relate, the disciples returned to
Galilee, after the first appearances of the risen Lord
in Jerusalem. It is, however, plain that this state
ment is very likely to be the work of a redactor, and
if one accepts the view that it is in any way connected
with the Marcan tradition, it is almost necessary to
say that on this point the redactor has been led into
a false reckoning, through a desire to reconcile his
source with the Jerusalem narrative. There can be
no real question that St Mark intended to describe
the disciples as going to Galilee before, not after,
the first appearance of the Lord.
Thus, with the exception of two points, it is possible
to form a clear idea of the view which the redactor of
the Fourth Gospel formed of the events connected with
the Resurrection.
When the Lord died, the Jews prepared to fulfil the
law by burying the body ; but Joseph of Arimathaea
and Nicodemus, two secret disciples, obtained leave
from Pilate to undertake this duty, and gave the
body full and costly burial rites in a mausoleum, in
the middle of which the corpse was placed. On
the morning of the first day of the week, Mary
Magdalene came to the grave, and, finding it open,
thought that the body had been stolen. She reported

146 THE RESURRECTION
this to the disciples, and two of them, St Peter and
the beloved disciple, came to see for themselves.
They found the facts as St Mary had reported, but
the writer has left it difficult to say whether one or
both regarded this as evidence that her view was right,
or accepted it as proof that the Lord was risen. In
any case, St Mary retained her opinion, and remained
weeping by the tomb. She then looked in, and saw
sitting by the grave two angels, who asked her why
she wept. She gave no answer, but turned away,
and then was greeted by the Lord, who appeared to
her in a form which she at first mistook for the
gardener. He entrusted her with the message of his
Resurrection and approaching Ascension. Later on in
the same day, the Lord appeared in bodily form to
the disciples and gave them the Holy Spirit. St
Thomas was absent and did not believe the disciples'
report, but a week later the Lord appeared again and
convinced him.
So far the story is plain, with the exception of the
important question that it is not clear whether the
writer means that St Peter and the other disciple
were or were not convinced of the Resurrection by
the empty tomb. But at this point the difficulty
arises whether the last chapter ought to be reckoned
as part of the original gospel or not. If it ought,

THE NARRATIVE IN FOURTH GOSPEL 147
or if we are only concerned with the view of the last
redactor of the canonical text, we must add that the
story then represents the disciples as returning to
Galilee after the appearances in Jerusalem. Here
the Lord appeared to them on the Lake of Galilee,
in connexion with the miraculous draught of fishes
and the restitution of St Peter.
That this tradition is quite different from that in
Mark is obvious ; but it is in itself fairly plain and
intelligible. It remains for another chapter to discuss
the more difficult question of its comparison with the
Marcan narrative, and the relative merits of the two
traditions.

CHAPTER V
THE ACCOUNTS OF THE RESURRECTION
IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS
Besides the canonical accounts of the Resurrection
and the incidents connected with it, there are many
apocryphal narratives. The majority of these are so
obviously unhistorical that they do not call for considera
tion at length ; x but there are two which have some
what higher claims. These are the Gospel of Peter and
the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
(1) The Gospel of Peter. — This apocryphal gospel
has a remarkable and interesting history. Eusebius2
tells us that Serapion, who was bishop of Antioch
c. 189-203, found that the church at Rhosus, on the
coast of Cilieia, was in the habit of using a " Gospel
of Peter." During a visit to this town he had glanced
at the book, and authorised its use ; but after
wards hearing that it was of Docetic origin and was
1 See Appendix B. 2 Hist. Eccl. vi. 12.
148

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 149
popular among heretics, he withdrew his sanction.
Beyond this story we have references in Origen and
Jerome which may relate to the same book, but until
1886-7 nothing more definite was known of it. In that
winter the French Archaeological Mission discovered in a
grave at Panopolis a little MS., probably of the fifth
century, containing fragments of Greek writing. This
was published in 1892 by M. Bouriant, and identified as
part of the lost Gospel of Peter. The fragment recovered
contains the sections giving the end of the Trial, the
Crucifixion, the Burial, and the Resurrection, and when
it breaks off it is clearly leading up to an account of an
appearance in Galilee. It is difficult to say what are
the relations of this document to the canonical gospels,
or what is its date and origin. It seems certain that
it made use of Mark, and, according to most writers,
probably of Matthew, but that it shows knowledge of
Luke and John is doubtful (to my own mind impro
bable), and various details of more or less legendary
character have been added from other sources which
cannot be identified. It is impossible to say exactly
whether the sources which it used were textually
identical with the canonical gospels or were recensions
earlier than any now extant. On the one hand, the
compiler may have used the sources of the canonical
gospels, or, on the other hand, a harmony of the gospels,

150 THE RESURRECTION
such as was made by Tatian. Its date depends partly
on the question whether it was used by Justin (c. 150)
or not ; but it is probable that it is not earlier than
100 a.d., and not much later than 130 a.d. Personally,
I think the earlier date the more probable, but it is
unnecessary to discuss the point here. Its origin cannot
be defined further than that it belonged to a Docetic,
but not to an extreme Docetic circle, and it may be
doubted how far, when it was written, its compiler could
have recognised that there was anything in it which
was likely to be offensive to other Christians.
It seems best, in dealing with the account of the
Resurrection given in this document, to depart slightly
from the method followed in discussing the canonical
gospels. The latter are so generally well known that
their purport is common knowledge, and it is only
necessary to draw attention to details and difficulties,
which are often overlooked owing to the general
familiarity of the narrative. But the Gospel of Peter
is not well known, except to students, and therefore it
is preferable to give its narrative as a whole rather than
in paragraphs. It runs thus 1 : —
Chapter II. Now there stood there Joseph, the friend
of Pilate and of the Lord ; and knowing that they were
1 The translation given is taken, with his permission, from Prof.
H. B. Swete's edition of the Gospel of Peter.

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 151
about to crucify him, he came to Pilate, and begged the
body of the Lord for burial. And Pilate sent to Herod,
and begged his body ; and Herod said, Brother Pilate,
even if no man had begged him, we should bury him,
inasmuch as the sabbath draweth on ; for it is written
hi the Law that the sun set not on one that hath died
by violence.
IV. . . . And they had indignation against him and
commanded that his legs should not be broken, to the end
that he might die in torment.
V. . . . And the Lord cried aloud, saying, My power,
my power thou hast left me ; and having said this he was
taken up. And the same hour the veil of the temple of
Jerusalem was torn in twain.
VI. And then they drew the nails from the hands of
the Lord, and laid him upon the earth ; and the whole
earth was shaken, and great fear came upon them. Then
the sun shone out, and it was found to be the ninth hour.
But the Jews rejoiced, and they gave his body to Joseph
to bury it, inasmuch as he beheld all the good things that
he did. So he took the Lord and washed him, and
wrapped him in linen and brought him into his own tomb,
called Joseph's Garden.
VII. Then the Jews and the elders and the priests,
knowing what evil they had done to themselves, began to
bewail and say, Woe to our sins ! the judgment is at hand
and the end of Jerusalem. And I with my fellows was in
sorrow, and being wounded at heart we hid ourselves, for
we were sought for by them as malefactors and as minded
to burn the temple ; and besides all this we were fasting,
and we sat mourning and weeping night and day until the
sabbath. VIII. But the scribes and Pharisees and elders, being
assembled together, and hearing that the whole people

152 THE RESURRECTION
murmured and beat their breasts, saying, If these exceed
ing great signs were wrought at his death, see how
righteous he was — the elders were afraid and came to
Pilate, beseeching him and saying, Deliver to us soldiers
that we may guard his sepulchre for three days, lest his
disciples come and steal him away and the people suppose
that he is risen from the dead and do us mischief. So
Pilate delivered unto them Petronius the centurion with
soldiers to guard the tomb ; and with them there came elders
and scribes to the sepulchre, and having rolled a great stone
with 1 the centurion and the soldiers, all who were there
together, placed it at the door of the sepulchre : and they
spread upon it seven seals and pitched a tent there and
kept guard. Now when it was morning, at the dawning
of the sabbath, there came a crowd from Jerusalem and
the country round about to see the sepulchre, how it had
been sealed.
IX. Now on the night when the Lord's day was draw
ing on, as the soldiers kept guard by two and two in a
watch, there was a great voice in heaven, and they saw
the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence
with much light and draw nigh unto the tomb. And the
stone which had been cast at the door rolled away of
itself and made way in part, and the tomb was opened,
and both the young men entered in. The soldiers, there
fore, when they saw it, awakened the centurion and the
elders (for they were also there keeping watch) ; and as
they told the things that they had seen, again they see
three men coming forth from the tomb, two of them
supporting the other, and a cross following them ; and
the head of the two reached to heaven, but that of him
who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And
they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Didst thou
1 Emending the text ; Dr Swete reads "against."

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 153
preach to them that sleep ? x And a response was heard
from the cross, Yea.
X. They took counsel therefore with one another to go
and show these things unto Pilate. And while they yet
thought on this, the heavens again appeared to open, and
a man descended and entered into the sepulchre. When
they saw this, they of the centurion's company hastened
by night to Pilate, leaving the tomb which they were
guarding, and told all they had seen, greatly distressed,
and saying, Truly he was the Son of God. Pilate
answered and said, I am clean from the blood of the
Son of God, but this was your pleasure. Then they
all came near and besought him, and entreated him to
command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing
as to the things which they had seen ; for it is expedient
for us (they said) to be guilty of a very great sin before
God, and not to fall into the hands of the people of the
Jews and be stoned. Pilate therefore commanded the
centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
XI. Now at dawn on the Lord's Day, Mary Magdalene,
a female disciple of the Lord — afraid by reason of the
Jews, forasmuch as they were inflamed by wrath, she had
not done at the sepulchre of the Lord what women are
wont to do for those who die and who are dear to them —
took with her her female friends, and came to the sepulchre
where he was laid. And they feared lest the Jews should
see them ; and they said, Although we could not weep
and bewail him on the day when he was crucified, let
us do so now at his sepulchre. But who shall roll us
away the stone which was laid at the door of the sepulchre,
that we may enter in and sit by him and do the things
that are due? for the stone was great and we fear lest
any man see us. And if we cannot, even though we
1 Dr Swete does not read this as a question.

154 THE RESURRECTION
should cast at the door the things which we bring for a
memorial of him, we will weep and bewail him until we come
to our house. So they went and found the tomb open,
and they came near and stooped down to look in there ;
and they see there a young man sitting in the midst of
the tomb, fair and clothed with a robe exceeding bright,
who said to them, Wherefore have ye come ? whom seek
ye ? him who was crucified ? He is risen and gone.
But if ye believe not, stoop down and look in and see the
place where he lay, for he is not here ; for he is risen
and gone thither from whence he was sent. Then the
women fled affrighted.
XII. Now it was the last day of unleavened bread, and
many went out of the city, returning to their houses, the
feast being at an end. And we, the twelve disciples of
the Lord, wept and were in sorrow, and every man with
drew to his house, sorrowing for that which had come to
pass. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took
our nets and went to the sea ; and there was with us
Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord . . .
In this account the following points are noteworthy : —
1. In chapters ii. and vi., which narrate the burial,
Joseph of Arimathaea is represented as a friend (not a
disciple) of the Lord and of Pilate, who made arrange
ments for the burial before the crucifixion. There
seems to be a trace of the tradition found in John
that the Jews began to prepare for the burial, but it is
in the form that they would have undertaken it if
Joseph had not intervened. The reference to the law
of Deuteronomy implied in John is here explicit. It

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 155
has been suggested that this implies knowledge of the
Fourth Gospel ; but all that can fairly be said is that
it represents in the main the same type of tradition ;
there is no verbal similarity such as would prove the
use of the Fourth Gospel as an actual source, and if the
writer had been using it, it is not probable that he
would have described burial rites much simpler than
those in John, and have completely omitted Nicodemus'
share in them.
2. In chapter v. the Ascension is represented as
taking place at the moment of death on the cross. At
first sight this seems inconsistent in an account which
afterwards narrates the Resurrection. But the apparent
inconsistency can be explained as due to the peculiarity
of the doctrine of the Docetics, from whose circle the
Gospel of Peter came. There were many sorts of
Docetics ; the greater part at a later time were
advanced Gnostics, but probably the earlier types
were less extravagant. There seems to have been a
tendency in most of them to distinguish the man
Jesus from the Christ — the divine spirit who dwelt
in him. Irenaeus supplies us with valuable informa
tion on this point. Speaking of one of the Docetic
sects (the Ophites), he says (i. 28, 7, ed. Harvey):
" They say that the Christ himself retired with Wisdom
to the incorruptible ./Eon, but Jesus was crucified. Yet

156 THE RESURRECTION
the Christ did not forget Jesus,1 but sent down a
Power on him, which animated him in a bodily form of
the kind which they call ' of soul and spirit' (i.e.
\frvxiKOv ko.) TrvevfxaTiKov), but the material part he
gave back to the world of matter (i.e. left in the
grave)." This sufficiently explains the Gospel of Peter.
At the moment of death Christ left the human Jesus
and ascended to heaven. But power descended later
on and raised Jesus from the dead. This power is
clearly to be identified with the two angels which
were seen entering the tomb and bringing out the
resuscitated Lord.
3. In chapters vii. and xii. the conduct of the disciples
is described. They were sought for by the Jews
throughout the Friday, but succeeded in hiding them
selves until the Sabbath. On the last day of unleavened
bread they separated to their homes ; and St Peter, St
Andrew, and " Levi the son of Alphaeus " returned to
" the sea " (i.e. of Galilee) to resume their occupation of
fishermen. There is no suggestion that they had seen
the Lord in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. It is,
however, not easy to fix the day on which the writer
intends to place their departure. Strictly, the last day
of unleavened bread was Nisan 21 — a week after the
Crucifixion. Professor Swete, in his edition of the
1 Adopting Harvey's emendation.

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 157
Gospel of Peter, thinks that this is really the meaning
of the writer ; but it seems so improbable that he would
have passed abruptly over from the Sunday to the Friday
without assigning any events to the intervening days,
that it is preferable to adopt the suggestion of M. Lods
that the writer is under the influence of the Christian
custom, which regarded Easter Day as the completion
ofthe Pasch. If so, the writer means that the disciples
stayed in hiding in or near Jerusalem so long as the
fury of the crowd lasted, and then, as soon as the
Sabbath was over, returned to their homes in Galilee or
elsewhere. 4. In chapters viii.-x. the story of the guard at the
tomb resembles that in Matthew, though there are con
siderable differences. The agreement in more than one
place is verbally so close that it seems at first sight
clearly probable that the writer was acquainted with
Matthew. But if so he has considerably modified the
tradition. In Matthew it is not quite certain,
though probable, that the guard was one of Roman
soldiers. " Peter " makes this plain, and gives corrobora
tive details. Matthew represents the soldiers as re
porting their experiences to the chief priests ; " Peter "
sends them directly to Pilate. Moreover, "Peter"
represents the Jews as themselves watching by the grave,
independently of the guard. The question is whether

158 THE RESURRECTION
these differences are compatible with the literary use of
Matthew. Certainly they would not be if early writers
had regarded their sources as authoritative documents.
But when the Gospel of Peter was written, this is just
what Matthew had not yet become. It would have
been for " Peter " a written statement of facts which he
had often heard spoken- of. He was, therefore, willing
to use it, but felt at liberty to remodel or correct its
statements as he thought right ; it is even possible that,
like Papias, he had a tendency to depreciate written
sources. Thus the use of Matthew is quite possible ;
but the possibility is not excluded that Matthew and
" Peter " are two divergent forms of the same tradition,
and personally I am inclined to regard this view as
perhaps slightly the more probable.
5. In chapter ix. there is an explicit account of the
Resurrection, which has no exact parallel in the gospels,
but seems to embody various details found especially
in Matthew. It is easy to see that the two young men
who descended from heaven and entered the tomb cor
respond to the great angel of the Lord in Matthew,
though, as in John, they have been doubled. Their
object was not, as in Matthew, to roll away the stone,
which moved of itself, but, as was shown above, probably
was the raising of the human Jesus, whom the Christ
had left at the Crucifixion. Perhaps, however, the most

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 159
remarkable features in the account are the supernatural
stature of the resuscitated Jesus and the personification
of the Cross. The former point is probably a trace of
the Jewish legend quoted by Dr Swete in his comment
on this passage: "The first man extended from the
earth to the firmament . . . and inasmuch as he
sinned, the Holy One . . . placed his hand upon him
and made him small." The suggestion is that the
glorified man resumed the stature which Adam had lost.
The second point is more difficult to explain ; but
whatever may be the origin of it, the fact is certain that
there was a widespread tendency to regard the Crucified
as taking the Cross x with him, and a great mass of sym
bolism grew up round the Cross. Illustrative passages
are quoted by Dr Swete.
It is plain that the words of chapter ix. refer to the
descent into Hades, which is not mentioned in the
gospels, but plays a large part in apocryphal literature,
as well as in the development of early Christian doctrine
and art.
6. In chapter xi. the narrative takes up the thread
of the Marcan account. The agreement is here verbally
1 It is said that in Egypt the cross was a symbol of life which was
sometimes placed in tombs. This fact may prove to be important,
but it has not yet been fully worked out. Prof. Volter has also
suggested Egyptian parallels for the two angels. Cf. Zeitschrift fiir
N.T. Wissenschaft, 1905, iv. pp. 370 ff.

160 THE RESURRECTION
so close that there is no room for doubt that the writer
was actually using Mark, though with much freedom.
The following points are noteworthy: — (a) Unlike
Matthew, he does not identify the young man of Mark
with the angel (or angels) who descended at the time
when the stone was rolled away, and, in order to
explain the presence of the young man whom the
women find, he introduces in chapter x. "a certain
man" who descended from heaven and entered the
tomb, (b) The women's object in coming to the tomb
is changed from the anointing of the body into a desire
to place at the tomb the spices which would have been
thus used under other circumstances. It will be re
membered that a somewhat similar alteration is made
in Matt, xxviii. 1, when it is said that the women
came to see the grave. In each case the reason is the
same. Matthew and Peter have\ both adopted an
account of seals on the tomb and a guard appointed
especially to watch that no disciple entered it. Clearly
this is inconsistent with an attempt to anoint the dead
body, but as both Matthew and Peter preferred the
story of the guard to the Marcan account, the former
dropped the anointing absolutely, and the latter
changed it into a kind of votive offering of the spices.
(c) The message of the young man is rewritten. The
main point of difference is that the statement " He is

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 161
risen and gone away whence he was sent " takes the place
of the Marcan " He goes before you into Galilee." One
may suppose that "Peter" objected to these words as
seeming to imply a continuance of the earthly ministry,
and that he wished to emphasise his view that both the
Christ and Jesus had now been exalted to heaven, (d)
" Peter " omits the definite statement that the women
did not say anything to anyone about their experience,
but surely implies it in the sorrow attributed to the
disciples in chapter xii.
7. In chapter xii., where the manuscript breaks off,
it is clearly leading up to an account of an appearance
of the risen Lord on the Sea of Galilee. Many writers
have adopted the view that this must mean that
" Peter " went on to narrate the incident recorded in
John xxi. But beyond the fact that both "Peter"
and John xxi. narrate or imply an appearance to the
disciples on the Sea of Galilee, there is nothing to
support the suggestion ; and decidedly adverse to it
is the lack of agreement as to the names of the
disciples. Another suggestion is that "Peter" was
acquainted with, and is using, the lost conclusion of
Mark. In favour of this view are two main arguments.
In the first place, up to this point the last chapters
of the Gospel of Peter seem to be based on Mark.
There is thus a certain probability that the redactor
11

162 THE RESURRECTION
is still using this source. In the second place, Levi,
the son of Alphaeus, is a name which is only found
elsewhere in Mark ii. 14. In the parallel passages in
Matthew and Luke he is called respectively Matthew
and Levi, without mentioning his father. It is also
noteworthy that the conduct of the disciples as
described above agrees better with what may be best
imagined to have been the contents of the lost con
clusion than with any other known document. I am
therefore inclined to accept the suggestion that
"Peter" was acquainted with and used the lost con
clusion of Mark. Unfortunately, what we have seen
of "Peter's" methods as an editor does not point to
the advisability of regarding his paraphrase as trust
worthy. It may be taken with comparative safety to
show that the lost conclusion described an appearance
of the Lord to St Peter, and to some of the other
disciples, on the Sea of Galilee. It also supports the
statement that Mark regarded the disciples as going
to Galilee in despair without having heard anything
of the young man's message to the women. The
really difficult and important question is whether we
can trust it when it represents the disciples as staying
in hiding in Jerusalem until after the Sabbath. It is
impossible to answer this question with any confidence :
the writer of the gospel seems in any case to have

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 163
confused the chronology of the Passover, but there
seems to be no reason why he should have invented
the story that the disciples spent a day, or even two
days, in hiding in or near Jerusalem until the passion
of the mob died down, unless he had found it in his
source — that is to say, in the lost conclusion of Mark.
(2) The Gospel according to the Hebrews. — The
history of this document is one of the most perplex
ing and most frequently discussed problems in the
whole of early Christian literature. The main points
are these : — Papias of Hierapolis, writing not later
than 140 a.d., says that Matthew wrote "the Oracles"
(to. Xoyia) in the Hebrew (which may mean Aramaic)
language. It is possible that he meant our Matthew,
in which case he was probably wrong, as nothing is
more certain than that, as it stands, Matthew is not
a direct translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic book,
but is based on Greek documents. It is, however,
more probable that Papias was not alluding to our
Matthew, but to one of the sources, which, though
used in Greek translations by the redactor of our
gospel, were originally Aramaic. However this may
be, Papias' statement certainly gave rise to the tradi
tion of a Hebrew gospel behind the canonical
Matthew. When, therefore, Jerome at the end of
the fourth century went to Palestine and found an

164 THE RESURRECTION
Aramaic gospel in existence, he naturally assumed
that it was the original Matthew. Whether he found
one or two such gospels is not quite certain — two is
more probable — but in any case he studied them and
apparently made Greek and Latin translations. These
have not survived, but enough quotations have been
preserved by him and other writers to show that it
was probably not an Aramaic version of a canonical
gospel, but an independent and inferior document,
though there is, perhaps, still room for doubt on the
point. There are only two extant fragments which
refer to the Resurrection, both quoted by Jerome.
1. But the Lord, when he had given the linen sheet to
a servant of the Priest, went to James and appeared to
him, for James had sworn that he would not eat bread
from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the
Lord until he saw him rising from those that slept. . . .
The Lord said, "Bring ye a table and bread." . . . He took
bread and blessed and brake, and gave to James the Just,
and said to him, " My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son
of Man has risen from them that sleep" (De Fir. ill. 2).
In spite of the unimportant lacunae, this account is
clear and circumstantial as far as it goes ; it is obviously
connected with the tradition mentioned by St Paul
of the appearance to St James, but its exact relation
to this and its consequent value must be considered
later.

THE ACCOUNTS IN APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 165
2. "Touch me and see that I am not an incorporeal
spirit;" and immediately they touched him and believed
(De Fir. ill. 16).
Jerome says that these words were spoken on the
occasion of the Lord's appearance to St Peter and
the other disciples who were with him. It is apparently
the same tradition as is found in Luke xxiv. 39, and
is quoted in almost the same words by Ignatius
(Smyrn. iii. 2). It is only important in that it sug
gests, if Jerome's view of the context may be trusted,
that St Peter was present on this occasion.

CHAPTER VI
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EARLIEST
TRADITION
The historian is above everything else inspired by the
desire to know the truth; but experience has taught
that this knowledge can only be reached by stages.
Thus in practice the desire to know the truth about
any given event in history results in the attempt to
answer three questions : first, what is the extant
evidence? secondly, what is the original tradition?
thirdly, what are the actual facts ? In each case the
answer to one question provides the means of stating,
and perhaps of solving, the problems belonging to the
next. The finished article of one stage is the raw
material of another.
In the preceding chapters an attempt was made to
deal with the first of these questions, and to collect
and set out all the narratives which have any serious
claim to give valuable historical information as to the
16a

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 167
Resurrection of Jesus Christ ; but the reconstruction
from them of the earliest tradition was not attempted,
and it is this which is the subject of the present
chapter. In any such attempt it is desirable to remember that
the reconstruction of an original tradition from forms
of later dates and of divergent contents must be
guided by exactly the same principle as is the recon
struction of an original text from a number of extant
MSS. In each case the fundamental problem is the
retracing of the line of development followed by the
various authorities, and the solution depends chiefly
on the ability to detect errors of transmission and to
explain their existence. But, partly because theirs is
a more concrete line of study, textual critics enjoy
the advantage over historians of more definitely recog
nised rules, and especially of the classic statement
of them given by Dr Hort. According to him the
guiding principles are two — intrinsic probability and
transcriptional probability. If we make a slight
change and speak of traditional instead of trans
criptional probability, these terms suit equally well
the task of the historical critic. He is as a rule
confronted with a number of statements which seem
to refer to the same events, but are mutually contra
dictory. To guide him through this maze of partial

168 THE RESURRECTION
agreement and partial contradiction, he has two clues.
He first asks which form of the narrative is the
more probable in itself — that is the test of intrinsic
probability. Then he has to ask which forms of the
story can be eliminated as developments of others —
that is traditional probability — and under favourable
circumstances this method ought to lead to the
establishment of a genealogical tree of the various
forms of extant tradition branching out from the
earliest, just as it leads in textual criticism to the
grouping of MSS. according to families. One other
point must be noted : in textual criticism it is well
known that " conflation " or mixture of texts is one
of the most general phenomena. A scribe found two
phrases in the same place in different MSS., and
instead of choosing one he combined them and put
down both in the copy which he made. It is exactly
the same in tradition. Confronted by two accounts of
the same event, the early narrator (and I think the
natural man in all ages) did not usually take one and
reject the other. He often kept both; sometimes
combining them artistically, but not infrequently quite
mechanically, so that what were originally two
divergent accounts of one event became one account
of two consecutive events. As I hope to show, this
factor has often to be reckoned with in discussing the

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 169
Resurrection ; and in general it may be said that the
fact that the early narrator was usually synthetic
justifies the critic in being usually analytic.
On these lines the material collected in the foregoing
chapter must be used. We desire to get behind the
tradition as it was when the gospels were written, to its
earliest possible form. For this purpose a division of
the material is desirable into five headings, according to
its contents: (1) the burial; (2) the events at the
tomb on the third morning ; (3) the appearances of
the risen Lord; (4) the descent into Hades; (5) the
ascent into Heaven.
(1) The burial. — Of this we have two full accounts
in the Marcan and Johannine narratives, and an
additional incident — the guard at the tomb — in
Matthew and the Gospel of Peter. The Marcan
narrative is represented in Matthew and Luke as well
as in Mark, but, as was shown in chapter ii., neither the
Matthean nor Lucan alterations seem to be more than
redactorial work intended to elucidate ambiguities or
difficulties in Mark. The Johannine narrative is
represented by John, and has perhaps also influenced
the Gospel of Peter. Are these accounts contradictory
or complementary ? They agree in ascribing the burial
of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathaea and in placing the
grave near the site of the Crucifixion ; but there the

170 THE RESURRECTION
agreement ends, and for the details they are contra
dictory. This may be seen most clearly if they are
compared on quite concrete points — the nature of the
tomb and the manner of the burial.
The nature of the tomb is defined in Mark as a
grave cut out of the rock. That is to say, it was one
of the ordinary rock-graves with which, according to the
writer of the article on " Burial " in Hastings' Dictionary
of the Bible, the neighbourhood of Jerusalem was
honeycombed. These graves (often called Kokim
graves) have frequently been described. They generally
consisted of a rectangular chamber, out of three sides
of which ran tunnels in which the bodies were deposited.
Directions for making them are to be found in the
Mishna. On the other hand, in John the grave was
a kind of mausoleum, a large chamber partly sunk in
the ground, with the place for the corpse in the middle,
closed by a stone which could be lifted, not rolled away
(cf. p. 134). If words be given the ordinary meaning,
these two accounts are contradictory.
The manner of the burial is described by the two
narratives with even less agreement. According to
Mark, Joseph came alone ; according to John, he was
accompanied by Nicodemus. According to Mark, the
body was merely wrapped in a shroud, and not anointed,
so that the women came after the Sabbath to supply

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 171
the deficiency. According to John, the two secret
disciples gave the body a full and costly burial, using
much myrrh and aloes, and no suggestion is made that
Mary Magdalene wished to supplement their actions.
Both accounts cannot be correct ; and it should be
noted that this is not merely an argument from silence,
for Mark does not merely not say that Joseph anointed
the body, but definitely ascribes to someone else the
wish to make up for his omission.
A less certain point of difference is to be seen in the
fact that Mark gives no motive for Joseph's undertaking
the burial, while John describes him as a secret disciple,
who intervened when the Jews were going to bury the
body. It may be said that in this case the two accounts
are clearly complementary, not contradictory ; but this
is scarcely true, for of all possible motives which might
have animated Joseph, discipleship is least in agreement
with the Marcan account. Mark says that Joseph was
a member of the Sanhedrim, and that he did not anoint
the body. Is it probable that a disciple would have
been the one or have omitted the other, or is it likely
that a member of the Sanhedrim would have intervened,
as John says that he did, when the Jews were on the
point of giving the body the common burial of
criminals ? Apparently the redactor of Matthew found
it improbable, for in editing Mark he omitted the

172 THE RESURRECTION
membership of the Sanhedrim, and by omitting the
reason for the women's visit to the tomb withdrew
attention from the unceremonious nature of Joseph's
burial. It is significant that these two omissions
are also found in John. Therefore one is justified
in thinking that the discipleship ascribed to Joseph
in John is not really to be reconciled with the Marcan
account. Thus we have to choose between the two accounts.
To do this we can apply the two tests — intrinsic
probability and traditional probability. The first of
these two asks which account is more probable having
regard to the circumstances, and this question must
be applied to the three points on which the two
accounts disagree — the character of the grave, the
method of burial, and the motive of Joseph of
Arimathaea. The first point — the character of the grave — is really
a question of archaeology, and the evidence of experts
is plain. The general custom in the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem was to make use of fissures or openings in
the rocks, more or less on the side of a hill or on the
face of a cliff, converting them into the Kokim tombs
described above. The custom differed in details : just
after the time of Christ shelves frequently began to
take the place of the tunnels previously used. But

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 173
the use of a chamber on the level with a place for
burial in the middle, and closed by a stone on the top,
such as is implied by John, was either unknown or very
rare. Archaeological probability is entirely in favour
of a tunnelled Kokim tomb, and so supports Mark.
The two other points cannot be separated from
one another ; nor can a decisive solution be given to
the questions they raise on the ground of intrinsic
probability. If Joseph was not a disciple, he probably
did not anoint the body ; if he was, he probably did.
Each account is self-consistent in this respect. But,
it may be said, has not John the advantage that it
gives a reasonable motive for Joseph's action, which
Mark does not? In other words, if Joseph was not
a disciple, why did he bury the Lord's body? This
seems at first sight a powerful argument, but there is
another motive, which would certainly have animated
all the members of the Sanhedrim — a desire to fulfil
the law of Deuteronomy quoted on p. 130. That this
enactment was by no means a dead letter in the time
of Christ may be seen from Josephus, who, speaking
of the murder of Joshua and Ananos by the Idumeans,
says, " They reached such a pitch of impiety that they
cast out their bodies unburied, though the Jews are
so concerned for burial that they take down before
sunset and bury those who have been condemned

174 THE RESURRECTION
and crucified" (B.J., iv. 5. 2, ed. Niese). There is
thus no doubt that this motive would have weighed
greatly with a member of the Sanhedrim who belonged
to the strict sect and "was expecting the kingdom
of God," and there is only one objection to the view
that this was Joseph's motive. It is said that if this
had been his motive he would have buried the Lord
in one of the common graves for criminals. That there
were such graves is rendered probable (though, consider
ing the date of the evidence, not certain) by a state
ment in Lightfoot's Horse Hebraicse on Matt, xxvii. 58,
from the Babylonian Mishna, to the effect that the
Sanhedrim had two common graves for criminals : one
for those put to death by the sword, and the other for
those stoned or burned. If Joseph was merely fulfilling
the law, why did he not use one of these graves ? This is
a serious but not fatal objection. Speed was essential ;
the law enjoined burial, and it also enjoined the
Sabbath rest. The only way of fulfilling the law of
burial without breaking the Sabbath law was to use
a grave close to the place of crucifixion. Thus, on the
assumption that Joseph was not a disciple, we can give
an explanation of his action which renders the Marcan
account self-consistent and probable, and the result of
a comparison of the Marcan and Johannine accounts,
from the point of view of intrinsic probability, is on

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 175
one point strongly in favour of Mark, and on the two
others as favourable to Mark as to John.
The same result is reached if we go on to the
consideration of "traditional probability," and ask
which tradition is likely to have given rise to the other.
If John represents the facts, how can they ever have
given rise to Mark ? If tradition had stated from the
beginning that Joseph was a secret disciple who, with
Nicodemus, gave the Lord a costly burial in a tomb of
a kind unusual in Jerusalem, how did the tradition
arise which omitted to state that he was a disciple,
said that he did not anoint the body, and that certain
women tried to supply the deficiency ? No satisfactory
reason can be given for the existence of Mark if John
be the earliest tradition.
But if we adopt the other hypothesis and assume
that Mark is the earlier, the development of the tradi
tion becomes intelligible. It was seen in chapter ii.
that there was a tendency to elaborate the Marcan
account in certain directions. The silence of Mark
as to Joseph's motive was remedied by attributing to
him either discipleship or sympathy ; the nature of the
burial was made more consistent with these motives ;
and more emphasis was laid on the nature of the
tomb, which in Luke has become one of " hewn stone "
instead of a tomb "cut out of the rock." These

176 THE RESURRECTION
alterations, as has been seen, can be perfectly well ex
plained as the natural emendations of redactors : some
of them betray their origin by not fitting well into
the framework of the tradition, and the general literary
dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark is clear.
John follows up these alterations, but goes further
and makes the whole narrative self-consistent. So far
as the motive of Joseph is concerned, the development
traced in Matthew is followed. We are no longer told
that Joseph is a member of the Sanhedrim, and the
anointing of the body is taken from the women and
given to Joseph and Nicodemus. In the same way,
as far as the character of the tomb is concerned,
John follows up the line of development which is
indicated in Luke. 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. The development is clear, and it is also
natural ; for it is quite intelligible that from the
beginning Christian feeling would have preferred to
believe that their Lord was buried by a disciple, and to
idealise the conditions of the burial, while the Marcan
phrase " was expecting the kingdom of God " would
soon have been given a Christian meaning, and would
have aided this preference.
John also, when regarded in this light gives an

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 177
answer to the question which might naturally be asked,
why it is that there is no definite trace in Christian
tradition of the attribution of the desire to fulfil the
law ? The answer is that there are traces both in John
and in the Gospel of Peter that it was recognised that
this motive had weight with the Jews. In John we
have the narrative that the Jews actually began to
undertake the burial before Joseph intervened ; and in
Peter the same type of tradition is presented in the
form that the Jews would have done this, had it not
been for Joseph's petition to Pilate. If John were
otherwise preferable to Mark, one would have no
difficulty in accepting this story as probably early and
historical. As it is, it can be explained most satis
factorily as due to confusion of theories originally
attaching to Joseph, one of which was separated from
its connexion with him and afterwards brought back
into the story in an altered form.
This can easily have been the case if we concede that
there probably was from the beginning alongside of
Mark a more or less vague tradition that the Sanhedrim
had taken measures for the burial of Jesus. This
tradition was, of course, perfectly true if Joseph acted
in any sense as the representative of the Sanhedrim ;
but as soon as the view gained ground that Joseph was
a disciple, and the fact that he was a member of the
12

178 THE RESURRECTION
Sanhedrim was consequently forgotten, it became unin
telligible, and had to be explained as something apart
from his action. This stage is found in John and in
the Gospel of Peter, and illustrates what was said on
p. 168, that the development of tradition often con
verts two diverse accounts of one incident into one
account of two consecutive incidents.
Thus the Marcan account seems to be preferable to
the Johannine, as well on grounds of traditional as of
intrinsic probability.
It remains to consider the detached episode of the
guard at the tomb. Is it possible that this is a genuine
remnant of correct tradition ?
Neither intrinsic nor traditional probability favours
its claim. If the form of the traditions in Matthew be
followed, it seems to imply a breach of the Sabbath law.
This law certainly would have forbidden the sealing of
the tomb, and probably the interview with Pilate.
Again, if, as seems probable, the guard was one of
Roman soldiers, it is unlikely that they would have
accepted any conceivable bribe to plead guilty to a
military offence — sleeping on duty — which was punish
able by death. These difficulties do not apply to the
narrative in the Gospel of Peter, which represents the
guard as set before the Sabbath and the Jews as
obtaining the silence of the soldiers by a confession of

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 179
their sin to Pilate. Yet it is scarcely necessary to
argue that this account is wildly improbable. A
further and perhaps greater difficulty is that both the
Ps-Petrine and Matthean accounts represent the Jews
as quite well acquainted with the belief that Jesus
would rise from the dead, whereas it is clear from the
gospels generally that this belief was not common.
Even if it be conceded that Christ prophesied his resur
rection, it is at least plain that these prophecies were
not understood by the disciples until after the event.
It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Jews were so
afraid of an attempt by the disciples to secure a false
fulfilment, or that they understood Christ's prophecy
before the disciples themselves. Thus intrinsic proba
bility is strongly opposed to the tradition. Even more
strongly opposed is traditional probability. If one
take the Johannine account, there is no room for the
guard at the tomb in the various events recorded as
taking place on the morning of the third day ; but still
more difficult is it if one take the Marcan narrative.
In the first place, the mission of the women shows that
the only difficulty which they anticipated in entering
the tomb to anoint the body was the stone at the
entrance. How can this be explained if there was a
guard at the tomb ? In the second place, Mark says
that the disciples were scattered, and probably implies

180 THE RESURRECTION
that they were hiding or had left Jerusalem for fear of
persecution. How can this be reconciled with the
idea that the Jews were afraid that the disciples would
steal the body ? It is impossible to find room for this
incident in the earliest tradition, and traditional pro
bability, in excluding its historicity, also suggests that
its origin was connected with the earliest controversies
of Jews and Christians. Faced by the Christian belief
in the Resurrection, and the implied or asserted empti
ness of the tomb, the Jews invented the explanation
that the disciples had stolen the body. The Christians
replied that this could not be, for the Jews themselves
had placed a guard at the tomb — some said at once,
others on the Sabbath after the burial. The Jews
retorted by asking why, if so, the soldiers had not seen
the Resurrection ; and the Christians replied that they
had done so, but had concealed their evidence — some
said because they had been bribed by the Jews, others
because Pilate had ordered them to do so. Thus the
most probable view is that this incident is nothing more
than a fragment of controversy, in which each imputed
unworthy motives to the other, and stated suggestions
as established facts. Any controversy in any age will
supply parallels.
This reconstruction of the genesis of the narrative is
of course not to be taken as more than a hypothesis ;

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 181
the important point is that we have in this tradition
points of contact on the one hand with the story
of the burial, and on the other with the early
Jewish-Christian controversy. We cannot find room
for it in the earliest known accounts of the burial, on
the assumption that it is true ; but we can explain its
origin quite intelligibly on the assumption that it arose
in the controversy owing to the action of influences
which in every age and in every land have always
influenced controversialists, and produced statements
which, though probably uttered in good faith, prove
to have no foundation in fact. It must therefore be
regarded as so probable as to be practically certain
that the story of the guard at the tomb had no place
in the earliest traditions as to the burial, is unhistorical,
and need not be further taken into account in consider
ing the evidence for the Resurrection of the Lord.
We are therefore justified in saying that the earliest
tradition as to the burial of the Lord is as follows : —
Contrary to all expectation, the Lord died in the early
afternoon of Friday. This was certainly unexpected,
for it was usual for crucified men to live on the cross
for days, and this was so well recognised in antiquity
that Origen ascribed the speedy death of the Lord to
a miracle. It then became necessary to carry out the
law of Deuteronomy and provide burial before sunset.

182 THE RESURRECTION
Pilate's leave to do this was obtained by Joseph of
Arimathaea, a member ofthe Sanhedrim and a strict Jew.
Joseph took the body and buried it near the place of
crucifixion in a rock-grave, which he closed, as was
usual, with a stone. His proceedings were watched by
the little band of sorrowing women, among them Mary
Magdalene, who had been spectators of the Crucifixion,
and they determined to come as soon as possible to
supplement the burial by the anointing which Joseph
had omitted. It is not stated whether Joseph acted
on his own initiative or as a representative of the
Sanhedrim, but the latter alternative is rendered
probable by the fact that the Sanhedrim would
certainly have thought itself bound to carry out the
law, and by the existence, though in a late and corrupt
form, of a tradition stating that the Jews, in order to
fulfil the law, prepared for the burial, apart from Joseph,
which probably is only a distorted reflection of the fact
that Joseph was the representative of the Sanhedrim,
and that his (or their) motive was the fulfilment of the
law of Deuteronomy.
(2) The events at the tomb on the third day. — Of
these events we have an account in Mark which,
variously combined with other traditions, appears also
in Matthew, in Luke, and in the Gospel of Peter, and
a different account (as it at least seems at first) in John.

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 183
As they stand these versions are contradictory,
though, as will be shown, it is probable that they all,
even John, are ultimately to be traced to one tradition.
The contradictions are to be found at many points. It
is unnecessary to attempt to give a full list of them,
but the following are the most noticeable : —
Mark says that the women saw a young man, and
found the stone rolled away from the tomb. Matthew,
though following Mark in the main, says that they saw
an angel of the Lord descend from heaven and roll
away the stone. Luke says that they saw two men.
John says that Mary Magdalene paid two visits to the
tomb ; the first time she saw no one, but found that the
stone had been lifted from the grave ; the second time she
saw first two angels and afterwards the Lord. Similarly,
the message to the women in Mark, followed by Matthew,
is that the Lord is risen, and will appear to the disciples
in Galilee ; in Luke, that he is risen, as he said to the
disciples in Galilee ; in " Peter," that he is risen, and
gone thither whence he was sent. Again, according to
Mark the women told no one, because they were afraid,
probably of the Jews, and probably because the dis
ciples (of whom they would not have been afraid) could
not be found. " Peter," at least in the main, follows
this account. Luke says that they told the disciples,
who did not believe them. John says that they told

184 THE RESURRECTION
the disciples, who verified the fact that the tomb was
empty, and that Mary Magdalene, remaining at the tomb,
saw first two angels and then the Lord himself. Matthew
also adds that on their way back the women saw the
Lord, but, as has been shown, this incident is in Matthew
merely a doublet of the appearance of the young man.
Finally, it must be noted that "Peter" prefaces the
account by a long statement as to the actual Resurrec
tion itself, which was seen by the guard at the tomb
and by the representatives of the Jews.
Thus no two accounts really agree. The question
therefore arises whether traditional or intrinsic proba
bility helps us to select any one of them as the earliest
form of the tradition, and to explain the origin of the
other forms as derived from it.
It is more convenient in this case to begin with
traditional probability. This is very strongly in favour
of Mark ; for if it be conceded that it is the earliest
form of the tradition, the others all fall into place in
an intelligible though complicated system of develop
ment under the influence of known causes.
This may be seen in each of the main points of the
narrative. The young man in Mark (followed in this
respect only by the second part of " Peter ") is a figure
who appears without any explanation of his identity
or mission : a fact which is entirely in keeping with

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 185
the assumption that the narrative is historical, for the
affrighted women would not have made inquiries on
these points at the moment.
Naturally, however, attempts were soon made to
identify him. The most obvious view for that genera
tion, in which angelology was so powerful a force, was
that he was an angel. This view is adopted in
Matthew; but when he was identified as an angel,
it was an inevitable step to go a little further, and
say that he was the angel who in Jewish mythology
was charged with the care of the souls of the dead,
and of the Resurrection.1 Still a further step is to
be found in the doubling of the angel, again strictly
in accordance with Jewish thought, in the earlier
part of the Gospel of " Peter " and in John, when Mary
Magdalene sees two angels in the tomb, and (with
apparently a curious verbal reminiscence of the original
form of the tradition which spoke of a man, not of an
angel) in Luke. Finally, the Ascension of Isaiah, still
in complete agreement with contemporary mythology,
identifies the two angels as Michael and Gabriel, stating
in the form of a prophecy that " Gabriel the angel of the
Holy Spirit, and Michael the chief of the Holy Angels,
on the third day will open the sepulchre, and the
Beloved, sitting on their shoulders, will come forth."
1 See Appendix A.

186 THE RESURRECTION
Another line of thought identified the young man as
the risen Lord. There is no extant document which
contents itself with this view, but it is to be traced in
Matthew (cf. p. 84 f.) and in John, in the appearance
of the Lord to Mary Magdalene.
It is obvious that these two identifications of the
young man are not reconcilable with each other. But
the methods of early Christian writers, whether dealing
with traditions in one generation or with textual
variations in another, led them to prefer combination
to selection. Thus it is not surprising to find that in
some narratives both identifications have been adopted.
In Matthew we have the appearance of the angel and
also of the Lord ; and here the conflation is so complete
that the same message is delivered twice. In John we
have a similar combination. In her second visit to the
tomb Mary Magdalene sees first two angels and after
wards the Lord, but the conflation is more artistically
concealed than in Matthew, as the message to the
disciples is only given once, by the Lord, though the
question leading up to it is left to the angels, who by
being deprived of the message are rendered an almost
functionless apparition. There is also perhaps a trace
of the original tradition in Mary's first idea that the
Lord was the gardener. The Gospel of Peter has
also combined explanations. It has first adopted the

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 187
development of the young man into angels, who are
given the function, which is also theirs in the Ascension
of Isaiah, of conducting the Lord from the tomb, not
of announcing the Resurrection to the women. But
not recognising that these two angels were a developed
form of the young man in Mark, the redactor has gone
on to add the Marcan narrative in a fairly close para
phrase, in which the young man appears as such
(though the context shows that he was regarded as
an angel), and in order to connect the two narratives
an account is given of his descent from heaven into
the tomb.
Similarly, with regard to the message delivered to the
women. The original Marcan form implies an appear
ance to the disciples in Galilee, and this has been kept
in Matthew, which also has the Galilean tradition.
But neither Luke, John, nor "Peter" could give the
message in this form, because they had adopted
inconsistent views. Luke and John preferred the
Jerusalem tradition; therefore in Luke the message
announcing an appearance in Galilee is changed into a
reference to a prophecy in Galilee ; while in John the
message is characteristically spiritualised — not Galilee,
but the Father, is the home to which Jesus goes. In
each case the message is thus made consistent with the
Jerusalem tradition. In "Peter," here clearly using

188 THE RESURRECTION
Mark, an intermediate form is found. The message
runs : " He is risen and gone thither from whence he
was sent," which surely in "Peter" means heaven, but
would not be an inadequate paraphrase of Galilee.
So far there is no difficulty in showing a definite
development of the tradition, starting from Mark and
proceeding to elaborations varying in detail, but to a
great extent similar in principle. There remains the
peculiar Johannine feature which states that Mary
Magdalene, after finding the tomb empty, returned to
the disciples, and that two of them investigated and
proved the truth of her statement. Here, again, the
signs of combination in the narrative seem to be visible
and to explain the facts ; there was a tendency, as
Matthew and Luke show, to depart from Mark and
assert that the women did, after all, find the disciples
and narrate their experience. But what was to be the
content of their narrative? As has just been shown,
there were two lines of development in the tradition of
the young man. According to one the women saw
someone — whether angel or man is indifferent for this
purpose — who said that the tomb was empty. Accord
ing to another they saw the risen Lord. Thus there
would necessarily be two forms of the story as to what
the women reported : according to one the main point
of the report would be that the tomb was empty;

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 189
according to the other that they had seen the risen
Lord. Combine these two stories and you have the
method of the Johannine account. They are reconciled
by being made consecutive instead of alternative. It is
exactly the same phenomenon which, as Westcott and
Hort taught us, is to be found again and again on a
smaller scale in the history of the text of the New
Testament. The only fact which at first seems to
stand out against this explanation is that St Peter and
the beloved disciple actually came to the tomb and
investigated it. But once the view was adopted that
the women carried their report to the disciples, it was
surely an inevitable corollary that the disciples went to
see for themselves. It is true that neither Matthew
nor Luke (unless Luke xxiv. 12 be genuine) actually
gives an account of this incident, but the latter implies
it in the words put into the mouth of the disciples
on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 24).
Thus traditional probability shows strong positive
reasons for regarding Mark as the earliest tradition.
Negatively it also supports it ; for if the method
followed above be reversed and an attempt be made to
start from John, or even from Luke, Mark remains
inexplicable. If the earliest tradition or the one most
resembling the facts be the Johannine, and if Mark be
a development from it, one has to assume that in this

190 THE RESURRECTION
case tradition grew in a wholly unprecedented way,
became simpler instead of more complicated, and
omitted marvels instead of multiplying them.
Intrinsic probability is also on the side of Mark
rather than on that of any other extant account. It is
in itself more probable that the women saw a young
man at the tomb than an angel ; that they found the
tomb open than that they saw it opened by an angel ;
and it is surely more probable that the disciples had
scattered and were either in hiding or in flight, and
therefore not to be found, than that they were still
gathered together and had no fear in coming to the
tomb to examine it. Thus intrinsic and traditional
probability agree in representing Mark as thec earliest
tradition extant.
The question now arises whether one may accept this
as equivalent to the original tradition which obtained
in the Church from the moment that the disciples —
probably when they returned from Galilee in the con
viction that the Lord had been raised — rejoined the
women and heard their story. It is at this point that
the evidence of St Paul becomes important. It will be
noticed that he never mentions the story of the empty
tomb, or the experience of the women. The question
therefore arises — Does this silence of St Paul mean that
he did not know, or that he rejected this story, or what

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 191
other inference may be drawn ? The most obvious answer
is that, if St Paul did not mention this story, it must have
been because he was ignorant of it. At first hearing
this argument seems unanswerable. The usual teaching
as to the Resurrection which we have all heard from
childhood starts from the story of the empty tomb.
The impression made on our minds is that this is the
foundation of the whole doctrine, and .not one in a
thousand teachers (in England) would ever expound
the Resurrection without beginning with the experience
of the women. Therefore it is natural to suppose that
if St Paul had known their story, he also would have
begun in the same way. Personally I held this view
until I was actually engaged in reducing it to words
and explaining its cogency, but the necessity thus laid
upon me forced me to a change of view.
But such an assumption is far from justifiable, and
ought never to be made in considering St Paul's relation
to the story of the women at the grave.
The proper starting-point for any treatment of the
problem is the result reached in chapter i., that St Paul
believed in the Resurrection because of the appearances
of the risen Lord, but dated the Resurrection on the
third day either because he believed that the Old Testa
ment had foretold this day, or because he thought that
some other event, not in itself direct evidence for the

192 THE RESURRECTION
Resurrection, pointed to this date. The question is
also conditioned by the fact that St Paul in 1 Cor. xv.
is quoting the formula which represented the belief of
the first disciples. Thus, so far as St Paul is personally
concerned, we have not so much to ask why he believed
that the Resurrection took place on the third day,
as whether there is any reason for thinking that a
knowledge of the story of the experience of the women
is incompatible either with his expressed belief, or with
his silence on the subject in 1 Cor. xv.
Incompatible with his expressed belief it certainly is
not; it is almost as certain as anything which is not
definitely stated can be that St Paul's doctrine of
the transubstantiation of flesh and blood into spirit
implied a belief in an empty tomb. It is therefore
impossible to think that he would have found any
difficulty in believing the story of the experience of
the women or in agreeing with their interpretation
of that experience.
Nor is St Paul's silence on the subject incompatible
with his knowledge of the story of the women. In
considering this question it must not be overlooked that
what is important is not the actual chronological order
of events, but the part which they played in the
development of Christian belief. Now, if one assumes
that the Marcan account is trustworthy^ the growth of

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 193
Christian belief must have been something of this kind.
After the Crucifixion, or even before it, the disciples
scattered in terror and dejection. They made their
way to their homes. The band of disciples was broken
up, and the individual members of it lost touch with
each other. But in Galilee St Peter and probably other
disciples had experiences which convinced them that
their Master still lived. Under the influence of this
new-found faith they returned to Jerusalem, and in its
light certain women interpreted an experience which
they had had on the "third morning," but had
previously narrated to no one. They had not seen the
Lord, and their experience was in no sense the origin
of the belief in the Resurrection ; but it was taken to
prove that the Resurrection was accomplished on the
third day, and that the tomb was empty by that time.
Thus in the formula which St Paul quotes to the
Corinthians, the experience of the women was condensed
by the disciples into "was raised on the third day,"
just as the experience of St Peter was condensed into
" was seen of Peter." The absence of details in the one
case is exactly paralleled in the other.
Was there any reason why St Paul should have
supplied these details, had he known them ? Surely
not. He was not trying to convince the Corinthians
that the Lord was risen ; he was reminding them that he
13

194 THE RESURRECTION
had already convinced them on this point, by quoting
the formula which he had previously proved to their
satisfaction to represent the facts. This formula is not
quoted by him in order to prove that Christ rose ; but
in order to serve as an indisputable premiss in his
argument that the dead will rise. The feeling that St
Paul and the early Church must have laid stress on
the experience of the women is not justified by facts.
Both in the case of the disciples and of St Paul the
belief in the Resurrection was due to their own
experience ; it was therefore improbable that they would
emphasise the experience of anyone else, even though
they might use it to fix the date of the Resurrection.
But, it may be said, do not the gospels prove that the
disciples, apart from St Paul, did put considerable
emphasis on the fact of the empty tomb ? The answer
seems to be that this is true of the later gospels but
not of Mark. In the former there is an obvious
tendency to "write up" the story of the women's
experience, and to emphasise the fact that it proves
that the tomb was empty. But in Mark this tendency
is absent. The women do not see the risen Lord ; do
not see for themselves that the tomb was empty, and
do not report their experience, so as to make it the
first evidence for the Resurrection. Moreover, Matthew
and the Gospel of Peter give us a valuable hint that

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 195
the story of the empty tomb, and the emphasis which
was laid on it, came into discussion at a later period, in
connexion with the controversy between the Jews and
Christians. That this controversy does not belong to
the earliest period is psychologically certain. At the
beginning the Jews were not prepared to argue ; they
persecuted. Only later, when Christianity had obtained
a firm footing, can argument and controversy have
begun. This is important because it throws light on
two points. In the first place, it explains why the story
of the empty tomb became more important later
on than it was at first. For the first Christians the
Resurrection was an established fact, proved by their
own experience. As was shown in chapter i., to St
Paul, and probably to Christians generally, this
certainly implied the empty tomb ; whether the women
went to the tomb or not, it must have been an implicit
article of their belief that as a matter of fact the tomb
was empty. But this was not the ground of belief in
the Resurrection ; it was a deduction from it. Later
on, when the Jews could no longer persecute, and were
driven to argument, the question whether the tomb
really was empty was suggested ; the experience of the
women was brought more and more into the foreground,
and, as is usual in controversies, it was made more and
more definite. In the second place, it explains why

196 THE RESURRECTION
there is no trace of any attempt to investigate the
tomb. The emptiness of the grave only became a
matter of controversy at a period when investigation
could not have been decisive. It must be remembered
that, according to Maimonides, three days was the limit
of the time after death for accepting evidence as to
identity (cf. J. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in Jo. xi. 39).
The result of an examination of the problem from
the side of St Paul's evidence thus seems to point to
the fact that it is not impossible that in the formula of
Christian teaching which he quotes in 1 Cor. xv. 4,
"was raised on the third day" is a reference to the
experience to the women. Those who are influenced by
the relation of St Paul's teaching to Mark (cf. pp.
37-41) will naturally be the more ready to accept this
opinion. The alternative is to say that he, or rather
the authors of the formula which he quotes, deduced
the third day from scripture, aided perhaps by current
belief and by contemporary folklore.
St Paul's own writings give us no sufficient help in
choosing between these two alternatives. The decisive
word must be left to the consideration of Mark, and if
the second alternative be taken, and we say that the
mention of the third day is due to other causes than
the experience of the women, we have to explain the
existence of Mark. If it be not based on history, it

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 197
must be based on mythology. The latter theory seems
to be adopted by a little band of scholars (of whom
Cheyne, Gunkel, Winckler, Jensen, and Zimmern are
perhaps the best known names) who have made a
special study of the folklore of the period and of the
East generally.
The outlines of this folklore or mythology are
these : primitive nations regarded the processes of
nature as the life of a god, and told the story of the
seasons in terms of his life and death. Thus the
spring equinox was resurrection of the sun god; and
the new moon was the death and resurrection after
three days (when the moon again became visible) of
the moon deity. The death of the solar deity Marduk
was spoken of, and his grave shown in Babylonia, and
the grave of Zeus was preserved in Crete. That this
type of folklore had its influence in the formulation
of the doctrine of the Resurrection is probable. It
is quite likely that it was partly the reason why the
early Christians were ready to accept such stories as
the descent of the angel to open the tomb, and to
regard the experience of the women as fixing the
Resurrection on the third day, and a return must be
made to this point in the next chapter. But if it
be suggested that this explains the genesis of the story
in Mark of the women's visit to the tomb, it is surely

198 THE RESURRECTION
insufficient. In the Marcan form of that story we
miss all the points which we should have expected — and
the later traditions support our expectation — to have
been emphasised in a story which was the product of
folklore. It is never stated but only implied in
Mark that the Resurrection was on the third day:
no emphasis is laid on the emptiness of the grave ;
no description of the Resurrection is given. If Mark
be a product of mythological folklore, it is unique of
its kind, for it is a story produced by mythology
which forgets to mention the mythological points, so
that to the men for whom it was intended it seemed
so tame, that they practically rewrote it when they
repeated it. It is a child whose likeness to its parents
was only brought out after it had undergone severe
plastic operations. No form of research is more neces
sary than the study of folklore if we are to understand
the growth of early Christian doctrine; but it is at
present largely pioneer work, and pioneers do not
always see the proportion of their results. In this
case they probably have not sufficiently taken into
consideration the results of previous literary criticism,
and, seeing the tokens of folklore in the later narratives
of the Resurrection, have applied their conclusion to
all the forms, without noting that these tokens do not
appear in the earliest narrative. Folklore had, and

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 199
has, immense influence in the development of tradition,
but it often works on a nucleus of history. I submit
that this is the case with the story of the women's
visit to the tomb, and that Mark represents the
nucleus which folklore developed, not a myth which
it produced.
Thus it seems probable that the Marcan tradition
is not only the oldest form of the story of the
experience of the women, but really represents almost
exactly the form in which it was from the first current
among Christians. There is no sufficient reason for
thinking that St Paul's silence implies his ignorance
of it, and the phrase "on the third day" in the
formula which he quotes probably refers to it.
This statement must, however, be modified in one
rather important respect. We may with confidence
accept Mark generally as the earliest tradition, repre
senting what the women told the disciples, when they
met after the Resurrection, and after the appearances
of the Lord. But this does not mean that emphasis
can be laid on the precise statement of the words
which the women heard from the young man at the
grave. For this caution justification can be found
partly in the literary custom of the first century,
partly in human nature.
In the first century, if a writer wished to say that a

200 THE RESURRECTION
message was delivered of a certain description, he was
more than likely to give an exact message in oratio
directa. He did not necessarily mean that he was
giving a word for word report. In our time we have
a different literary method, and only use this style
when we wish to claim verbal accuracy, and it is
necessary not to judge a first century document by this
standard. Thus it is quite probable that the message
in Mark only represents the judgment of the writer
as to what was said. Moreover, if literary convention
has changed since the first century, human nature has
remained in many respects wonderfully the same, and
we may therefore appeal to daily experience to justify
the statement that few people are capable of giving
evidence as to what they have seen and heard, without
being affected by their knowledge from other sources,
as to what, as a matter of fact, they ought to have
seen and heard. Therefore it is impossible to be
certain how much of the message of the young man
in Mark represents what he really said, and how
much really represents (a) what the women, under
the influence of their belief in the Resurrection,
thought that the young man said ; (b) what St Mark,
under the influence in turn of his knowledge, thought
that the women must have reported.
Thus one may feel certain that the women really

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 201
saw someone at the tomb; it is quite probable that
he told them that Jesus was not there, and that,
from the first moment when the women related it,
this statement was taken as a message announcing
the Resurrection. But it is impossible to feel any
confidence that the precise form in which that message
is reported in Mark really belongs to the earliest
tradition, still less that it accurately represents the
exact words of the young man.
(3) The appearances ofthe Lord. — Of the appearances
of the Lord we have in the gospels two main accounts —
the Galilean, to which belong Mark, Matthew, John xxi.
and the Gospel of Peter ; and the Jerusalem, to which
belong Luke, Acts, and John xx. Besides these, there
is a statement in 1 Cor. xv. which cannot be identified
with either of the two accounts in the gospels, as it
gives no statement as to locality, but is peculiarly
valuable for the light it throws on the number and
character of the appearances. There are thus three
main problems which have to be discussed — the
number of the appearances, the places in which they
were seen, and the character which they bore.
1. The number of the appearances. — St Paul speaks
of six appearances, including one to himself. There is
no reason to suppose that this list was intended to be
exhaustive ; but it is probable that the first mentioned

202 THE RESURRECTION
is intended to be the actual first. The question then
arises, how far it is possible to identify any of these
appearances with those in the gospels.
The first is an appearance to St Peter. This agrees
with what certainly was the contents of the Galilean
account in its most original form, but owing to the loss
of Mark at this point no details are available, except
that it was probably on the Sea of Galilee. If the text
be trustworthy and the meaning certain (see pp. 1 01 ff.)
of Luke xxiv. 34, it is possible that this appearance was
also narrated in some form of the Jerusalem account ;
but, if so, the narrative has not survived.
The second appearance in the Pauline list is " to the
twelve." This statement cannot be taken numerically ;
" the twelve " means the members of that band of
original disciples whom Jesus chose, rather than that
twelve were actually present. This, therefore, may
probably be identified with the appearance to the other
disciples in Galilee, which was probably recorded in the
Marcan document. Perhaps the end of Matthew is
a late version of this incident. It might also refer
to the appearance recorded in Luke xxiv. 36 ff. and
John xx. 19 ff.
The third appearance — to five hundred brethren —
seems to correspond to nothing in the gospels : but it
has been suggested that it is a variant of the account

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 203
of the day of Pentecost in Acts, and there is much
that is attractive in the view that the latter was
originally a Christophany.1
The arguments for this theory are, in the main, as
follows. In the first place, it is improbable that so
remarkable an appearance as that alluded to by St
Paul should have been passed over entirely in the
historical narratives ; but it seems impossible to identify
it with any of the appearances mentioned in the gospels.
Secondly, the account of the day of Pentecost in the
Acts is probably confused on some points ; it must have
reached St Luke only after the tradition had passed
through the usual processes of development in trans
mission. Especially is this the case so far as the
incident of glossolalia is concerned. At one point the
disciples seem to the crowd to be drunk — and this is
the impression which the speech of St Peter is intended
to answer — and therefore incomprehensible ; at another
point they seem to be speaking with such supernatural
clearness that they are comprehensible to every one in
spite of differences of nationality. Whether it be true,
as is sometimes said, that the second view is later, and
contradictory to the account of glossolalia in 1 Cor. xiv.,
is here immaterial. In any case the account in Acts
1 See especially the admirable statement of the case in E. von
Dobschutz's Ostern und Pfingstein, pp. 31 ff.

204 THE RESURRECTION
shows signs of confusion. Finally, it cannot be well
denied that there was a tendency in early Christian
thought to identify the Spirit with the glorified Lord,
and it is characteristic of the Lucan narratives to prefer
speaking of the Spirit, while St Paul has rather more a
tendency to speak of Christ. The really crucial passage
for its proof is Rom. viii., in which Spirit, Spirit of God,
Spirit of Christ, and Christ, seem to be used practically
as synonyms for the source of new life which is the
basis of the Christian religion. To this may be added
not only 2 Cor. iii. 17 (" Now the Lord is the Spirit ")
from the Pauline epistles, but the following less direct
but quite important places, (a) In the Apocalypse,
the speaker who dictates the letters to the churches is
clearly Christ ; yet in the letters themselves he is
identified with the Spirit. " He that hath an ear let
him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
(b) Although the whole question of the Christology of
Hermas is full of problems, and requires more attention
than it has yet received, it is clear that, in a strictly
analogous way to the usage of the Apocalypse, the
Shepherd of Hermas (cf. especially Sim. 5) identifies
the Son of God sometimes with the Spirit, sometimes,
by implication at least, with Christ. These instances
are sufficient to show that in the beginning the distinction
between Christ and the Spirit was not so clearly marked

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 205
as it became later on, owing perhaps to the necessity
for sharper distinction imposed by the anti-docetic
controversy. The suggestion therefore is, that it is
possible that St Paul may have regarded as a Christo-
phany what St Luke preferred to describe as a mani
festation of the gift of the Spirit.
I am inclined to think that there is much probability
in this view ; but if it be correct, it must be admitted
that the form of presentation in Luke has considerably
affected the narrative. There is a wide difference
between the " tongues of fire " and an " appearance " of
Christ, even though there be a certain resemblance to
the dazzling light which St Paul saw at his conversion.
Thus it would be rash to build anything on the founda
tion of the identification which it attempts to establish.
The fourth appearance — to St James — is not mentioned
in any of the Canonical Gospels. There is an account of
it in the gospel according to the Hebrews (see p. 163 f.),
but one cannot say whether this is merely an imagina
tive description based entirely on St Paul's words, or
preserves an independent tradition.
The fifth appearance — to all the apostles — cannot be
identified with any safety with anything in the gospels.
It has been regarded by some writers as a mere doublet
of the appearance to the twelve, and even regarded as a
gloss, but such critics forget that in St Paul's time an

206 THE RESURRECTION
" apostle " was not the same thing as " a member of the
twelve." The evidence of the Didache suggests that
even in the next generation an apostle was simply a
travelling preacher, who went from place to place trying
to spread the gospel.
The sixth appearance — to St Paul — is clearly that
mentioned in the Acts, and discussed on pp. 116 ff.
Thus no definite results can be obtained, except
the mutual confirmation of the Pauline and Galilean
accounts regarding the appearance to St Peter, and
the fact that there was certainly more than one appear
ance. The absence of any other certain identifications
is, however, less important, as there is little reason to
think that either St Paul or the gospels give, or profess
to give, exhaustive narratives.
2. The place of the appearances. — For this point the
Pauline narrative fails us, as it contains no indications
of place at all. We have, therefore, only the Galilean
and Jerusalem narratives to compare. As they stand
these accounts are incompatible with one another.
The Marcan account, which, so far as it goes, is our
best evidence for the Galilean tradition, undoubtedly
described the first appearance of the risen Lord as seen
by the disciples after they had reached Galilee. On
the other hand, the Jerusalem tradition describes the
disciples as seeing the Lord in the neighbourhood of

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 207
that city, and (at least in Luke) the view that they had
ever left it is expressly contradicted.
It is plain that the disciples could not be in two
places at once, and the relations of these two contra
dictory narratives to one another afford a difficult
problem. It is necessary not merely to establish the
relative probability of each, but also to explain their
origin. There are really four ways of dealing with the question :
(a) The method of antiquity was, of course, to ignore the
contradictions and force the narratives into a connected
whole. Putting aside such extravagances as a multi
plication of the visits of the women to the tomb (so
that in the end it appeared that no two gospels had
related the same visit), this system of interpretation
implied a journey to Galilee, undertaken by the disciples
not as a consequence of their panic, but in the expecta
tion of seeing the Lord, followed by an immediate
return to Jerusalem. Among modern attempts to
commend this view may be cited Dr Latham's The
Risen Master. The decisive objection to this view is
not merely the inherent improbability of the recon
struction of history which it implies, but the fact that
the method of the growth of tradition is always
synthetic.1 If, then, we wish to go behind the extant
1 Using the word, of course, in its simple sense of "joining together.''

208 THE RESURRECTION
documents, the result of carrying on a still further'
process of synthesis will probably be to make confusion
worse confounded. What is needed is analysis, not
synthesis. The latter would only be justifiable if there
were reason to think that the gospels are the disjecta
membra of an originally single tradition, and that
Tatian was on the right lines when he joined them
together. (b) Pursuing the analytic method, one has to choose
between the Galilean and Jerusalem narratives, and
explain the origin of the rejected tradition. Many
critics, especially formerly, have chosen the Jerusalem
narrative. The best example of this line of argument
is perhaps to be found in Loofs' Die Auferstehungs
berichte und ihre Wert (Hefte zur christliche Welt, 33).
According to this theory, the Galilean narrative is the
result of a tendency to emphasise the Galilean ministry.
This would be plausible if it were correct ; but it seems
much nearer the truth to say that there was, on the
contrary, rather a tendency to emphasise the Jerusalem
ministry, though here, as so often, much turns on the
value given to the Fourth Gospel.
(c) A different type of suggestion has been made by
Dr A. Resch in his Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu
Mt. und Mc, pp. 381 ff. He thinks that the Galilean
tradition is due to a confusion in Aramaic, owing to the

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 209
similarity of words meaning " a district " and " Galilee,"
— a confusion which actually exists in the LXX. of
Ezek. xlvii. 8. This theory is supported by mediaeval
traditions 1 which bear witness to a place near Jerusalem
called Galilee. It is suggested, therefore, that the
message of the young man in Mc. xvi. 7 really refers to
this place, and not the province Galilee. This is very
ingenious, but there is no trace of evidence that the
early Christians confused Galilee with anything else, and
the mediaeval tradition only shows that the necessity of
harmonising discrepant narratives had led men before
the time of Resch to bring Galilee to the Mount of
Olives, though it was left for him to notice the curious
linguistic accident which helps his theory.
(d) The rejection of these three theories leads up to
the view which is probably correct. This starts by
recognising that both intrinsically and traditionally the
Galilean narrative is preferable. It is, as was said on
p. 190, much more probable that the disciples fled to
Galilee than that they remained in Jerusalem, and some
such event as the appearance of the Lord is necessary
to explain their return to Jerusalem, and the existence
very shortly afterwards of the church in that city.
1 Antonius de Cremona, Itinerarium ad Sepulcrum Domini, a. 1327,
1330, ed. Reinhold Rohricht va. the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palestina-
Vereins, Bd. xiii. ; and Odorici de Foro Julii Liber de terra sancta in
the Peregrinatores medii aevi quatuor, ed. 1873. 14

210 THE RESURRECTION
Traditionally, the existence of the two narratives in the
gospels is easier to explain on the assumption that the
Galilean is the more original. The whole tendency of
early Christian thought was to emphasise Jerusalem
and to forget Galilee, and one of the most curious,
though least doubtful facts in the history of the Church,
is that, though the chief activity of Christ was in
Galilee, the Christian Church was from the beginning
the church of Jerusalem and not of Capernaum. Why
this was so is one of the missing links in the chain of
early history ; but the fact seems certain, that instead
of the few and probably later disciples in Jerusalem
(one thinks of the house at Bethany, and the family of
Mark) going to join the disciples in Galilee, the latter
came back to Jerusalem and took the lead in the
community there. It is a sign of the early nature of
the Galilean tradition that it recalls the memory of
that brief visit to Galilee, which was so important for
Peter and the other disciples, but from its short
duration was so likely to be lost sight of in a tradition
originating in Jerusalem. It is also worth noting
that the tradition that Mark derived his information
from Peter the Galilean is strongly corroborated by
the fact that Mark, though a Jerusalemite and not an
original disciple, narrated this incident. But just as
the narrative of a Galilean disciple might be expected

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 211
to preserve the memory of this visit to Galilee, and
accurately to record that the first appearance to
St Peter took place there, so a narrative emanating
from the community which grew up in Jerusalem
would naturally foreshorten the story. The appear
ances of the Lord would be recounted ; but the circum
stances would be partly confused and partly elaborated
by the aid of the imagination. As time went on, and
the disciples became more and more identified with
Jerusalem, it would come to be assumed that they had
seen the Lord near that city ; Galilee would either be
squeezed out of the tradition altogether, as it is in
Luke, or brought in as an appendix after the main
narrative, as was done by the redactor who added
John xxi. ; or, if someone happened to be basing his
narrative on the Marcan document, he would regard the
message of the young man as a command to go into
Galilee, and so produce the distortion of Mark which is
exhibited in Matthew.
Thus it is extremely probable that there has been
a considerable confusion of localities in the traditions
which have reached us, and that some incidents which
really happened in Galilee have been placed in
Jerusalem. But it is improbable that this will account
for the whole of the Jerusalem tradition. If the
disciples saw the risen Lord in Galilee, there is no

212 THE RESURRECTION
reason why they should not have seen him again
after they returned to Jerusalem ; nor is there any
reason why the disciples, who, being Jerusalemites,
had never fled to Galilee, should not have had the
same experience as the Galileans. This argument
holds true whatever view be taken of the appearances :
if they were real and objective, there is no reason why
they should have been confined to any one locality,
and if they were the merest hallucination, there is
still less cause for thinking that it was peculiar to
any one circle of disciples.
It is therefore a justifiable question whether it is
possible in the Lucan and Johannine accounts to
distinguish between details which are really only a
confused version of the Galilean appearances, and
those which really refer to the experiences of the
community at Jerusalem. But it seems doubtful
whether any means of satisfactorily answering this
question, except quite generally, can ever be found.
So far as the appearance to the disciples recorded in
Luke xxiv. 33 ff. and John xx. 19 ff. is represented
as on the third day and as the first to the apostles,
it is surely a confusion with the Galilean tradition,
for the disciples did not return to Jerusalem until
after they had seen the Lord, and on the third day
were not in Jerusalem. But a difficult question arises

THE EARLIEST TRADITION

213

if one asks whether the tradition may not be correct
in representing the first appearance to all the disciples
assembled together as taking place in Jerusalem.
It is probable that there were appearances in Galilee
before the return to Jerusalem, but was there any
definite assembly in Galilee which saw the Lord, or
was this first possible in Jerusalem ? I do not see
how this question can be answered in the absence
of more definite knowledge of the Galilean tradition.
It is perhaps slightly more probable that the disciples
assembled in Galilee, but it is impossible to lay
emphasis on this, and the first appearance to the
collected disciples may have been in Jerusalem.
Equally impossible to answer is the suggestion that
the message of the risen Lord was originally connected
with an appearance in Galilee. Of this message we
have three versions, in Matthew, in Luke, and in
John, which run as follows : —

Matt, xxviii. 8,
All authority hath
been given unto me in
heaven and on earth.
Go ye therefore, and
make disciples of all
the nations [baptizing
them in the name of
the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy
Ghost]: teaching them

Luke xxiv. 46.
He said unto them,
Thus it is written, that
the Christ should suf
fer, and rise from the
dead the third day :
and that repentance
and remission of sins
should be preached in
his name unto all the
nations, beginning

John xx. 21.
Then said Jesus to
them again, Peace be
unto you : as the
Father hath sent me,
even so send I you.
And when he had said
this, he breathed on
them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the
Holy Spirit : whose

214

THE RESURRECTION

to observe all things
whatsoever I com
manded you : and, lo,
I am with you alway,
even unto the end of
the world.

soever sins ye forgive,
they are forgiven unto
them ; whose soever
sins ye retain, they
are retained.

from Jerusalem. Ye
are witnesses of these
things. And, behold,
I send forth the pro
mise of my Father
upon you : but tarry
ye in the city until ye
be clothed with power
from on high.
Probably no one would claim that there is any written
source in any language underlying these three, but
the three resemble each other more closely than we
would at first imagine, and may well represent an
originally single tradition. Between Luke and John
the connexion is obvious, though even here it is
improbable that there is any direct literary dependence.
Luke xxiv. 47 is clearly parallel to John xx. 23, and
in each case the forgiveness of sins probably refers
to baptism, two things which, for the early Church,
were inseparable from each other. The differences are
chiefly due to Luke's tendency to insist on the fulfil
ment of prophecy, and on his view that the gift of
the Spirit, which conditioned the forgiveness of sins,
was not conferred till later. What the origin of his
view may have been is immaterial for the present
point. The connexion of these Jerusalem traditions with
the Galilean narrative in Matthew is not superfi
cially so plain. As was shown on p. 87, the command

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 215
to baptize is probably a textual interpolation, but
to early Christians the idea of "making disciples,"
"preaching the gospel," and "forgiving sins" were
largely identical, and all of them were bound up
with baptism. Moreover, it is almost certain that
Matt, xxviii. 20 is another and perhaps more primitive
way of describing the gift of the Spirit. Later
theology made a distinction between the "indwelling
Christ " and " the Spirit " ; but the earliest writers
either did not do so at all, or only at intervals. In
Rom. viii., for instance, we have the phrases, " those
who are in Christ," " those who are according to the
Spirit," " in the Spirit," " the Spirit of Christ," " Christ
in us," all used in the same context, and apparently
without any special difference being made in the
meaning (cf. p. 204 f.). Thus it is probable that to
many Christians of the first generation, "I am with
you always " meant exactly the same as " Receive the
Holy Spirit."
Thus the identity in the meaning of these passages
suggests that there is a common fact lying behind them
to which they all refer. What this common fact was
is impossible to define. The two main possibilities
are : (a) that on one of his appearances the risen Lord
really delivered a commission to his disciples of which
the three gospels quoted above represented three

216 THE RESURRECTION
traditions; (b) that from the beginning the disciples
felt conscious that the spread of the gospel was the
responsibility laid on them by their Master, and this
consciousness was translated into the form of a definite
commission given on a definite occasion.
If the former hypothesis be accepted, it is necessary
to choose between Galilee and Jerusalem, and it is more
probable that a Galilean episode, such as is described
in Matthew, has been transposed to Jerusalem than
that the reverse development has taken place. But
I think that the second hypothesis is really the more
satisfactory. Nothing can be more certain than that
the first Christians were filled with the conviction
that they had been entrusted with the mission of
preaching the gospel, and it is quite in keeping both
with the literary methods of their age, and with the
usual development of tradition, that this conviction
should have been recorded in the vivid and graphic
form of a speech of the risen Lord. It is common
knowledge that historians always used the device of
putting a speech into the mouth of a prominent
character when they wished to express his motives
or policy. Historically, then, this is a probable ex
planation. I would add that theologically it is the
vocation in the soul, not the incident with which it
was connected, which is important, and the existence

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 217
of this vocation is a necessary postulate to explain the
growth of the Christian Church, first in Jerusalem,
and afterwards elsewhere.
Similarly uncertain judgment must be passed on
the story of Thomas in John xx. 24 ff. It may be
regarded as an amplification of Luke xxiv. 41 in the
form of a story ; for there was certainly a tendency
in this direction in the early Church, and there is
something more than a suspicion that several incidents
in John are doctrine expounded in the form of history
rather than a record of actual fact. Against this
it may be urged that the very prominent role which
St Thomas plays in later tradition is more intelligible
if he was from the beginning connected with some
special vision. If this latter view be accepted, is it
not more probable that it originally belonged to the
Galilean tradition? The question depends so com
pletely on other almost insoluble problems that it is
impossible to answer it, and it must be left open.
The main question — whether the incident is historical
at all — similarly depends on the point which will be
dealt with in the next section, as to the character of
the appearances of the Lord. If, as will be argued,
the suggestion that the appearances contained evidence
of a body of flesh and blood is really a dogmatic
addition, and not part of the earliest tradition, it is

218 THE RESURRECTION
plain that the story of Thomas is so completely
bound up with this suggestion that it becomes in
creasingly probable that it has no foundation in fact.
There is more to be said for the view that the
story of the two disciples who went to Emmaus really
represents an experience of two members of the Jerusalem
community. It reads as though it were based on fact,
and it can hardly have been transferred from Galilee.
The mention of Emmaus is decisive on this point. At
the same time, it has probably suffered in transmission,
and cannot be accepted without some allowance for this
process. As it stands, it refers to " the third day " and
represents the two disciples as going for rather a long
walk, and returning late in the evening to the eleven
disciples who were gathered together in Jerusalem. If
one accept the Marcan tradition that the disciples
scattered and fled after the Crucifixion, this last detail
is impossible. The suggestion which seems to have
the most probability is that this incident is an ex
ample of foreshortening of the narrative spoken of on
p. 211. The disciples all scattered to their own homes.
Among others, the two disciples who lived at Emmaus
returned to that town. But they had the experience of
an appearance of the risen Lord and returned to Jeru
salem. Meanwhile the same thing had happened in
Galilee to the Galileans, and the two sets of disciples

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 219
met in Jerusalem. The strength of this suggestion may
best be seen by asking how St Luke or any other early
Christian writer would have dealt with such a story if
he had been imbued with the Jerusalem tradition. In
this tradition the absence of the narrative of the flight
of St Peter and the other Galileans paved the way for a
shortening of the time, and necessitated the belief that
the eleven were to be found in Jerusalem on " the third
day," while the view that the Church had even then its
centre in Jerusalem, and that no one had left it, would
naturally have made what was really a flight home to
Emmaus become a walk into the country to that place.
Moreover, as will be shown later, the emphasis on the
bodily form of the risen Lord, as testified to by his
eating with them, is a feature which of all others is
most probably due to the doctrinal views of the anti-
Docetic circle to which St Luke belonged. Thus the
story of the disciples who went to Emmaus is probably
a genuine remnant of the original tradition of the
Church at Jerusalem, which has suffered a little in the
process of transmission. Whether it had originally the
form suggested is of course quite hypothetical ; but
what is certain is that as it stands it is contradictory to
the Marcan account, and unless the latter be rejected,
some such hypothesis must be put forward.
3. The character of the appearances. — What kind of

220 THE RESURRECTION
appearances were those of the risen Lord ? The Galilean
tradition has not reached us in a sufficiently well-pre
served form to enable us to use its evidence on this
point. We have, however, the Pauline account with
which to compare the Jerusalem tradition. According
to the former, the risen Lord was not flesh and blood ;
and the natural inference from St Paul's words is that
he knew of no difference on this point between his own
experience and that of others. The risen Lord, exalted
to heaven, was a spirit. St Paul no doubt connected
this fact with his doctrine of a transubstantiation of
flesh and blood at the Resurrection into spirit. But for
the present purpose that is unimportant ; it is the
explanation which St Paul gave of the fact, not the fact
itself. It is the latter which is important, and on that
point there is no room for doubt. The whole of St
Paul's argument that "flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of heaven," and that " we shall be
changed " would be meaningless if the special instance
of Resurrection on which he based his reasoning had
been in reality a Resurrection of flesh and blood.
Against this must be set the Jerusalem narrative both
in Luke and John, which quite as certainly represents
the risen Lord as flesh and blood, in just the same
sense as he was before. No deduction needs to be made
from this statement because the risen Lord appeared

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 221
in a room where the doors were closed. Such an act
would in the first century have been regarded as a
miracle, just as walking on the water was, or as the
sudden separation of Philip and the eunuch in Acts viii.
39 ; but in no degree as a proof that the person who
did such things was not flesh and blood in the ordinary
sense. On such a question as this, one can scarcely speak of
intrinsic probability, though to most people's minds the
Pauline account will seem the more likely to be true.
The decisive point is that traditional probability is
strongly in favour of the Pauline account, not merely as
the older, but because the Jerusalem narrative can be
explained as due, so far as this feature in it is concerned,
to the controversy with Docetism, even though our
knowledge of the origin and early history of Docetism
is small. It would seem that some teachers of Christianity
made a distinction between the Christ, i.e. the principle
of the new life (almost if not quite identical with the
Spirit), and the human Jesus, and denied that the Christ
was come in the flesh, thus reducing his body to an
appearance (Soiceiv). This type of doctrine is of im
portance for understanding the Resurrection narratives.
Putting all other subordinate questions aside, its origin
is to be found in an attempt to explain the life of Jesus

THE RESURRECTION
in the terms of their experience of the risen Lord. It
was surely natural enough for anyone who only knew
the risen Lord — the Lord who was the Spirit — to think
that he had never been different, and to regard the
ministry in Galilee as also the work of one who had
never been a man of flesh and body. In other words,
the underlying principle of Docetism was that the Christ
before the Resurrection was of the same physical nature
as the Christ after the Resurrection, and it started by
regarding the latter as the norm. The other party,
which in the end conquered, reversed this process.
They made the Christ before the Resurrection their
norm, and, appealing to their experience and to that of
the apostles, as the writer of 1 John does, they insisted
that the risen Lord was flesh and blood after the Resur
rection, just as he had been before. In so doing they
were probably wrong, but no one will doubt that a
writer would not have hesitated at that time to interpret
the document he was using, or the tradition he was
repeating, in the light of the view which he held on this
point. The Docetics interpreted the ante-Resurrection
life of the Lord in a Docetic manner — the Acts of
John, though belonging to a later generation, are an
example of the way in which they did it — and the anti-
Docetics interpreted the appearance of the risen Lord in
anti-Docetic fashion. Fortunately the gospel of Mark

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 223
remains as a proof of the true humanity of Jesus before
his death, and the writings of St Paul give us the
needed correction to the materialism of the Lucan and
Johannine accounts of the risen Lord.
As has already been said, the Galilean account has
not survived in any form which gives us help ; but after
deciding that the Pauline is irreconcilable with and
preferable to the Lucan-Johannine, and represents the
risen Lord as no longer flesh and blood, we may go on
to ask whether there is any probability that the Marcan
account, if it had survived, would have agreed with
the Pauline or with the alternative version. It is ex
ceedingly unlikely that the preaching of Peter on this
point differed from that of Paul ; it is far more likely
that his account of the appearances of the risen Lord
agreed with Paul's in representing it as not flesh and
blood. Otherwise it is impossible to understand the
language of 1 Cor. xv., in connexion with the fact that
St Paul knew St Peter, and derived his information
from him. It is possible that St Mark himself, as
distinct from his source, came under the influence of
anti-Docetism, just as St Luke, the disciple of St Paul,
did, and that the lost conclusion was in this respect of
the same character as the Lucan and Johannine narra
tives ; but against this possibility must be set the fact
that one of the things which Papias noticed in Mark

224 THE RESURRECTION
was that he did not alter the tradition. Moreover, if
it be conceded that the lost conclusion probably con
tained an account of an appearance of the risen Lord,
not as flesh and blood, we have an intelligible reason
why it disappeared. The reason which is generally
given is the merely mechanical one that the last sheet
or the end of the papyrus roll was lost. This might
account for the disappearance of the conclusion from
the Marcan tradition as represented in the Canon if
that stood alone. But is it probable that it will account
for the fact that St Luke abandoned1 the Marcan source
not quite at the same point but just previously ? It is
more probable that there was some deeper reason, which
will fall in with the point which Professor Harnack has
emphasised in Lukas der Arzt, that St Luke seems to
have had a certain definite antipathy to St Mark, even
though he used his writings. More than hypothesis it
can never be, but it certainly is an hypothesis which
explains the facts if we suppose that the end of Mark
contained an account of an appearance in Galilee of the
risen Lord in a form which was not that of flesh and
blood. To St Luke, impressed with the value of the
Jerusalem tradition, convinced that the disciples had
1 Cf. p. 70 f. Of course if the rewriting of the message of the young
man be merely Lucan, and not due to the use of a different tradition^
the matter is different, and there is more to be said for the mechanical
theory.

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 225
remained in Jerusalem, and influenced by a desire to
controvert the Docetic error, this seemed an undesirable
and even shocking view. He therefore simply suppressed
it, and men like-minded with him did the same when
the Marcan gospel came into the Canon. On the other
hand, the Gospel of Peter, being Docetic in tendency,
probably used the Marcan conclusion by preference,
though freely working it over, and rewriting it. The
Johannine gospel followed the Lucan precedent, but if
chapter xxi. be not an addition by another hand, it is
possible that it represents the attempt to explain the
Galilean tradition, which was widely known, and defied
efforts merely to ignore or to suppress it. The
Matthean gospel seems to come from other circles.
There is no trace in it of the Docetic controversy, and
it is perhaps more probable that it is based on a copy of
Mark, which had been already mutilated, for there is
not much reason to think that the redactor used the
lost conclusion, and there is no reason why he should
not have done so had he known it.
Thus the result of a comparison of the narratives
relating to the appearances of the risen Lord may be
summed up as follows : It is certain that there were several
appearances to the disciples, and almost certain that
the first was to St Peter in Galilee. It is again almost
certain that the appearances were not confined to
15

226 THE RESURRECTION
Galilee, but were the common experience of the disciples
in various districts. These appearances were the reason
of the reassembling of the disciples in Jerusalem, and of
the establishment there of the Christian community.
The oldest tradition, that of St Paul, implies that these
appearances were not those of a body of flesh and blood,
but of spirit; it is possible that the lost Galilean
narrative was of the same character. But under the
stress of the Docetic controversy the view gained ground
that the risen Lord was of the same physical nature
after the Resurrection as before, and that his appear
ances were those of a body of flesh and blood. The
Lucan and Johannine accounts have been written under
the influence of this view, though Luke seems to regard
the Ascension as limiting the duration of this kind of
appearance, while John does not make this distinction.
Thus, though the fact of appearances is certain, it is
impossible to establish the details, as the Galilean
narrative was suppressed, and the Jerusalem narrative
has survived only in documents which were written
under the influence of the idea that the disciples did
not separate or leave Jerusalem after the Crucifixion
and before the appearances, and that the body of the
risen Lord was of flesh and blood.
The question, therefore, which remains to be discussed
in the next chapter is the value which ought to be

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 227
attached to this fact. The disciples believed that the
Lord appeared to them after his death, and drew the
conclusion that he had risen from the dead. Were they
justified in doing this ? And, if not, what alternative
judgment can be passed on their experience ?
(4) The descent into Hades. — The discussion of this
subject falls for the most part outside the purpose of
this book. It affords a fascinating chapter in the
history of doctrine, but can, from the very nature of
the case, have no claim to be regarded as history. In
this respect it differs from the other narratives con
nected with the Resurrection. All refer to events
which at least might have been witnessed by human
beings on the earth if they had been present. But no
mortal could give witness to the descent into Hades.
The existence of Hades as a place is not to be
established by the historical method, still less the
descent into it. Therefore I shall not go outside the
limits of my task, and attempt any full discussion
either on doctrinal or on Religionsgeschichtliche lines,
but shall merely sketch the way in which Christian
thought seems to have produced this tradition, indi
cating the relations in which the few traces of it
mentioned in the preceding chapters stand to one
another. There was throughout the world at this time a

228 THE RESURRECTION
widespread belief in the existence of a material Hades,
a place under the ground in which the dead still had a
shadowy existence ; to this all descended at the moment
of death. Moreover, in many forms of heathen religion
there existed the story of a divine being who lived as
man on earth, died, descended into Hades, and finally
was exalted to Heaven. It is doubtful, and for the
present purpose unnecessary, to inquire precisely how
much effect this may have had on the formation of
Christian doctrine ; but it certainly must have had
some, and it may have had much influence. It is
in any case not less important that the acceptance of
the view that the Resurrection did not take place until
the third day gave rise to the question where the
intervening time was spent. Considering the Jewish
belief in Hades, the answer was inevitable that during
this period the Lord was where the other dead were.
Early Christian literature also guarantees the exist
ence of a third factor. As soon as men began to
think out the consequences of their doctrine, the
position of the righteous who had died in ignorance
of Christ became a problem. Was it conceivable that
men should eternally suffer who had led good lives, and
had never heard ofthe gospel only because Christ had not
been born in their time? Conscience revolted from
the suggestion. One way out of the difficulty seems,

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 229
according to 1 Cor. xv. 29, to have been " baptism for
the dead." Another suggestion, made in the Shepherd
of Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, was that the disciples had the
duty at their death of preaching and baptizing in Hades.
But the most popular view was that Christ himself
preached to the dead and liberated them from bondage.
Of this we have clear traces in the question of the voice
from Heaven and the answer given by the Cross in the
Gospel of Peter, as well as in the preaching to the
dead mentioned in 1 Peter iii. 19 and iv. 6. Not quite
so clear, but almost certainly connected with this idea, is
the reference in Matt, xxvii. 52 to a general resurrection
of the dead in Jerusalem after the Resurrection of
Christ. It represents the release of the souls imprisoned
in Hades in consequence of the descent of Christ.
But the most complete development is only found in
later books, such as the second part of the Acta Pilati,
which give graphic accounts of the descent into Hades
and the events there, culminating in the resurrection of
all the righteous dead, their baptism in the Jordan and
entry into Paradise.
At what date this development of thought first came
into Christian tradition it is impossible to say : there
are no clear references to it in the New Testament, except
the passages in 1 Peter which have been mentioned ; but
it is possible that Eph. iv. 9 10 may be so interpreted.

230 THE RESURRECTION
Much, of course, turns on the view taken of the date
of Peter and of the authenticity of Ephesians, but the
belief was so natural in the first century that there is
no reason why St Paul or St Peter should not have
shared it, though there is perhaps no definite proof that
they did. It is, however, as was said above, unnecessary
to discuss this question any further in the present
book, which is concerned with historical evidence
for the Resurrection, such as the descent into Hades
is not.(5) The Ascension. — Of this we have in early litera
ture only two full accounts — in Acts and in the Gospel
of Peter. In the other documents we have no definite
description of the event, though in John and the
longer conclusion of Mark we have references to it. In
Matthew we have no description and no reference to
it. In St Paul's epistles we have no description, but
a number of references which show that the writer
regarded Jesus as exalted to Heaven.
It will be convenient to begin with the importance of
the Pauline evidence. From this it is plain that the
early Church in St Paul's time regarded Heaven as the
abode of Christ after his Resurrection. Moreover,
when he writes in Rom. viii. 24 of " Jesus Christ who
died, yea, rather was raised from the dead, who is at
the right hand of God," the suggestion of his words is

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 231
that the exaltation to Heaven was the result of the
Resurrection, and when he writes in Phil. i. 23 that he
desires " to depart and be with Christ," he implies that
that exaltation to Heaven will be shared by Christians
after death. This implies or does not imply an
Ascension into Heaven in proportion to the degree
to which Heaven is regarded as a place or as a state
of existence; but in the first century most people,
probably including St Paul, regarded it quite definitely
as a place, and thus the production of the story which
gave an account of an Ascension was inevitable. Such
stories are those in Acts and in the Gospel of Peter :
the question is whether they are to be regarded merely
as the result of this tendency, or whether any further
substratum of fact is to be found in them.
As has been already said, the view of St Paul,
probably shared by that circle of early disciples whose
point of view is represented in the Galilean tradition
preserved by Mark, was that through the Resurrection
Christ was raised to Heaven and that the heavenly
Christ afterwards appeared to his disciples. In the
earliest tradition there was no account of the actual
Resurrection, but only statements as to the grave and
the appearances of the risen Lord ; there was therefore
no account of an actual Ascension to Heaven, but only
the statement or implication of the fact that the Lord

232 THE RESURRECTION
was a heavenly being. In circles which kept the
primitive doctrine that the risen Lord was not flesh
and blood, there was no reason why this absence of
any account either of the Resurrection, regarded as
a raising from the dead, or of an exaltation to Heaven,
should not be supplied by one narrative, for the two
things were the same looked at from different points
of view. This type of narrative is represented in the
Gospel of Peter, which, though in other points later,
and further removed from the earliest view, is so far
more primitive that, owing to its Docetic doctrine, it
had no temptation to make the risen Lord flesh and
blood. As was shown on p. 222, the Docetics kept the
primitive position on this point, though they departed
from it in their doctrines as to the nature of the Lord
before his death. Thus, though the Gospel of Peter
is obviously late and corrupt, it may be taken to
represent the primitive doctrine in so far as it regards
the Resurrection and Ascension as two aspects of one
event. But just as this type of tradition was acceptable in
Docetic circles, it was unacceptable in circles which were
strongly anti-Docetic. For such the stress of con
troversy had necessitated the adoption of the position
that the appearances had been of flesh and blood. But
this position brought with it two difficulties. In the

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 233
first place, there was the abiding tradition of appear
ances, such as that to St Paul, which were not of flesh
and blood. In the second, there was the fact that St
Paul had said that flesh and blood could not enter the
kingdom of Heaven, — a fact certainly important for
St Luke, who had been his companion. The only way
out of the difficulty was the introduction of a new
factor. The Resurrection was separated from the
Ascension, and it was held that there were two kinds
of appearances, divided from one another by the
Ascension. Those previous to it were of flesh and
blood ; those later than it were not. It is possible
that the exact duration ofthe former period was not
at first clearly defined ; for, as was shown in chapter iii.,
there is good reason for thinking that St Luke himself
changed his mind on the subject. When he wrote the
gospel, he thought that the Ascension took place on
the evening of the third day ; but when he wrote the
Acts, he thought that it was after forty days, a number
which can hardly be pressed, as it was frequently used
vaguely in the sense of a long time. But it is im
possible to be certain of the text of Luke or of Acts,
and though forty days became the popular belief, it is
doubtful whether this was the cause or the effect of
the statement in Acts.
However this may be, what is certain and important

234 THE RESURRECTION
is that in this way the fact of appearances of flesh and
blood was maintained without abandoning St Paul's
doctrine — flesh and blood did not enter the kingdom of
Heaven, but were changed into spirit at the Ascension,
as was seen by the later appearances to St Paul and
perhaps to St Stephen. Such a theory seems to
modern minds extraordinarily artificial ; but it must be
remembered that the implied transubstantiation from
flesh into spirit is quite in accordance with St Paul's
views. The only difference is that St Paul attributed
this transubstantiation to the Resurrection, whereas
St Luke transferred it to the Ascension. Moreover,
the postponement and gradualness of the transub
stantiation is more in accordance with Jewish thought
than was the original teaching of St Paul. As the
quotation from the Apocalypse of Baruch on p. 24 f.
shows, the Jews expected the resurrection of the
righteous dead in the form in which they had died
in order to allow of recognition, followed after an
interval by a change to a more glorious form. That
is precisely the view which St Luke seems to have
taken of the Resurrection of Christ, though it is
certainly not that of St Paul, and the influence of
Jewish thought was no doubt a helping factor in the
development of the traditions as to the appearances
of the risen Lord and the Ascension.

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 235
It is not impossible that the Fourth Gospel implies
a somewhat different development, according to which
the risen Christ remains flesh and blood even after the
Ascension. Such is undoubtedly the implication of
the narrative, for, strictly interpreted (see p. 136), it
must mean that the Ascension took place between the
appearance to St Mary Magdalene and the appearance
to the doubting St Thomas. Certainly, too, it became
the generally received doctrine that Christ took with
him into Heaven the human flesh and blood which he
had borne on earth, though this view was combined with
the Lucan dating of the Ascension. But it would be
too hazardous to press this point in the absence of
any clearer indications in the Fourth Gospel; and it
is safer to think that to the writer of the gospel the
actual account of the Ascension, as of the Resurrection,
was either unknown or unimportant. In this respect
the Fourth Gospel is more conservative of the primitive
standpoint than Luke, though it is further removed
from it in associating flesh and blood even with the
heavenly Christ. It is an interesting question, though
outside the scope of the present study, how far this
fact is connected with the relation of the two gospels
to Paulinism.
The foregoing discussion gives an answer to the
question whether traditional probability supports the

236 THE RESURRECTION
suggestion that either the Lucan or the pseudo-Petrine
narrative of the Ascension is a primitive tradition. It
supports neither, but suggests that both were due to
the desire to give an account of the actual process of
that exaltation of the Lord which was affirmed by the
early Christians, and, in an age which regarded Heaven
as a place, implied a definite ascension through the
clouds. In the Acts this desire was partly modified
by the influence of the Docetic controversy.
If traditional probability points to the rejection of
the claim of Acts to represent an original tradition,
intrinsic probability does nothing to reverse this
judgment. There is nothing in the Acts which
suggests any historical kernel except the Christian
belief in the exaltation of Christ. The deferring of
the Ascension has in itself been already discussed ; the
period of forty days is nothing more than a favourite
Jewish number ; and the Ascension in the clouds seems
to be based on the story of Elijah ; while the two men
who speak to the disciples afterwards seem to be a
reflection of the two men into whom the original young
man at the tomb had been developed in the tradition
used in Luke. It might indeed be urged that there
was probably some feature in one of the appearances
ofthe Lord which gave rise to a belief in his bodily
ascension into Heaven through the sky. But this is

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 237
a suggestion which certainly carries no conviction, even
if it admits no contradiction. It is impossible to prove
a negative, and it cannot be shown that such an
incident played no part in the development of
tradition ; but the facts of the case do not demand
this view. Neither in Acts nor in the Gospel of Peter
is there any feature which points to any conclusion,
except that the story of the Ascension represents the
belief of men, who, thinking of Heaven as a place,
necessarily regarded the exaltation of Christ as an
ascension. The fact is very important for the history
of doctrine, or for the right conception of the point
of view of the first Christians ; but it has no other
value for discussion of the historical evidence of the
Resurrection. Thus the result of an inquiry into the available
evidence with a view to reconstructing the earliest
tradition may be summed up as follows : the Lord
was buried by Joseph of Arimathaea, who wished to
fulfil the law of Deuteronomy, and probably was the
representative of the Sanhedrim. The burial was
watched, probably from a distance, by the little band of
women who had remained to see the last moments of
their Master. None of the other disciples were present,
for they had scattered after the arrest of Jesus (St
Peter a little later than the rest), and had either already

238 THE RESURRECTION
returned home, or were in hiding in Jerusalem until
they could find an opportunity of escape.
Soon all the disciples found themselves once more in
their old homes, and prepared to return to their old
methods of life. But to their surprise the Lord
appeared, first to St Peter and afterwards to others —
to those who lived in Judaea as well as to the Galileans
— and under the influence of these appearances, of
which the details have not been accurately preserved,
they came to believe that the Lord was risen and
exalted to Heaven, and that they were called to return
to Jerusalem to take up their Master's work.
In Jerusalem they found the women who had watched
the burial, and these told them that they had gone on the
morning of the third day to supply the deficiencies of
the burial given to the Lord by Joseph, but when they
came to the grave, instead of finding it closed, they found
it open, and a young man terrified them by telling
them that Jesus whom they were seeking was not there.
Thus to the already firm belief in the fact of the
Resurrection — a belief which to that generation implied
that the grave was empty — came to be added, on the
strength of the women's report, that the Resurrection
took place on the third day.
In the next chapter the question will be discussed of
the value of this tradition for the establishment of the

THE EARLIEST TRADITION 239
facts. The following points will have to be dealt
with : — (1) Does the experience of the women really
justify the belief that the tomb was empty ? (2) Does
it justify the belief that the Resurrection took place
on the third day ? (3) How far does the fact of the
appearances justify the belief in the Resurrection ?

CHAPTER VII
THE FACTS WHICH ARE BEHIND THE
EARLIEST TRADITION
The establishment of the earliest tradition is not quite
the same thing as the establishment of the facts. It
really only represents the judgment of the first witnesses.
This judgment may be accepted or disputed. In some
cases there is no reason for hesitating to accept it ; and
in any historical inquiry these cases are the majority.
But in other cases it is necessary to consider how far the
tradition from the beginning was influenced not only
by what the eye-witnesses saw, but by their general
belief, and by the explanations consciously and simul
taneously added to their observations.
In the case of the narrative of the Resurrection, this
is especially true of three points : (1) the belief that the
tomb was empty ; (2) the choice of the third day as that
of the Resurrection ; (3) the appearances of Christ as
a basis of belief. 240

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 241
(1) The empty tomb. — That the tomb was empty was
undoubtedly the general belief of the earliest Christians.
The question is whether this belief was founded on an
inference from the fact of the Resurrection or on inde
pendent evidence.
So far as the Galilean disciples were concerned,
if the statements on pp. 24 ff. correctly represent the
general Jewish belief, there is no question but that the
fact of the Resurrection, of which the appearance of the
risen Lord was the proof, must have been regarded as
implying that the tomb was empty. Thus, at least
until they met the women in Jerusalem, the emptiness
of the tomb was an inference drawn from the fact of
the Resurrection, by the help of the belief that the
Resurrection of Christ had been accomplished by a
transubstantiation of flesh into spirit, just as the
general resurrection would ultimately be accomplished.
On the other hand, so far as the women who went to
the tomb are concerned, the belief in the emptiness of
the tomb seems to have preceded their belief in the
Resurrection. It is, of course, not true to say that
their belief in the Resurrection was founded on their
belief in the empty tomb ; neither the one nor the
other was based on direct experience, but both were
inferences drawn from the words of the young man whom
they saw by the grave.

242 THE RESURRECTION
The question is whether we are prepared to accept or
to reject these two inferences — one drawn from the belief
in the fact of the Resurrection, the other from the
message of the young man.
The former inference is exclusively doctrinal ; it is
the affirmation of the belief that the Resurrection
implies the resurrection of the body in such a manner
as to remove all traces of it from the tomb. This
affirmation was undoubtedly made by most early
Christians — almost certainly by St Paul — and remained
the unquestioned view of believers in the Resurrection
up to quite a recent time. The actual mental process
which made this affirmation was no doubt often obscured
by the coincident belief that the tomb had actually
been found to be empty ; but it surely is true that at
most periods of Church history the dominant view was
that the Resurrection implied the empty tomb, quite as
much as that the empty tomb implied the Resurrection.
It is only in the last few years that there has been a
reasoned and serious disposition not merely to impugn
the validity of this inference, but, by the use of an
argument which can claim the authority of St Paul,
to doubt its probability, and so to unite a belief
in the Resurrection with a denial that the tomb was
empty. St Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians establishes

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 243
a parallelism 1 between the Resurrection of Christ and
the Resurrection of Christians, and whatever views have
been held on Christology, this parallelism has never
been disputed. If Christ's Resurrection is described as
the first-fruits of the dead, this idea must be implied.
Obviously this can be used in two ways. We may fill
in the lacunae of our opinions as to life beyond death
from the recorded facts of the history of Christ, so far
as we believe that historical research can give us a
trustworthy record ; or we can use our opinions as to
the resurrection of mankind in order to explain the
narrative of the Resurrection of Christ. The latter is,
of course, an entirely subjective method; but so long
as it be not taken for anything else, it is perfectly
legitimate. To expect unanimity on such a point would be
absurd, and, as a matter of fact, there seem to be
two main lines on which thought has moved. Some
generations have found it impossible to conceive
of the existence of personal life apart from the body.
This line of thought postulates the inseparability
of life and our present body. This remains true
whether it does or does not adopt the Jewish theory
of a transubstantiation of matter into spirit, and is
independent of the definition given to those words.
1 Cf. E. A. Abbott's The Kernel and the Husk, Letter 23.

244 THE RESURRECTION
In some of his writings, St Paul seems to think along
this line. A necessary corollary from it is that there
is an indefinite period of waiting or suspension of life
between the hour of death and resurrection ; for resur
rection on this hypothesis means the resuscitation or
transubstantiation of the body in such a way that the
tomb remains empty.
On the other hand, there are some places in St Paul's
epistles which seem to point to the fact that he con
templated an immediate passage from death to life,
or rather from one phase of life to another, separated
from it only by the change of circumstance which we
call death. Such a view, which excludes the idea of an
empty tomb, has of recent years become more and more
generally accepted, and the other view has correspond
ingly lost ground. We believe that life is continuous :
we do not doubt that death is but a passage to a wider
life, and we turn away from the suggestion that life is
interrupted by a prolonged and indefinite period of
waiting, or that the courts of the judgment of God
admit of that delay which we regard as undesirable
and unnecessary in a human tribunal. Furthermore,
there are many of us who would not welcome the
prospect of the resuscitation of that body of flesh and
blood which is so often a hindrance, even though it be
an education, on earth. Personally, I do not doubt

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 245
that this hypothesis is nearer the truth than any
other; but it must be remembered that it is in no
case likely that any statement of it is the whole truth,
and that 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. To my
own mind it seems possible that some evidence to
this effect already exists, for phenomena have certainly
been registered by observers of high scientific and moral
position, which may point to the conclusion that men
who were known to them personally, and died recently,
are still capable of communicating with them. This
matter is worthy of most serious attention, 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 re
liable evidence for the survival of personality after
death. On the choice between these two lines of thought —
one rejecting, and the other demanding the resuscita
tion of the material body — depends the judgment
which ought to be passed on the inference, that the
tomb of Christ was empty, drawn from the fact of
his Resurrection. If we take the latter line, we are
bound to say that whether there be any evidence to

246 THE RESURRECTION
that effect or not, we must believe in the empty tomb
as a necessary result of the Resurrection. If we take
the other view, we must regard such an inference as
unnecessary and probably wrong. Life, we say, is
continuous. Our lost friends are living now, and we
hope to pass through the same gate of death to join
them in the same state of existence ; but their graves
are not empty, nor will ours become so. If, then, there
be a parallelism, as St Paul thought, between Christ
and Christians, there is no reason to suppose that it
was otherwise with him. Thus, for us, the story of
the empty tomb seems to be an improper inference
from the fact of the Resurrection, and we are led on
to ask whether it need be inferred from the experience
of the women in the way in which they inferred it.
The investigation of pp. 182-201 had for its object
the establishment of the earliest tradition as to the
visit of the women to the tomb, and resulted in the
conclusion that the Marcan account is trustworthy
and primitive. It represents, however, not an account
which the women delivered to the disciples before the
latter returned from Galilee or had seen the risen Lord,
but rather the report which they made to the disciples
after their return, and in interpreting their experiences
the women were probably quite as much influenced
by the disciples' vision of the Lord, as the disciples

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 247
were by the story of the women. To the disciples
the story of the women would seem merely to be the
natural (but by no means necessary) confirmation of
the inference, already drawn from their own experience,
that the body of the Lord was no longer in the tomb.
To the women, on the other hand, the story of the
disciples must have been the actual proof of the
Resurrection, and a corroboration of the inferences
which they had already drawn. From their experience
they had no doubt drawn the natural conclusion that
the tomb was empty, though they did not, according
to Mark, reach this result from any actual examination.
Ultimately, too, they drew the inference that the
emptiness of the tomb was due to the Resurrection,
but at what moment they did this is precisely one
of the points which cannot safely be settled. If we
were certain that the words spoken by the young man
were exactly reported by Mark, we might have reason
for thinking that the women reached the belief in
the Resurrection at once. But we are very far from
certain. In the first place, as was said above (see
p. 199), we cannot be sure that Mark, though an
early and correct tradition, preserves the exact form
in which the women reported their experience ; and,
secondly, the evidence of the women themselves is
not of the kind which creates confidence in their

248 THE RESURRECTION
exact recollection of what they heard, or of their
power to distinguish this recollection from their sub
sequently reached interpretation of it — a distinction
which few witnesses can make. They were naturally
in an overwrought state of mind, and on their own
showing they fled when they heard the young man
speak. It is much more probable that they did not
really hear anything quite distinctly beyond the state
ment that the body which they sought was not in
the tomb, and that they afterwards, in the light of
the knowledge of the fact of the appearances of the
Lord, came to think that this must have been a
message referring to the Resurrection. That this is
psychologically probable will be disputed by no one
who has investigated the statement of contemporary
witnesses. That it is historically possible is suggested
by the way in which the various accounts in the gospels
rewrite the Marcan version. If the first Christians were
thus free with a written tradition, and replaced the
text by their own explanations of it, is it probable
that the oral tradition was more accurately preserved ?
Moreover, the suggestion in the First and Fourth
Gospels that Mary Magdalene was convinced of the
Resurrection by the appearance of the Lord, and not
merely (in the Fourth Gospel not at all) by the message
of the young man, though chiefly due to the influence

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 249
of conflation in tradition, may have been partly in
spired by the knowledge that the women did not
really understand at the moment what the young
man meant, and only came to the conclusion that he
was announcing the Resurrection after they had heard
of the appearances.
If it be granted that the exact words of the young
man in the Marcan narrative are merely an inference
from the experience of the women, interpreted in the
light of further knowledge and of doctrinal presupposi
tion, it becomes a matter of importance to ask whether
this inference was justifiable, or, in other words, whether
the facts might have been otherwise interpreted.
It is desirable to reiterate that the inference was, and
is, reasonable for those who hold that the Resurrec
tion of Christians as well as of Christ must imply
a resuscitation of the flesh and blood laid in the
tomb. On this theory the tomb of Christ, if he rose,
was certainly empty, and the inference of the women
was perfectly natural. This view was all but universal
in the early Church, and has, of course, still many
adherents ; but it cannot be said to be undisputed, and
the question is, whether the experience of the women
can be given any interpretation other than their own.
There is little to gain by multiplying imaginary recon
structions which cannot be proved, but merely as an

250 THE RESURRECTION
indication that the interpretation of the women is not
the only one possible, the following suggestions may be
offered. It is seriously a matter for doubt whether the women
were really in a position to be quite certain that the
tomb which they visited was that in which they had
seen Joseph of Arimathaea bury the Lord's body. The
neighbourhood of Jerusalem is full of rock-tombs, and
it would not be easy to distinguish one from another
without careful notes. So far as their frame of mind at
the time of the burial was concerned, the women were
certainly not fit to take such notes. They had spent
the day in watching the dying agony of their Master,
and it is not in human nature at such a time calmly to
consider a question of locality. Moreover, it is very
doubtful if they were close to the tomb at the moment
of burial. As was shown in chapters ii. and vi., it is
likely that they were watching from a distance, and that
Joseph of Arimathaea was a representative of the Jews
rather than of the disciples. If so, they would have
had but a limited power to distinguish between one
rock-tomb and another close to it. The possibility,
therefore, that they came to the wrong tomb is to be
reckoned with, and it is important because it supplies
the natural explanation of the fact that whereas they
had seen the tomb closed, they found it open. If there

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 251
were any reason to think that the opening of the tomb
was a necessary preliminary to the Resurrection,1 this
might seem on doctrinal grounds sufficiently explicable ;
but even in the most anti-Docetic narratives the risen
Lord can appear at will in a room with closed doors, so
that unless the Resurrection was material to an extent
never yet suggested, the open door of the tomb was
purely evidential. Yet it does not appear to have been
treated as evidence by the early Christians. According
to St Paul, faith in the Resurrection was based on
the evidence that the Lord had been seen, not that the
tomb was open. On the usual view, the open door of
the tomb is a miracle which was unnecessary to permit
of the Resurrection, and was not used to produce faith.
It is thus merely a portent, and the doubt is worth
considering whether the tomb which the women found
open was the same as Joseph of Arimathaea had closed.
If it were not the same, the circumstances all seem to
fall into line. 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
1 There is an interesting treatment of this point in Bishop Horsley's
Nine Sermons on the Nature of the Evidence by -which the Fact of our
Lord's Resurrection is Established, published in 1815. See esp.
p. 202, in which the Bishop maintains that the stone was only rolled
away " not to let the Lord out, but to let the women in."

252 THE RESURRECTION
man, who was in the entrance, guessing their errand,
tried to f;ell 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 frightened at the detection of their
errand and fled, only imperfectly or not at all under
standing what they heard. It was only later on, when
they knew that the Lord was risen, and — on their view
— that his tomb must be empty, that they came to
believe that the young man was something more than
they had seen ; that he was not telling them of their
mistake, but announcing the Resurrection, and that
his intention was to give them a message for the
disciples. These remarks are not to be taken as anything more
than a suggestion of what might possibly have happened.
All that is said is that if the facts had been of this kind,
persons who had the opinions and the experience of the
women and of the evangelists would have produced such
a narrative as we possess, and would naturally and inevit
ably have connected the experience of the women, the
open tomb, and the Resurrection in the manner which we
find in Mark, because they believed that the Resurrection
must imply an empty tomb. Those who still believe in
this necessity are justified in making the same inference,
but those of us who believe that the Resurrection need

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 253
not imply an empty tomb are justified in saying that
the narrative might have been produced by causes in
accordance with our belief, and that the inference of
the women is one which is not binding on us. The
empty tomb is for us doctrinally indefensible and is
historically insufficiently accredited.
Thus the story of the empty tomb must be fought
out on doctrinal, not on historical or critical grounds.
The historical evidence is such that it can be fairly
interpreted consistently with either of the two doctrinal
positions — that the Resurrection implies or does not
imply a resuscitation of the flesh — but it does not
decisively support either. I have indicated which
position seems to me preferable, and it would be beyond
my scope to endeavour to discuss the matter more fully ;
but I would reiterate that the crucial point is the
definition which we give to the Resurrection. If we
hope for this in our case in such a way as to resuscitate
the human flesh which will be laid in the ground, we
must postulate the same for the "first-born from the
dead." If we do not believe, and would not desire this
for ourselves, it is illogical that we should believe that
it was so for him.
(2) The choice of the third day. — There is no doubt
that from the beginning the Resurrection was believed
to have taken place on the third day. It is almost

254 THE RESURRECTION
equally certain that, at least by the time the gospels
were written, the experience of the women who went to
the grave was regarded as pointing to this date, and
that the evidence of the Old Testament was invoked to
justify or to confirm this view. It is not so certain how
far the same is true of quite the earliest period, but the
discussion of St Paul's evidence in chapters i. and vi. led
to the conclusion that it is improbable that the use of
Old Testament prophecy by itself led to the choice of
the third day, and it was also seen that in 1 Cor. xv. St
Paul is quoting a formula which was in use in the com
munity of Jerusalem. Thus it is so probable as almost
to be certain that the choice of the third day was bound
up in the early Church from the very beginning with
the experience of the women. But at this point a
difficulty arises. Granting that the choice of the day
was connected with the experience of the women, it
remains true that there was no reason to fix on the
third day rather than the second. The first day, it may
be conceded, was excluded by the fact that the burial
took place just before sunset, when the day was on the
point of closing ; but this would only show that the
Resurrection took place between the sunset of Friday
and the sunrise of Sunday, and the disciples seem to
have been confident that it took place between the
latter time and the sunset of Saturday, and thus,

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 255
according to their method of reckoning, on the third
day.
Thus it would seem that the third day was an imperfect
inference from the narrative of the women, and we have
to ask what were the contributory reasons for this
inference, and how far it is valid for us.
There is no reason to suppose that there was only one
influence at work to induce the disciples to interpret the
experience of the women in the way in which they did.
Probably there were several. One of them would of
course be the prophecies of the Old Testament, and we
know from St Paul that this was an important influence.
But the discussion on pp. 28 ff. has shown that the Old
Testament really supplies very little which can be
taken as a prophecy that the third day should be that
of the Resurrection. It is thus all the more desirable
to consider other possibilities. Two especially are
important. (a) Prophecy of the Lord himself. — In the gospels
there are several passages in which the Lord appears
clearly to foretell his death in Jerusalem and his
Resurrection on the third day. The gospels, however,
represent not merely the sayings of the Lord, but
the views of the early Christians with regard to them.
Therefore, when it is necessary to distinguish between
what was actually said, and the interpretation given to

256 THE RESURRECTION
it by the writers of the gospels, it is impossible to
proceed without taking into consideration the develop
ment of belief. Now it is certain that from a period
antecedent to the writing of the gospels there were two
main beliefs connected with the Lord and his prophecy
of triumph over death. On the one hand, men believed
that he had foretold the Resurrection ; on the other
hand, that he had foretold a second coming. The
former prophecy had been fulfilled ; the second would
be within a short time. In the gospels these two
prophecies are quite sharply defined ; but there is
also evidence that this sharp definition is due to the
explanations of the Church, and not to the original
words. In the first place, it seems clear that the behaviour
of the disciples after the betrayal and crucifixion of
the Lord excludes the view that he had ever definitely
foretold his Resurrection in words which they could
not fail to understand. This point is obscured in the
later narratives, but is plain in Mark. In the second
place, even in the passages which seem to show that
he did utter unmistakable prophecies, there is generally
a hint that as a matter of fact such was not the case.
For instance, in Mark viii. 31 we have an apparently
clear reference to the Resurrection ; but in the con
text (Mark ix. 10) it is stated that the disciples did

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 257
not understand it, and the same thing is true of
Mark ix. 32 f.
Similarly, turning to the passages referring to the
Parousia, in Mark ix. 1, the second coming is defined
as taking place before the death of the bystanders.
The same thing is stated in Mark xiii. 30, and is
probably implied in Mark xiv. 62. In fact, a belief
in an immediate second coming is characteristic of
Mark, though the detailed criticism and exegesis of
the little apocalypse in chapter xiii. is very uncertain.
Later on, when the expectation of an immediate Parousia
proved misplaced, there was, as may be seen in Luke,
a tendency to rewrite these sayings, to connect some
of them with the fall of Jerusalem, and to expand
the time limit in others. It has furthermore been
suggested by some writers that the phrases "on the
third day " or " after three days " — in practice synony
mous expressions — were used as the equivalent of
"shortly" or "after a short time." The suggestion
therefore is that the Lord spoke to the disciples of his
approaching death and ultimate victory, and in con
nexion with the latter used the expression " after three
days " or " on the third day." By this he meant no more
than a customary use of the expression for " shortly,"
and the nature of his ultimate victory he may either
have left indefinite, or have clothed in the forms of
17

258 THE RESURRECTION
contemporary eschatological thought. The disciples,
after the death and resurrection of their Master,
interpreted these sayings in two ways. Some they
regarded as prophecies of the Resurrection, and in this
connexion they interpreted the expression "on the third
day" in a literal manner foreign to its original meaning.
But the Resurrection did not seem completely to satisfy
their expectation, and thus they regarded other sayings
as prophecies of the second coming. Later on, when the
lapse of years had falsified the notes of time pointing
to a fulfilment of this hope before the passingltway of
all the first generation, a further division into two was
adopted, and some sayings — those with notes of time —
were connected with the fall of Jerusalem, and others
with the second coming.
Some such theory as this has no doubt some plausi
bility and is partly true, but its importance for the
present purpose is greatly impaired by the fact that
there is no adequate evidence that three days was
used in the way suggested as a vivid expression for
a short time. Therefore, while admitting the general
correctness of the view that the gospels represent the
interpretation of the early Church rather than the
exact form of the original, it is quite uncertain
whether the reference to the third day is to be re
garded as the cause or as the effect of the belief in

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 259
the Resurrection on that particular day. It is per
haps more probable that it was the belief of the
disciples which produced the exact form of the pro
phecies in the gospel.
The conclusion from these arguments seems to be that
Jesus spoke to his disciples about his approaching death
and ultimate victory in terms which they did not under
stand. In the light of subsequent events, some of his
sayings were interpreted as prophecies of the Resurrec
tion, and into these a reference was inserted to that third
day which was believed' to have been that of the Resur
rection. In the same way other prophecies were taken
to refer to the second coming, and later on a further
distinction was made, according to which some referred
to the fall of Jerusalem and others to the Parousia.
The fact that we have all classes of sayings side by side
in the gospels is another example of " conflation in
tradition." This theory has not a little in its favour,
but it will be seen that, so far as the present problem is
concerned, it leaves us as far as ever from explaining the
reason of the original belief in the third day as that of
the Resurrection.
(b) Contemporary Messianic belief among the people. —
A very important suggestion is that the " third day "
is a trace of the influence of contemporary belief. For
this little direct evidence can be given ; but the theory

260 THE RESURRECTION
which emphasises its importance is much as follows.
We have in the Talmud and Rabbinical writings a
fair representation of the belief of educated Jewish
theologians, written sometime later, but probably not
differing greatly from the form in which it existed in
the time of Christ. The apocalyptic literature gives
in the same way the eschatological expectations of
certain theologians. But neither of these, though no
doubt exercising influence on the people, can be
regarded as an exact presentment of the popular
theology of the time. Yet every analogy supports the
view that such a theology existed. The uneducated
mass of the people has always a theology which
differs from that either of the educated laity or of
the priests, or of the theologians. This theology can
be sought for in two directions. In the first place, the
early Christians probably took over a great part of
the contemporary Jewish theology, so that the New
Testament is a more valuable repository of information
as to what the people believed than the Rabbinical
literature is. In the second place, it is suggested that
the popular theology contained a large proportion of
the ideas found in other religions, especially in the
Babylonian, Persian, and Egyptian. Critics have of
recent years been very active in working out this view,
and they and their adversaries are still at cross purposes

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 261
with each other. The latter say that there is no
evidence that the various Babylonian, etc., ideas
obtained among the Jews, and that it is unscientifically
rash to quote documents of every century to illustrate
and explain the New Testament as though time and
space did not exist. The former say that this objection
is more specious than important, for ex hypothesi they
are dealing with the unwritten popular theology which
changed so slowly that, if one prove that a doctrine
was taught in one generation, it is safe to assume that it
lingered on for centuries among the people. Moreover,
it is urged that the ideas in question can be traced
through many centuries, only slightly changing, and
applied first to one god and then to another. Thus,
for instance, it is said that Marduk,1 the son of the
Babylonian god Ea, was represented as the god through
whom the world was made, who is called "Lord of
Lords and King of Kings," who came down to save
men, died, and returned to heaven to be the great
intercessor for men in the heavens. In the same way
the celebration of the death and resurrection of the
god on the third day played a part in the theology
connected with Attis, Adonis, Osiris and probably other
deities. Now these theologies were certainly not
without influence on Hebrew religion : probably the
1 Cf. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 3rd ed.

262 THE RESURRECTION
attributes of Marduk were at first taken over by the
Hebrew Jahveh, later on were divided between Michael
the archangel and the Messiah. In connexion with
the latter, it is urged, the people very probably inter
preted various parts of the Old Testament which the
Christians from the beginning connected with Christ,
but the Rabbis never explained in relation to the
Messianic expectation. This view, for instance, has been
adopted by Professor Gunkel with regard to the figure
of the Servant of Jahveh in the second part of Isaiah.
Moreover, it is denied by this school of thought that
the famous passage in 4 Esdras vii. 28 ff., foretelling the
death of the Messiah, is, as has often been assumed, a
Christian interpolation ; it is a genuine fragment of
the Popular as distinguished from the Rabbinical
Messianic expectation.
The difficulty is to decide how far this theory is
based on fact, and how far it is merely guess work.
Few of us have any real knowledge of the subject, but
the statements of some students of Babylonian religion
seem to be based on slight evidence, and the justice of
their exegesis of the Bible is far from certain. Still,
there is no doubt that some of the men who hold these
views are just the men whose knowledge and research give
their opinion, so far as Babylonian religion is concerned,
quite a special value ; whereas those who are most noisy

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 263
in rebuking them have frequently but little knowledge,
and have done no work on the subject.
Thus one has seriously to reckon with the possibility
that in the popular religion of the Jews in the time of
Christ there was an expectation of a suffering Messiah
moulded ultimately on primitive ideas of the god who
dies and rises after three days — perhaps going back to a
personification of the moon, which is invisible for three
days when it is new. The evidence is not sufficient at
present to prove that this is so, but it would be unwise
to leave such arguments out of account.
The importance of this position is easily seen. The
early Christians had to give an explanation of the
personality of Jesus and of his history, and just as the
evangelists were obliged to write in the current language,
so they were obliged to think the current thoughts of
their day. They could not but explain the figure of
Jesus in the terms of the Messianic thought which
they had inherited. The question may even be raised
whether Jesus himself was not under the same necessity.
Some critics are inclined — in my opinion — to go to a
quite unnecessary length in their use of this fact, and
one of the objects of this book is to argue that there
is a solid basis of history, in the Marcan narrative of the
experience of the women, and in the Pauline account of
the appearances of Christ, which cannot be explained as

264 THE RESURRECTION
efforts of the imagination to give a concrete form to
current Messianic views. It is history, not theology or
mythology. At the same time, if the results already
reached have any value, it is clear that the development
and explanation of the narrative of these historical facts
proceeded rapidly along the lines of contemporary
thought. One of the first points with which this
development was concerned was the choice of the third
day, and if it were certain that the popular theology
contained a belief in a Messiah who would die and rise
on the third day, it would be natural to see in this a
contributory reason for the choice of the third day as
that of the Resurrection.
As was said at the beginning of this discussion, none
of these explanations seem quite satisfactory. But the
fact remains that from the beginning the third day was
regarded as that of the Resurrection — on theological
rather than historical grounds — and the question arises
whether this primitive belief has still a commanding
claim on our assent.
The answer to this question depends really on that
given to the problem of the empty tomb. If we take
the Jewish view that resurrection implies resuscita
tion of the body, the fact of the burial of the Lord
proves at least there was an interval between his death
and Resurrection ; and so far, at least, the belief in the

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 265
third day is not excluded. If, on the other hand, we
reject this view, we really reject with it not merely the
doctrinal justification for the belief in the empty tomb,
but also for an interval between death and resurrection.
What we mean by resurrection is not resuscitation of the
material body, but the unbroken survival of personal life;
and the uninterrupted continuance of life excludes an
interval of even three days, just as certainly as the
resuscitation of the body demands it.
(3) What is the meaning ofthe appearances cf Christ ? —
The last chapter showed that there is convincing evidence
that the disciples believed that the Lord had appeared
to St Peter and to others in the form of a spiritual being.
Later on this spiritual being became in the Lucan and
Johannine anti-Docetic narratives a being of flesh and
blood — a resuscitated corpse, not a spirit, — and the
impression made on the disciples by the appearances
was translated into the form of conversations between
the Lord and his disciples. The Pauline form represents
the earliest tradition, and it is that alone with which we
have to deal.
The matter is difficult, but at the same time all that
can be said requires little space. It is quite plain that
the disciples were all firmly convinced that the Lord
had appeared to them, and no one more firmly than St
Paul ; nor is there any reason to suppose that his experi-

266 THE RESURRECTION
ence was essentially different from that of the other
disciples. It is impossible to discover, and it is not
very important to ask, precisely what kind of evidence it
was which convinced them of this point. In any case
it was the evidence of their senses, and whether it was
sight or hearing or even touch is really of secondary
importance. What matters is that the evidence of St
Paul is explicit on the two points (a) that the appear
ance left no room for doubt in his mind, (b) that it was
that of a spiritual being.
This view is, it need hardly be said, generally accepted
by most critical students of the New Testament, but
there have always been differences of opinion as to
whether the appearances ought to be described as
subjective or objective. The former view is that the
appearances depended entirely on the spiritual experience
of the disciples, who visualised, as it were, their convic
tion that their Master's life could not be extinguished
by death. In support of this view may be urged that,
quite apart from the probability that Jesus himself had
given teaching to this effect, the Jewish belief that
death, which was the unnatural end of life only due to
Adam's sin, had not been allowed to triumph in the
cases of Enoch, of Elijah, and, at least in some sense, of
Moses, supplies a reason for the disciples' belief, which
may have been emphasised by contemporary Messianic

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 267
doctrine. The difficulty of this view is that it seems to
fall to pieces against the experience of St Paul. He,
until his conversion, had entirely rejected any suggestion
that Jesus was either the Messiah, or in any way to be
ranked with Enoch, Elijah, or Moses. Thus, to explain
St Paul's experience in this way demands the re
construction of an elaborate psychological process1
occasioned in his mind by the words of St Stephen,
which convinced him, without his knowing, that Jesus
was the Messiah, and thus produced the vision on the
road to Damascus. The extremely cumbrous and
improbable nature of this suggestion is a serious
objection to the purely subjective hypothesis.
The objective hypothesis is that the appearance was
independent of the belief or feelings of the disciples.
In other words, the disciples saw what they saw because
there really was a spiritual being which had an existence
independent of them and, produced the appearance.
This view explains all the facts and agrees with the
undoubted belief of the disciples. It is, however,
adversely criticised in two directions.
In the first place, there are those who think that
such a phenomenon is in itself so improbable that
any alternative is preferable to its assertion.
1 For the possibility of this " subconscious incubation " see W. James,
Some Varieties of Religious Experience.

268 THE RESURRECTION
This objection is almost outside the scope of the
present book, for it is philosophical and not historical ;
yet it is obviously unsatisfactory not to discuss it to
some extent. It is based on the feeling that modern
science and modern philosophy speak with a constantly
increasing firmness against the probability of the
suspension of " natural law." Those who take this view
do not necessarily reject the belief in the survival of life
after death. For instance, some of them would admit
that it is conceivable that life is eternal and bounded
neither by space nor time, so that death ought to be
regarded as the release of an eternal personality from
the limitations of existence in time ; but it would be
said that, granted this is so, it remains true that death
is the end of existence in time, and it would be a
violation of all that we know of the laws of life to
suppose that the personality which has passed outside
these present limitations is able at will to return and
hold communion with those who are still within them.
Now it is certainly difficult to argue, as older apologists
did, in support of the theory that we have any right to
talk of " suspension of natural law " witnessed to by
historical evidence. As Dr Rashdall x has said, "...
It seems to me clear that completely isolated exceptions
to the laws of nature could not be adequately established
1 In an unpublished treatise which I have his permission to quote.

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 269
by the kind of historical evidence to which the believers
in such suspensions appeal, even if that evidence were
far stronger than it is." But, as Dr Rashdall goes on to
point out, this argument does not apply to the question
at issue. It would, and does apply to the theory of the
resuscitation or transubstantiation of a material body,
but it has no bearing on the question of the survival of
personality after death, and the possibility of its making
its presence known to others. " The disappearance or
absolute annihilation," says he, "the reanimation, or
the sudden transformation into something not quite
material and yet not quite spiritual, of a really dead
body, would involve the violation of the best ascertained
laws of physics, chemistry, and physiology. Were the
testimony fifty times stronger than it is, any hypothesis
would be more possible than that. But in the present
state of our knowledge of the kind of causality which
is discovered in the relation between mind and mind, or
between mind and body, there is nothing to be said
against the possibility of an appearance of Christ to his
disciples, which was a real though supernormal psycho
logical event, but which involved nothing which can
properly be spoken of as a suspension of natural law."
To which it may be added that it is by no means so
certain as those who advance this objection maintain
that even our present life is always and absolutely

270 THE RESURRECTION
circumscribed by space and time. On one side of our
nature it is ; but is there not also a side which is already
at times in conscious communion with something which
transcends those limits ?
There is, however, a point of somewhat allied nature
which demands attention. It may be said that
"seeing" and "hearing" are actions of the material
senses which imply the existence of correspondingly
material objects to arouse them. If one has sense-
perception which is not aroused by a physical object,
' is it not merely subjective hallucination ?
This argument contains an element of truth which it
is very undesirable to overlook. It is certainly true
that our senses so habitually react to physical and
material forces that their reaction inevitably connotes
something physical and material. If we speak or think
of a spiritual, non-material being, the nearest approach
our minds can make to forming an image of what is
meant is really only a very highly attenuated form of
physical existence, though not so highly attenuated as
some forms of matter really are, for matter appears to
exist in invisible forms, and many of us (the present
writer at all events) cannot really think of anything
without simultaneously and automatically translating
it into terms of sight. We may allow for this fact
and recognise that this material presentment is due to

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 271
ourselves and is really contradictory to the nature of
that spiritual being we were considering — it is sub
jective, not objective — but we are no more able to
think in any other way than we are able to speak
without words.
Yet however much weight be attached to this
argument, it does not justify the statement that the
appearance of Jesus to the disciples was subjective
hallucination. Hallucination is certainly an unjusti
fiable word if it would imply that the disciples were
pathologically influenced by some defect in their senses,
for the most that is to be said is that their con
ception of the form of the appearance of Jesus was
conditioned by the limitations imposed on all healthy
minds. Nor is it even correct to say without qualifica
tion that it was subjective. It is justifiable to say that
the form in which the spiritual being presented itself was
due not to its own nature but to that of the disciples,
but this is a very different thing from saying that the
being itself had no objective existence. The form in
which an object appears is in any case the resultant
of the natures of the object and of the percipient.
Assume the possibility of an absolutely non-material
object communicating its presence to a man, and the
impression made on the latter must be an appearance
conditioned by the terms of his own human nature and

272 THE RESURRECTION
so far subjective. In this sense it is a truism to say
that the appearance of Christ after the Resurrection
was subjective, and the desire to do justice to this
fact, combined with a necessity of asserting that the
perception (in itself and apart from the form which
the perception took) of the appearance was due to
an objective presence, has led some theologians to
coin the cumbersome expression subjective - objective
appearance. It may be thought that this is merely a philosophical
subtlety, but it is something more than this. It means
that, if we once decide, whether on historical or
doctrinal grounds, that the risen Christ was spiritual,
not material, we must be consistent, and recognise that
when we speak of the disciples seeing or hearing the
risen Christ we are using, as they did, the language of
our ordinary perception of the material to express the
immaterial. Another line of thought is more difficult to express,
because, although it is no doubt widely followed, it is
not very often put into words. It is concerned with
the appearances of Jesus in their relation to the type
of phenomena collected by the Society of Psychical
Research, and especially by the late Mr F. W. H. Myers.1
These phenomena are supposed by some to point to
1 See his Survival of Human Personality after Death.

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 273
our possession of direct evidence for the survival of
human personality after death, and its power under
certain circumstances of communicating with us.
Certainly it must be admitted that the facts collected
are explicable on that basis, especially if we make
allowance for the factor discussed in the previous
paragraph, and consider the phenomena as "subjec
tive-objective." On the other hand, students of these phenomena are
generally ready to admit that another explanation is
possible, even if less probable. The fact of thought
transference and telepathy is now well established ; it is
also probable that the theory of the so-called "sub
liminal consciousness" expresses a real fact, namely that
our minds often work without our conscious knowledge,
and that the results of this unconscious working some
times rise, as it were, suddenly above the threshold of
consciousness, so that we are startled to find ourselves
in the presence of an unexpected guest. At this moment
no one would claim to have any precise knowledge of
the limits of possibility as applied either to thought-
transference or to the subliminal consciousness. Now
it is suggested that the phenomena on which Mr Myers
laid so much stress may be explained as merely the result
of thought-transference and the operation of a subliminal
consciousness. For instance, if there was the case of a
18

274 THE RESURRECTION
man who before his death left a document in a hidden
place, and after his death appeared and revealed both
the place and the contents of the letter, it would be
possible to say that the knowledge had really been
transferred before his death, unconsciously, to the
subliminal conscience of some acquaintance. Then,
after his death, something happened to bring this
subliminal consciousness to the surface, and so the
knowledge previously transferred was found, and by
the natural processes of thought either " visualised " into
an " appearance," or " auralised " into a " message."
The strong point of this theory is that so many
appearances of or messages from the dead are perceived
when the normal position of the subliminal consciousness
has been disturbed artificially by hypnotism, or naturally
by shock or strain. The weak point is that it is so
extraordinarily complicated that it seems easier to
believe that the appearances really are those of surviv
ing personality.
Obviously this question is not without its importance
for the question of the Resurrection. It is different if
it be held that the Resurrection of Christ was the
resuscitation of a material body; and those who still
hold that view are justified in saying that the question
is for them entirely outside their necessities. But for
those of us who regard the Resurrection of Christ not

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 275
as the resurrection of a material body, but as the
manifestation of a surviving personality, the question is
exceedingly important.
It means that we have to consider the possibility that
the phenomenon which we call the Resurrection of Christ
cannot be isolated, but must be considered in connexion
with others which belong to the same class. Critical
methods dealing simply with the historical evidence
show more and more clearly that the view is untenable,
except on doctrinal grounds, that there was any re
suscitation of the body of Jesus. A consideration of
the doctrinal grounds does not convince us that there
is reason for altering this verdict. At the same time,
critical methods point just as clearly to the existence of
a conviction among the disciples that the Lord had
appeared to them, and neither criticism nor philosophy
can give any explanation of this fact without admitting
that these appearances were dependent on the person
ality of Jesus. Criticism and philosophy give adequate
reason for explaining as unhistorical or as subjective
the form in which these appearances were related in
tradition, but they do not at all impugn the fact
of appearances. And at this point the psychologist
comes into the discussion, and says that such appearances
are not isolated phenomena; but he is not yet quite ready
to say what explanation he wishes to give of them:

276 THE RESURRECTION
perhaps they are proofs that personality survives death
in a form which does not exclude the possibility of
communications ; perhaps they are proofs of as yet
unfathomed possibilities of the influence of living
personality and of unconscious thought which suddenly
reaches the plane of consciousness, and manifests itself
there in the form of " appearances " or " messages."
So we seem to see the possibility that the discussion
of the Resurrection will in the future enter on a new
phase ; but it is impossible here to attempt to foretell
what this new period may bring. The present essay
must be regarded rather as an attempt to say what are
the actual facts which literary and historical criticism
can disentangle from the already developed tradition
which is found in the New Testament. It is the task
of the student of doctrine to consider the importance of
these results and to give them their place in a system of
theology, and of the psychologist to correlate them with
the other facts which seem to belong to the same class.
Here I might well end, for on the subject of historical
evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ I have no
more to say ; but at the cost of going outside my
subject, I wish to add one more paragraph in reference
to a criticism which cannot fail to be made.
It will be said that these results, though moderately

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 277
conservative in the region of literary criticism, are
nevertheless an entire abandonment of the central
doctrine of Christianity — the unique and miraculous
character of the Resurrection. From one point of view
this criticism is natural, for if these results be right, the
Resurrection ought not to be regarded as unique, or
as miraculous, if the miraculous be taken to mean a
suspension of the laws of the working of God in the
world. Moreover, it is certainly true that the doctrine
of the Resurrection which played so large a part in the
spread of Christianity was bound up with that belief in
a resurrection of the flesh which has been rejected in
this book as indefensible by any historical arguments.
So much must be admitted ; but against this admission
I would place the following considerations. In the
first place, the fact that the belief in the Resurrection
has hitherto been bound up with certain other views is
not decisive proof that it ought not to be separated
from them, any more than the fact that the gospel was
originally preached in Greek is a proof that that
language ought still to be employed by missionaries.
Secondly, what is really central is that to the early
Christians the Resurrection had a personal value, be
cause they believed that in the end it was not unique,
but was the triumph of life over death in which they
all joined. That remains true — perhaps even more true

278 THE RESURRECTION
— if the results of the present study be accepted,
and is independent of the Jewish or Greek forms of
thought in which it was once clothed. Finally, I
would protest that it is courting intellectual disaster
for us Christians to base the claims of our religion to
attention from this generation, which is hesitating
whether it will hear or whether it will forbear, on any
purely theological argument or on the accuracy of the
narratives of any event in the past. Those who teach
theology know best how little effect theology,1 and how
great effect religion, has on the modern man. The
argument which alone is convincing is the witness of
the Spirit given to men as the proof that on one side of
their nature they are the "sons of God." It is the
task of theologians to analyse that witness, to give it
intelligible formulation, and to trace its testimony from
century to century. But the Church will not long
survive if the day ever come when she rests her case
on either the theological formulation or the witness
of other days, and not on testimony which may be
heard in the present. There is no more important
1 Religion seems to me to be intuitive. It is the conscious com
munion of man with a higher spiritual being. Theology is partly a
theory to account for religion, partly a series of inductions based on
religion as to the higher spiritual being. The Church has too often
forgotten that the basis of her corporate life ought to be a common
religion, not necessarily a common theology.

THE FACTS BEHIND THE TRADITION 279
lesson for the theologian than that which his own
critical art teaches him, that the Sign of the prophet
Jonah to which our Lord appealed was not " three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth," but the
ever-present testimony of the Spirit, which has spoken
to men in every age through their own conscience,
through saints and preachers, through " Moses and
the prophets." If men will not listen to that, neither
will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A (see p. 185).
The belief was widespread among the Jews that at the
time of death angels were present to help the departing
spirit. This belief is represented in the New Testament
in Luke xvi. 22 : " And it came to pass that the beggar
died, and that he was carried away by the angels into
Abraham's bosom." It is also found in the late Jewish
theology, e.g. in the Targum on Cant. iv. 12 (Schottgen,
Horce Hebr., i. 301) it is said: "Only the Just can enter
Paradise, and their souls are brought there by the angels."
So also we are told in the Cabb. denud. of von Rosenroth,
Idra Rabba, §§ 1137 f. : " . . . Rabbi Jose and R. Chiskija
and R. Jesa died, and their companions saw that the holy
angels carried them away " ; and according to Schottgen,
Horce, ii. 657, R. Isaac said, " When a soul is worthy to be
brought through the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem,
Michael the great prince accompanies it and commends it
to peace with the ministering angels." In the same way,
in the Apocalyptic Book of Adam, Michael, Gabriel, Uriel,
and Raphael take the body of Adam. (The Book of Adam
is no longer extant, but it is imbedded in the Apocalypse
of Moses, ed. Tischendorf ; cf. also the Vita Adae et Evae in
280

APPENDICES 281
the Abhandlungen of the Royal Bavarian Academy of
Munich, philological and historical division, new series, for
the year 1878, and the Denkschrifien of the Vienna
Academy, philosophical and historical division, for 1893.
The date of this book is naturally uncertain; it seems
probable that it is earlier than the Epistle of Barnabas,
cf. Apocrypha Anecdota, Texts and Studies, ii. 3, p. 145 ;
but the strongly Messianic doctrine which it contains may
be Christian : this, however, is immaterial for the present
purpose, as the imagery is surely taken from Jewish
sources.) Again, just as the Book of Adam bears witness
to a tendency to put four archangels in the place of
Michael, the Tractate Ketuboth, 104a, in the Talmud
shows a still further multiplication : " R. Eleazar said. In
the hour when a just man leaves the world three troops
of ministering angels meet him."
These quotations, for which I am indebted to W. Lueken's
Michael (see esp. pp. 43-52), might probably easily be
added to ; but they are sufficient to show that there is no
doubt but that the ideas of death, resurrection, and angels
are closely connected with each other, and that therefore
it was quite natural in the time of Christ for Jews to think
that the young man whom the women saw by the tomb
was an angel, later on to develop a tradition which spoke
of two angels, and still later to identify these two angels
as Michael and Gabriel, as was done in the Ascension of
Isaiah. One might even have guessed that in some
circles the angels would be indefinitely multiplied. This
seems actually to have been the case, though the
evidence is found only in the conflate form, for in the
old African text (k) of Mc. xiv. 4, there is the curious
interpolation, subito autem ad horam tertiam tenebrce diei
factce sunt per Mum orbem terrce et descenderunt de coslis

282 APPENDICES
angeli et surgent (? es) in claritale vivi dei simul ascenderunt
cum eo ei continuo lux facta est.
It should be added that the Rabbinical books quoted
are of course much later than the Christian era, but it is
probable that the Jewish theology did not change so
much as to render them useless for the present purpose,
and in any case the evidence of Luke and the book of
Adam is quite early.

APPENDIX B (see p. 148).
There are several other accounts of the resurrection to
which attention may be directed, though none of them
have any claim to be regarded as historical evidence.
1 . In the Syriac Didascalia use seems to have been made
of an apocryphal gospel. The references to this source
may be found conveniently collected in Preuschen's
invaluable little book Aniilegomena (published by A.
Topelmann, Gieszen, 2nd ed., 1905), p. 81. See also A.
Meyer's Die Auferstehung Christi, pp. 76 f.
2. In a Coptic fragment published by C. Schmidt in the
Sitzungsberichten der konigl. preussischen Akademie for 1 895,
pp. 705-711, there is an account of the resurrection. See
Antilegomena, pp. 83 f., and A. Meyer, op. cit., pp. 81 ff.
3. The Anaphora Pilati purports to be a report of Pontius
Pilate ; see Tischendorf s Evangelia Apocrypha, pp. 435—449.
The book is also the best available text of the Acta Pilati
mentioned on p. 229.
4. The Acta Johannis is a purely Docetic, but quite late
account of the resurrection. See M. Bonnet's Acta
Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 1, pp. xxvi.-xxxiii., and pp. 151 ff.,

APPENDICES 283
and M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. ; Texts and Studies,
v. 1, pp. ix. -xxviii., and pp. 1 ff.
5. The Pistis Sophia and the Book of Jeu, though they
contain no narrative of the resurrection, are remarkable
examples of the belief held by some Gnostic sects that the
risen Lord remained among his disciples for several years
and communicated various mysteries to them. See C.
Schmidt's Koptisch-gnostische Schriften in the edition of
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte of the Prussian Academy. The preface to
this book gives an adequate account of recent books on
the subject.

APPENDIX C
Books on the Resurrection
It is of course impossible to attempt a complete biblio
graphy of all that has been written on the Resurrection of
Christ. The writings of the Church Fathers are in them
selves a proper subject for a separate book, and cannot
here be dealt with. Nor is it desirable to give the titles
of more recent works which are nevertheless out of date,
or of purely ephemeral pamphlets. The following list is
merely a selection of some of the more noteworthy and
more recent publications.
Those who desire fuller information as to the last twenty-
five years will find it in the back numbers of the Theo-
logischer Jahreshericht ; there is also a bibliography of
English books by Dr J. Moffat at the end of the article
on the " Resurrection- and Ascension- narratives " in the

284 APPENDICES
Encyclopcedia Biblica, and in A. Meyer's Die Auferstehung
Christi there is an excellent statement of the character
of the chief German work during the last century.
T. Goulburn, The Resurrection of the Body (Bampton
Lectures), 1850.
H. Gebhardt, Die Auferstehung Christi, 1864.
R. W. Macan, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1877.
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection, 1 879 ;
The Revelation of the Risen Lord.
W. Milligan, The Resurrection of our Lord, 1881.
E. C Steude, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, 1888.
W. Milligan, The Ascension of our Lord.
F. Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte, 1898.
P. Rohrbach, Die Berichte uber die Auferstehung Jesu,
1898. W. Bruckner, Die Berichte uber die Auferstehung, in the
Prot. Monats., 1899.
W. Sanday, Jesus Christ, in the Dictionary of the Bible,
1899. H. Latham, The Risen Master, 1901.
E. R. Bernard, Resurrection, in the Dictionary of the
Bible, 1903.
P. W. Schmiedel, Resurrection- and Ascension- narratives,
in the Encyclopcedia Biblica, 1903.
E. von Dobschiitz, Ostern und Pfingsten, 1 903 ; Probleme
des apostolischen Zeitalters, 1904.
W. J. Sparrow Simpson, Our Lord's Resurrection, 1905.
E. Riggenbach, Die Auferstehung Jesu, 1905.
A. Meyer, Die Auferstehung Christi, 1905.
L. Ihmels, Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi, 1906.

INDEX

Abbott, Dr E. A., 243.
Achaicus, 14.
Adam, 266.
Adonis, 261.
Alexandria, m.
Ambrose, St, 98, 100.
Amon, 98, 100.
Ananos, 173.
Andersen, A, 38.
Andrew, St, 156.
Angel (see Tomb, angel at, and
Appendix A).
Antioch, 148.
Apocalyptic literature, 260.
Apostles, 33, 205.
Appearances of the risen Lord, 27,
33, 34. 73, 77, 85. 191. 201-
227, 241, 263, 265-276.
to the disciples, 134, 187, 202,
205, 235, 246.
on road to Emmaus, 96-103, 218 f.
to five hundred brethren, 202.
in Galilee, 36, 73, 74, 79, 89,
94, 128, I37-H5. 147, 149,
161, 187, 193, 211.
to St James, 164, 205.
in Jerusalem, 77, 93, 94, 134,
145, 147, 156.
number of, 201-206.
to St Mary Magdalene, 134, 235,
248.
objective, 266.

Appearances of the risen Lord to
St Paul, 42, no, 1 16-120,
206, 233, 234.
to St Peter, 33, 36, 42, 70, 74 l,
79. 89, 101, 107, 162, 165,
193, 202, 211,225,238.
to St Stephen, no, 116.
subjective, 266, 271.
to the twelve, 33, 202.
to the women, 84-86, 184.
Aramaic documents, 46, 115, 116,
163, 164.
Aristion, 122.
Armenian version, 122.
Ascension, the, 106-116, 119, 136,
146, 155, 226, 230-237.
two men at, 236.
Attis, 261.
Babylonia, 197.
Baptism, 88, 135.
for the dead, 16, 229.
Barnabas, Epistle of, 114.
Baruch, Apocalypse of, 24, 25, 234.
Bethany, 107, 210.
Bethsaida, 94.
Body (see resurrection body).
Bouriant, M., 149.
Burial, method of, 172, 175, 179.
of Christ, 47-55, 129-131, 154,
169-182.
Burkitt, Prof. F. C, 40, 41, 125.

285

286

INDEX

Caesarea Philippi, 94.
Calendar, old Syriac, 114.
Cephas (see Peter).
Charles, Dr R. H., 22, 24.
Cheyne, Prof. T. K., 197.
Christ, the indwelling, 204, 215.
Christian literature, the origin of
the early, 7-10.
Christians, resurrection of, 14, 20,
35. 243.
Church at Jerusalem (see Jerusalem,
church at).
Clemen, Prof. C, 37.
Cleopas, 98-100.
Codex Beza? (D), 41, 57, 68, 98.
Vaticanus (B) 62.
Colonia, 100.
Conflation, 168, 186, 259.
Consciousness, subliminal, 273 f.
Controversies, Jewish - Christian,
180 f., 195.
Conybeare, Dr F. C. , 87.
Corinth, 13, 14, 33.
Corinthians, 16, 19, 41, 193.
Crete, 197.
Cross, personification of the, 159.
Crucifixion, the, 74, 107, 131, 154,
158, 169, 193, 226.
Crurifragium, 131.
Damascus, 119, 267.
Deuteronomy, law of, 52, 154, 173,
181, 182, 237.
Didache, 38.
Disciples, commission to, 215.
conduct of, 94 ff., 162 f.
the desertion of Jesus by, 74.
return of, to Galilee (see Galilee,
return to).
return of, to Jerusalem, 75, 79,
193, 209, 212, 226.
Disciplina arcani, 87.
Dobschiitz, Prof, von, 120, 203.
Docetism, 66, 148, 150, 155, 219,
221, 222, 225, 226, 232, 236.
Ea, 261.
Egyptian versions, 121.
Elijah, 236, 266, 267.

Emmaus, 96, 98-100, 103, 107, 108,
109, 189, 218, 219.
Enoch, 266, 267.
Book of, 26.
Ephesus, 122.
Epiphanius, 101.
Equinox, spring, 197.
Eschatology, 22, 258.
Eucharist, institution of the, 38, 39.
Eusebius of Caesarea, 87, 99, 148.
Fishes, draught of, 138, 142.
Folklore, 197, 198.
Forgiveness, 135, 214.
Fortunatus, 14.
Forty days, 113, 236.
Gabriel, 185.
Galilee, Lake of, 147, 156, 161,
162, 202.
near Jerusalem, 208 f.
return to, 70, 75, 76, 78, 89, 102,
145. 147, 157. 162, 218,
246.
(see under Tradition, and Appear
ances).
Glossolalia, 203.
Gospel according to the Hebrews
(see Hebrews, Gospel ac
cording to the).
of Nicodemus, 9.
of Peter, 9, 63, 64, 72, 77, 78,
148-163, 169, 177, 178, 182-
188, 194, 201, 225, 229, 230,
231, 232, 237.
Grave (see Tomb).
Gunkel, Prof. H., 197, 262.
Hades, descent into, 159, 227-230.
Hallucination, 270, 271.
Harnack, Prof. A., 116, 118, 122,
143, 224.
Harvey, W. W., 156.
Hawkins, Sir John, 86.
Hebrews, Gospel according to, 9,
163-165.
Heitmuller, Dr W., 38.
Hermas, 87, 204, 229.
Herod Agrippa, 117.

INDEX

287

Herodias, 41.
Hezekiah, 31.
Holy Spirit (see Spirit).
Horsley, Bishop, 251.
Ignatius, St, 165.
Inge, Prof. W. R., 2, 5.
Intermediate state, 244.
Irenseus, 155.
Isaiah, 262.
Ascension of, 185, 187.
Ituraea, 94.
Jahveh, 262.
James, Prof. W., 267.
St, 164, 205.
Jensen, Dr, 197.
Jerome, St, 149, 163, 164, 165.
Jerusalem, 49, 50, 76, 96, 99, 100,
105, 107, 114, 117, 209.
(see also Appearances, Tradition,
and Disciples. )
church at, 41, 102, 103, 109,
212, 218.
fall of, 257, 258.
John, St, 125, 146,
the Baptist, 106, 113.
Jonah, 30, 31, 279.
Joppa, 99.
Joseph of Arimathaea, 48-55, 61,
78, 131, 145, 154, 169-173,
i75-!77, 182, 237-238, 250.
Josephus, 99, 100, 173.
Joshua, 173.
Judsea, 36, 75, 114.
Judas, 74, 78.
Justin Martyn, 87, 150.
Kingdom of heaven, 16, 35.
Kokim (see Tomb, nature of).
Kuloniyeh, 99.
Latham, Dr, 207.
Latin Version, the old, 41, 69, 112,
120, 121.
Leg-breaking, 131.
Levi, son of Alphaeus, 156, 162.
Lightfoot, J., 174, 196.
Loculus, 172.

Lods, M., 157.
Logia, 163, and see Q-source.
Loisy, A., 128.
Loofs, Prof., 208.
Luke, 8, 34, 38, 49, 101, 109, no,
112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119,
120, 140, 141, 223, 224.
style of, 115.
MSS., Greek, 120, 121, 168.
Manen, Prof. W. C. van, 37.
Marduk, 197, 261, 262.
Mark, conclusion of, 71, 77, 84, 88,
141, 144, 161, 162, 163, 224,
225.
interpolations in, 46, 53,
sources used in, 46.
Mary, Mother of James and Joses,
53, 54-
Magdalene, St, 54, 133, 134,
136, 145, 146, 171, 182, 183,
184.
Mausoleum (see Tomb, nature of).
Message (see Women, message to).
Messiah, 262, 263, 267.
Messianic hope, 32, 259, 262, 266.
Michael, 185, 262.
Miracles, 60.
Mishna, 170, 174.
Moffat, Dr J., 127.
Moon, new, 197.
deity, 197.
Moses, 266, 267, 279.
Mountain, the, in Galilee, 90.
Myers, Mr F. W. H., 272, 273.
Myth, 199.
Mythology, 197 f.

Nathanael, 1 01.
Natural law, 268.
Nicodemus, 131,
175, 176.
Gospel of, 9.
Nicopolis, 99.

145, 155, 170,

Olives, Mount of, 209.
Ophites, 155.
Origen, 98, 100, 149, 181.
Osiris, 261.

288

INDEX

Panopolis, 149.
Papias, 122, 158, 163, 223.
Parousia, 18,39, 114, 256-259.
Pasch, 157.
Paul, St, 4, 13-43, no, 116-120,
190-196, 201-206, 220, 223,
230, 242, 246, 254, 255, 267.
(see also Appearances. )
Pentecost, Day of, 114, 203.
Personality, survival of, 275-
Peter, St, 75, 96, 156, 223.
Call of St, 140, 141, 143, 144.
Connexion with St Mark, 46,
74.
death of, 143.
denial of, 143.
flight of, 219, 237.
restitution of, 138, 139, 141-143,
147-
(see also Appearances, Tomb, and
Gospel. )
Philip, St, 221.
Phrynicus, 50.
Pilate, 53, 54, 131, 145, 154, 157,
T77, 178, 179, 180, 182.
Acts of, 9, 229.
Prophecies in reference to the third
day, 30 f.
Prophecy by Christ, 33, 69, 82, 93,
108, 179, 255 ff.
Psychical Research, Society of, 272.
Q-source, 80.
Rabbinical literature, 26, 185 n.,
260.
Rashdall, Dr H. , 268, 269.
Religion, Babylonian, 260.
Egyptian, 260.
Persian, 260.
Resch, Dr A., 39, 41, IOI, 208,
209.
Resurrection body, 16, 23, 24, 27,
119.
body of Christ, 35, 104, 137,217,
219, 226.
of Christians (see Christians, Re
surrection of).
of the flesh, 2 1 (see also Third day).

Resuscitation, 249, 253, 264, 265,
274, 275.
Rhosus, 148.
Rohrbach, Dr P., 143, 144.
Roman text, 112.
Sabbath, 52, 55, 56, 59, 130, 174,
178.
Saints, resurrection of, in Jerusalem,
81, 229.
Samaria, 114.
Sanhedrim, 50, 171, 177, 237.
Schmiedel, P. W., 73.
Second Coming (see Parousia).
Sepulchre (see Tomb).
Serapion, 148.
Simon, 98, 99, 100, 102.
(see also Peter).
Spirit, 3, 4, 106, 114, 135, 146, 204,
215, 221, 278, 279.
Stephanus, 14.
Stephen, St, no, 116, 119, 234,
267.
Stone, the (see Tomb).
Sungod, 197.
Sunset, 52.
Swete, H. B., 50, 150, 156, 159.
Syriac, the old, 41, 121, 133.
Talmud, 260.
Tatian, Diatessaron of, 10, 62, 150,
208.
Testament, Greek of New, 76.
Textual Criticism, 167, 168, 189.
Thackeray, H. St J., 24, 26.
Third day, 27-33, 37, 83, 103, 107,
108, 191, 193, 196-198, 212,
228, 238, 253-265.
Thomas, St, 128, 134, 135, 137,
146, 217, 218.
Thought-transference, 273.
Time, reckoning of, 56, 59.
Tomb, angel at, 60, 65, 66, 68, 83,
84, 85, 158, 160, 185, 197.
empty, 133, 192, 194, 195, 198,
238, 241-253, 264.
guard at, 61, 64, 69, 82, 157,
169, 178-181, 184.

INDEX

289

Tomb, nature of, 49, 50, 134, 170,
"72, 175, '76, 182.
Peter at, 101, 133, 146, 188.
stone at, 50, 56, 63, 85, 134, 158,
179, 182, 183, 251.
two angels at, 134, 146, 156, 184,
185, 187.
two men at, 66, 67, 68, 92, 107,
114, 115, 158.
women at (see Women at tomb).
young man at, 61-68, 78, 84, 85,
92, 134, 160, 184, 185, 238,
241, 247.
Tradition, Galilean, 77, 102, 103,
137, 145, 149, 157, 161, 162,
187, 193, 201, 202, 206, 208,
209, 212, 213, 214, 217, 226,
231.
Jerusalem, 43, 70, 71, 80, 93, 109,
"5, 145, 162, 163, 187, 201,
206, 208, 211, 214, 219, 220,
224, 226.
reconstruction of an original, 167.
Transubstantiation of flesh into
spirit, 21 ff., 23, 24, 35, 43,
192, 220, 234, 241, 243, 269.
Travel document, no.
Trinitarian formula, 88.
Twelve, the, 37.
( see also Appearance. )

Vespasian, 99.
Volter, Prof., 159.

Watchers (see Tomb, guard at).
Wellhausen, Prof., 73.
Westcott and Host, 18, 95, 101,
107, 167, 189.
Western non-interpolation, 95, 104,
107.
Western text, 51.
Winckler, 197.
Women, the —
at tomb, 55 ff, 192-196, 200, 250,
263.
conduct of, 94-96, 170, 200.
message to, 68-71, 92, 160, 183,
200, 201, 248, 249, 252.
names of, 55 f.
silence of, 71-73, 75, 120.
Wright, Dr A., 54.
Young man, identification of, 185-
187.
(see also Tomb, young man at. )
Zebedee, 125.
Zeus, 197.
Zimmern, 197.

PASSAGES QUOTED FROM SCRIPTURES

Deut.

xxi. 22

xxi. 22 ff.
2 Kings xx. 8
Ezek. xlvii. 8
4 Esdras vii. 28 ff.
Matt. xii. 40
xxvii. 52
xxvii. 57-61 48
xxvii. 62 ff. 82
xxviii. I 55, 160
xxviii. 2 ff. 83

154, 181
130
31209
262 30, 31
229

173 f-,

Matt, xxviii. 2-5 62
xxviii. 5_7 68
xxviii. 6 65
xxviii. 8 65, 72, 213
xxviii. 9 84
xxviii. 16-20 86
xxviii. 19 87-88, 89
xxviii. 20 215
Mark i. 16-20 140
ii. 14 162
viii. 31 256
ix. I 257 19

290

INDEX

Mark

Luke

ix. 10

256

Luke

xxiv. 33 ff.

212

ix. 32

257

xxiv. 34

98,

101, 102,

x. 11-12

40

202
xiii. 26 f.
39
xxiv. 36-43
IO4
xiii. 30
257
xxiv. 36 ff.
202
xiv. 27
74
xxiv. 39
165
xiv. 27-28
76
xxiv. 40
104
xiv. 28
75
xxiv, 41
217
xv. 40
54
xxiv. 44
108
xv. 44-45
53
xxiv. 44-49
105
xv. 46
53
xxiv. 46
213
xv. 47
54
xxiv. 47
214
xvi. 1-5
55
xxiv. 49
"3
xvi. 5
62
xxiv. 50-53
106
xvi. 6-7
68
xxiv. 51
"3
xvi. 7
74, 75, 77, 89,
John
XX.
126,
128
209
XX. I
134
xvi. 8
62, 64, 71
xx. 1-18
131
xvi. 9
123
xx. 5-6
134
xvi. 9-20
44, 120 f.
xx. 8
133
xvi. 10
123
xx. 14-17
123
xvi. 12 f.
123
xx. 17
136
xvi. 14 ff.
123
xx. 18
123
xvi. 19
123
xx. 19 ff.
202,
212
V. I-II
140, 142
xx. 19-23
135
v. 4ff.
139
XX. 21
213
ix. 22
93
xx. 23
214
ix. 44
93
xx. 24 ff.
217
xi. 29-32
3°
xx. 24-29
136
xviii. 31 ff.
94
xx. 27
136
xxiii. 36-43
104
xxi.
127,
128, 137,
xxiii. 38
104
140,
141, 144,
xxiii. 40
104
146,
161, 201,
xxiii. 50-56
48
211,
225
xxiii. 54
5!
xxi. 1-14
138
xxiii. 56
58
xxi. 15-23
141
xxiv. 1-2
55
Acts
i. 1-14
no
xxiv. 3
91
i. 4
"3
xxiv. 3 ff.
135
vii- 55-59
116
xxiv. 3-4
62
vm. 39
221
xxiv. 3-5
66
ix. 1-9
116 f.
xxiv. 5-7
68
xxii. 6-10
117
xxiv. 8-12
95,96
xxvi. 12-18
117
xxiv. 12
101, 189
Romans viii.
204
xxiv. 13
97
viii. 24
230
xxiv. 13-35
96
1 Cor.
vii. 6
38
xxiv. 18
98
vii. 10
39
xxiv. 24
189
xi. 23
38
xxiv. 29
108
xiv.
203
INDEX

i Cor.

XV.

13, 31, 34

35,

1 Cor.

116, 192,

201,

2 Cor.

223, 254

XV. 1-20
14
Eph.
xv. 3
37,41
Phil.
xv. 5
101, 102
XV. 12
14
1 Thess.
xv. 29
229
1 Peter
xv. 35
H
xv. 35-58
17 f.
2 Peter
xv. 42-44
21
1 John
xv. 50
20
291
xv. 51-
52
21
iii. 17
204
v. 2
21
iv. 9,
10
229
1. 23
231
iii. 20-21
22
iv. 15
38,39
iii. 19
229
iv. 6
229
*• 3
53
222
PRINTED BT NKILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.
3 9002