.FQP^lftAJ

?es

R€5VRR.€CT10^

J6S.US

ft RO - R, ! G G6/NBACH

•YJyLE«¥MflYHIESflW- • ILEMR&IEir •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

assail

Foreign Religious Series

Edited by
R. J. COOKE, D. D.

First Series. i6mo, cloth. Each 40 cents, net.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH
By Professor Richard H. Grutzmacher, of the
University of Rostock

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
By Professor Eduard Riggenbach, of the University
of Basle

THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS
By Professor Max Meyer, Lie. Theol., Gottberg,
Germany

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS
By Professor Karl Beth, of the University
of Berlin

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
By Professor Fritz Barth, of the University
of Bern

NEW TESTAMENT PARALLELS IN
BUDDHISTIC LITERATURE
By Professor Karl Von Hase, of the University
of Breslau

The Resurrection of
Jesus

By
EDUARD RIGGENBACH
Mi
Professor in the University of Basle

i&eBeJerrallsrr

NEW YORK: EATON & MAINS
CINCINNATI: JENNINGS & GRAHAM

Copyright, 1907, by
EATON & MAINS.

INTRODUCTION
There is scarcely another fact in the
Christian Faith that has caused so much
difficulty to the belief of the modern man
as that of the Resurrection of Jesus. The
advance of science in our days seems to leave
no room for miracle, especially for such a
miracle as the resurrection of the dead to a
new bodily life. And yet the question here
is not of a miracle which could be put aside
as unhistorical, without essential deduction
from the apostolic Gospel. The church has
always considered the resurrection of Jesus
as a principal part of her message. The
apostle Paul occasionally describes Christian
saving faith in the words: "Thou believest
in thine heart that God hath raised Jesus
from the dead" (Rom. 10. 9) ; and he also
says directly: "If Christ be not risen then
is our preaching vain ... ye are yet in
your sins. Then they also which are fallen
.asleep in Christ are perished" (1 Cor. 15.
14, 17, 18). In like manner among all
other New Testament writers, the resurrec-

6 Introduction
tion of Jesus stands at the center of their
testimony, and without the preaching of the
Risen One the Christian church would have
been an impossibility. To give it up means
nothing less than to give up the apostolic
Gospel. Should one try to build a new
Christianity from what is left, such a re
ligion would hardly show the victorious
power in the struggle with sin and death
which is inherent in the preaching of the
apostles. Consideration for consequences
cannot, indeed, prevent us from abandoning
a traditional idea if it does not express the
truth. The more closely the question under
discussion affects our holiest interests, the
more important is it that we should be kept
from illusions. On the other hand, the
blessed effect, which proceeded from the
apostolic preaching, warns us against rashly
giving up a belief in what is perhaps dis
puted, but not refuted. At any rate, the
interest of thought and faith demands im
peratively a serious and conscientious ex
amination. We can not and dare not close
our eyes to the truth, but just as little should
we be induced to accept as truth that which,
at the most, may possibly be a mere hypothe-

Introduction 7
sis. Not science but faith will have the last
word in this question. Investigation can
only mark out the boundaries of the real
and knowable and consider the possible ex
planations of established facts. In this, how
ever, it renders a valuable service to faith
by guarding it from the influence of pre
conceived opinions, instead of reality. A
one-sided cultivation of critical acumen and
an unwarranted neglect of historical inquiry,
are alike dangerous to the continuance of
genuine belief.

THE SOURCES OF THE RESURREC
TION HISTORY
An examination of belief in the resurrec
tion of Jesus cannot be made without a criti
cal study of its sources. In ascertaining an
historical fact, one will first of all look for
the accounts of eye-witnesses. Now it is
true that the Resurrection of Jesus was not
seen by any human eye. In later apocryphal
writings only is any other statement made.
The disciples saw only the empty sepulcher
and the Risen One. In this respect it seems
best to start from the first and fourth Gos
pels which, according to ecclesiastical tra
dition, were composed by apostles. But the
Greek form in which the first Gospel is ex
tant is not from the apostle Matthew.1 Ac-

1 This is perhaps a little too strong (see Expositor's
Greek Testament, p. 43). To Papias maybe added Ire
naeus and also Pantaenus (Eusebius, Eccles. History, v. 10) ;
but the loss of the Hebrew Gospel, the authority of the
Greek Text in the Church, similarity to the other Gospels
and originality of style forbid a pronounced opinion. —
Editor. 9

10 The Resurrection of Jesus
cording to the testimony of Papias, Bishop
of Hierapolis in Phrygia (about 130 A. D.),
Matthew composed his work in the Hebrew,
that is, according to the usage of that time,
in the Aramaic. In how far our Greek
Gospel of Matthew is a literal translation or
a free recast of this Aramaic book, is a much
disputed question, and as to details, is diffi
cult to answer. In the history of the Resur
rection strong considerations can be urged
against the supposition that we have a first
hand account by one of the twelve. Com
pared with its parallels the Easter-story of
Matthew's Gospel surprises us by its incom
pleteness, and when one compares Matthew's
narrative of the women's walk to the sepul-
cher with that of Mark he does not gain the
impression that the greater originality be
longs to Matthew. A proper starting point
for the inquiry is found here.
It is different with the fourth Gospel. Its
composition by the apostle John is so easily
and forcibly attested by ecclesiastical tra
dition, that its genuineness would never have
been doubted had not one imagined that it
was necessitated by internal evidence. But
criticism has not succeeded in setting aside

Sources of Resurrection History i i
the testimony of the ancient church, and
despite the undeniable differences which dis
tinguish the fourth Gospel from the first
three, it must still be considered as the work
of the apostle John. As is generally ac
knowledged, it is the latest of the canonical
Gospel writings not written until the end
of the first century. And the question may
be asked, whether the recollection of the
apostle has not been darkened in the course
of the decades, and whether the one or the
other point has not been shifted in his con
sciousness by the tradition which became
ruling in the church. At any rate, an under
standing with opponents is precluded from
the start when decisive weight is put upon a
work whose genuineness is zealously contro
verted. Thus it will be well to examine the
extant documents according to the chrono
logical order of their origin.
The Account of Paul
The earliest document which contains a
detailed account of the Easter events is a
section in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
15. 3-8. The denial of the future resurrec-

12 The Resurrection of Jesus
tion of the believers on the part of some
Christians at Corinth, induces the apostle
to fall back upon the resurrection of Jesus.
As matters of fact which in the first lines
he had already delivered to the Church he
mentions the death of Jesus for our sins ac
cording to the Scriptures, his burial and his
rising again on the third day according to
the Scriptures. Then he tells of the six ap
pearances of the Risen Lord, which he evi
dently gives according to their chronological
order. The first is that to Cephas; then
that to the Twelve; then one to more than
five hundred brethren, the greater part of
whom were still alive and thus in a condi
tion to corroborate his testimony; after
that he was seen of James, then of all the
apostles, whereby probably are meant not
only the Twelve but also other original
witnesses of Christ, as for example, the
brethren of the Lord (i Cor. 9. 5). The
last of the series forms the Christophany
before Damascus, which Paul himself had
experienced. There can be no doubt that
altogether the apostle intends to enumerate
the most important appearances of the
Risen Jesus. But one overstrains the sig-

Sources of Resurrection History 13
nificance of this account when historicity
is denied to all self-revelations of the Lord
not mentioned therein. We are not obliged
to suppose that Paul narrated all that he
knew, or that he knew all that actually took
place. He reminds the Corinthians only of
that which he had already communicated to
them (1 Cor. 15. 1 seq.), and only mentions
manifestations of the Risen One to such
persons as by virtue of their authority and
position, or because of other circumstances,
could be considered as especially trust
worthy witnesses for the resurrection of
Jesus. This is the main point with him.
On this account he does not tell whether the
Risen One entered into intercourse with
the disciples and what was the issue of
it. Only by completely mistaking the con
nection can far-reaching inferences be
drawn from the silence of the apostles.
This is also the case with reference to the
fact that he does not mention the empty
sepulcher. When Paul, in support of the
bodily resurrection of Christians reminded
them that the dead and buried Christ was
raised on the third day, none of the read
ers of the Epistle could think of anything

14 The Resurrection of Jesus
else than of a bodily coming forth of
Christ from the grave. The fact is that
for Paul himself the empty grave has no
special significance as evidence. The posi
tive fact that the Risen Jesus had presented
himself bodily to his own is so decisive for
him, that he does not think at all of the
empty grave.
Paul probably wrote the first Epistle to
the Corinthians in 57 A. D. What he re
cords in it of the resurrection of Jesus is of a
much earlier date. Five years earlier the
apostle in his missionary address at Corinth
had preached just this which he now attests
to the congregation, and the emphasis which
he places on his message of the need of sal
vation, precludes the idea of a possible
change in his views (1 Cor. 15. 1-3, 11-20).
We must go back still further in order to
get at the source of his preaching. As in
another place (1 Cor. n. 23) he refers
here also (1 Cor. 15. 3) expressly to the
information which he received. Of whom he
received it he indicates when he affirms
(verse 11) that his message is in full agree
ment with that of the first apostles. He cer
tainly did not begin his extensive activity

Sources of Resurrection History 15
among the Gentiles without being perfectly
clear as to the content of his message. Thus
on his visit to Jerusalem three years after
his conversion, about 38 A. D., he may have
already received accurate information about
the Easter events. At that time, according
to Gal. 1. 18-20, he personally became ac
quainted with two men of the apostolic
circle, Peter and James the brother of the
Lord, and spent fourteen days in intercourse
with them.1 To them as his authorities for
his knowledge, we are referred without fur
ther statement because among the appear
ances of the Risen Lord to individuals of
whom we read in 1. Cor. 15, those to Peter
and John are specified. What he learned
from these men other members of the primi
tive church, no doubt, confirmed and supple
mented. The supposition is obvious that
men like Andronicus and Junia, who
were converted before Paul and were known
missionaries (Rom. 16. 7), belonged to the
five hundred to whose testimony Paul refers
(1 Cor. 15. 6). But, however this may be,
certain it is that in 1 Cor. 15 Paul imparts,
not his subjective thoughts about the resur-
• See note at end of chapter.

1 6 The Resurrection of Jesus
rection of Jesus, but the accredited teaching
pf the primitive church. This doctrine was
for him an unimpeachable quantity. As the
disciple of the rabbis was bent on handing
down the expositions and legal decisions of
his teacher, still more was it a concern of
the apostle to propagate conscientiously that
which was delivered to him of the words
and deeds of Jesus. On this account also is
he so certain of his agreement with the early
apostles on this subject. After this it is
evident that much importance is attached to
the account of Paul. In it we have a deposit
of the oldest doctrine of the primitive
church attested by the mouth of her most
prominent authorities.
The First Three Gospels
It is our object to center upon the difficult
problem How the peculiar relation of agree
ment and diversity between the first three
Gospels can be explained. We cannot en
tirely ignore the question. There is scarcely
any point where the accounts of the Gospels
differ so much as in the Easter story. A
genial expositor, the late F. Godet, aptly
remarked : "We could compare here the four

Sources of Resurrection History 17
accounts with four friends, each of whom,
after having traveled together, being near
the end of the journey takes the road to his
own home." In the Bible it is not so ob
vious, because the Gospel of Mark had an
addition which is a combination of the
Easter narratives from the three other Gos
pels, namely that in section 16. 9-20.
It may be taken as a settled result of text
ual criticism that the Gospel of Mark
breaks off with 16. 8. The coincidence of
inner and outer reasons precludes here every
doubt. One can, indeed, hardly imagine
that the evangelist intended to narrate the
walk of the women to the sepulcher without
adding an account of the appearance of the
Risen Jesus, and the words (verse 8) : "The
women did not say anything to' any man,
for they were afraid," as a close of the book,
are just as unsatisfactory, as contradictory
in themselves. Whether Mark was prevent
ed by outward circumstances from finish
ing his notes, or whether the original close
of the Gospel had been lost before its pub
lication, cannot be decided. But we know
from an ancient Armenian version
Bible, that the section 16. o^2<3^n/§o^e^

Ii8 The Resurrection of Jesus
copies of the Gospel of Mark, had the super
scription "by the presbyter Aristion."
From this we assume that a Christian of
that name is undoubtedly meant, whom
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (III,
39- 4> 5, 7> I4)> mentions as a personal dis
ciple of Jesus. In order to round up some
what the strange close of the Gospel of
Mark, some one added to the book, at the
end of the first or beginning of the second
century, from notes of Aristion, the sec
tion Mark 16. 9-20. Whether Aristion him
self witnessed the Easter event we know not ;
but the presumption is obvious that this ac
count is dependent upon our Gospels (comp.
Mark 16. 9-1 1 with John 20. 11-18 and
Luke 8. 2; Mark 16. 12 seq., with Luke 24.
13-35; Mark 16. 14-18 with Matt. 28. 16-
20). At all events he stood near enough to
the events to' have an independent knowledge
of them.
Setting aside Mark 16. 9-20, we get at
once a different view of the mutual relation
of the Gospels. Whereas in the narrative of
the walk of the women to the sepulcher of
Jesus the first three Gospels in general agree,
in spite of many differences in detail, Mat-

Sources of Resurrection History 19
thew and Luke are entirely divergent. If
one imagines that he must derive the rela
tionship of the first three Gospels merely
from a common use or oral tradition, the
great difference in the Easter story cannot
be explained. It is otherwise when one
presupposes a common literary foundation.
Two things must be considered as very
probable: In the first place that the Gospel
of Mark belongs to the sources mentioned
by Luke (1. 1); secondly it must be sup
posed that of the first two Gospels, the one
formed the copy for the other. A more
definite statement of the mutual relation is
not required for our purpose. The much
agitated question whether Matthew made
use of Mark, or vice versa, can be left open
at present. Under all circumstances it must
be admitted that the close agreement of cer
tain parts of Matthew and Luke is mediated
by Mark. Thus it cannot cause surprise
that with the close of Mark the point is
reached where the various agreements of
the first and third Gospels cease and thence
differ. Matthew speaks briefly of an appear
ance of the Lord to the women in Jerusalem,
but in a most detailed way of one to the

20 The Resurrection of Jesus
twelve disciples on a mountain in Galilee.
He thus follows the direction toward which
Mark pointed when in chap. 16. 7, he men
tions the word of the angel who holds out
to the disciples the prospect of a manifesta
tion of the Lord in Galilee. Luke (ch. 24)'
mentions three or four appearances of the
Lord in Jerusalem and its neighborhood;
once to the disciples on their way to Em
maus (verses 13-35), one to Peter (verse
34), one to the apostles (verses 36-49), and
one in verse 50 seq. Although it may seem
as if the evangelist was of the opinion that
everything which is narrated in chapter 24
happened on the same day yet it is not diffi
cult to perceive that in reality this is not his
meaning. Since the Emmaus-disciples only
undertook the walk back to Jerusalem (last
ing three hours) after sunset, and Jesus ap
peared again to the disciples in the evening,
he could not have led them to Bethany until
about midnight, and no reasonable motive
is given for this nocturnal journey. Luke
here, where the end of his manuscript no
doubt demanded brevity, intended to indi
cate only what he wished to state more fully
in the Acts of the Apostles (1. i-ii),

Sources of Resurrection History 21
namely : that Jesus, during a certain length
of time was repeatedly seen by the disciples,
and that on the Mount of Olives finally de
parted from them. For the history of the
Resurrection, especially chapter 24. 13-25,
Luke seems to have had a Jerusalem au
thority whose traces can otherwise also be
noticed in his Gospel. This must be taken
into account in considering why he only
recorded the appearances of Christ in
Jerusalem. John
The fourth Gospel, whose composition
by the apostle John we have already af
firmed, is lacking in a uniform statement in
the Easter history. To the original extent
of the Gospel belongs chapter 20. This is
clearly seen from the closing remark (verses
30, 31). Chapter 21 is an addition which
mediately or immediately also belongs to
the apostle John, but which was added later.
In chapter 20 the evangelist describes first
how by the order of things which he saw in
the empty sepulcher, he was led to believe
in the resurrection of Jesus (verses 1-10),
a section which bears the stamp of personal

22 The Resurrection of Jesus
experience. He then describes the three
appearances of the Risen One of which that
to Mary Magdalene (verses 11-18) and that
to the apostles, excepting Thomas (verses
10-25), certainly took place in Jerusalem.
On account of the similarity of the situation,
the same will probably also hold good of the
third appearance, to all the disciples (verses
26-29). The addition (chapter 21) men
tions an appearance of the Lord in Galilee
by the Sea of Tiberias in the presence of
seven disciples. The relation of chapter 21
to chapter 20 is highly instructive. It not
only shows that the evangelists attach no
value whatever to the outward situation, for
John suddenly transfers the reader from
Jerusalem to the Galilean sea without any
waste of words, but it causes us rather to
perceive how the evangelists in the selection
of their material, proceeded freely just as
the purpose of their statement requires. Ac
cording to chapter 20. 30 seq., John intended
to bring the readers of his book to faith in
Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. On this
account he could give his Gospel a more
appropriate close than the history of
Thomas, which brings before the eyes how

Sources of Resurrection History 23
the last and most obdurate doubter in the
circle of the disciples falls down adoringly
before the Lord. Had a special reason not
caused the addition of chapter 21, we had
known nothing of the appearance in Galilee
of which John knew, as also of the appear
ances of the Lord in Jerusalem. It is more
over remarkable that John, in recounting
the appearances of the Risen Lord (21. 14)
considers only those to the circle of the dis
ciples, but pays no attention to that to Mary,
Magdalene (20. 1 1-18) . This is a clear sug
gestion how the enumeration of the appear
ances by Paul (1 Cor. 15. 5-8) is to be
judged.
Apocrypha
Of the apocryphal gospels, only the pre
served fragments of the gospel of the
Hebrews (originated about 135), and ofthe
gospel of Peter (about 150) can, at the
most, be taken into consideration. The
former mentions an appearance of the Risen
to James ; but what it states beyond ( I Cor.
15. 7) is historically worthless. Moreover,
the latter gives a narrative strikingly bizarre
in its fantastic description as compared with

24 The Resurrection of Jesus
the statement of the canonical gospels; and
the supposition is not unfounded that the au
thor of this apocryphal writing may have
used the original closing verses of Mark.
It is by no means dogmatical prejudice
when a sharp distinction is made between
canonical and apocryphal gospels. The
secondary contents of the latter, as is gener
ally acknowledged, would justify this.
Moreover, such a distinction is required
since the apocryphal gospels, for example,
the gospel of Peter, notoriously utilize the
canonical gospels, without, however, con
sidering their relatively later time of compo
sition, or offering any guarantee that their
own additions and changes are to be traced
back to anything else than the fancy and
tendency of their authors. The gospel of
the Hebrews, on account of its possible re
lation to the Aramaic original of Matthew,
and because of its Palestinic origin, might
perhaps claim a higher estimate. Positively
it contains nothing of the history of the
Resurrection which could be regarded as an
enrichment of the canonical tradition. Com
pare with the apocryphal narratives the ac
count of Aristion, which was added later to

Sources of Resurrection History 25
the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16. 9-20), and
one will admire the wisdom of the church in
her selection of the descriptions of the life
of Jesus appointed for religious use.

Result
This short survey of the sources exhibits
an almost surprising fullness of different
narratives and varying accounts. It would
seem almost impossible to elicit from the
protean and in part contradictory state
ments the course of events. This is only the
case so long as one considers the accounts
as of equal value, and thinks that each indi
vidual letter of these must be emphasized.
But the picture becomes at once a different
one when one places the individual narratives
beside each other, seeks out the main streams
of tradition, and tries to obtain the under
standing of the individual from the conclu
sive point of view. An example may suf
fice. All four Gospels speak of the women
going to the sepulcher. Putting their narra
tives mosaically together, we meet with so
many diversities that the work cannot be
carried out without the greatest artificiality.

26 The Resurrection of Jesus
It is different when one distinguishes the
different branches of tradition. The tra
dition of the first three Gospels has lost the
recollection, preserved by John, that Mary
Magdalene went twice to the sepulcher of
the Lord, once in company with the other
woman (John 20. 1 seq. ; observe "we know
not," verse 2) ; the second time with Peter
and John (John 20. 3-18).
What Mark (16. 1-8) tells of the experi
ence of the women at the sepulcher occurs,
meanwhile, between the first and second
walks of Magdalene, and his account is in so
far only lacking as he keeps silent about the
first return of Magdalene to' Jerusalem, thus
making it appear that her experiences
agreed with those of the other women.
Matthew (28. 1-10) combines the tradition
of Mark with that represented by John;
hence he narrates an appearance of the Lord
to the women, whereas, according to John,
the question was only of one Christophany
to Magdalene. For the same reason he
makes the women speak of their experience
at the sepulcher; whereas, according to
Mark 16. 8, they kept silent, and the Magda
lene at first only spoke of her perceiving the

Sources of Resurrection History 2"]
empty sepulcher (John 20. 2), and after
ward told of seeing the Lord (20. 18).
In Luke (24. 1-11) a like combination is
found insomuch as he combines the record
of Mark with recollections which he drew
from the Jerusalem source peculiar to him
(comp. 24. 22-24). Thus John, by offering
quite naturally the key for the understanding
of the events, proves to be the best-informed
eye-witness. Mark evidently records what
Mary the mother of James narrated; while
Matthew and Luke also record, not their
own inventions, but the account of Mark
with other traditions, whereby a certain
confusion originates.
For the reconstruction of the resurrection
story Paul and John must, in the first in
stance, be considered as authorities, the for
mer conveying the oldest teaching of Peter
and James, the latter an eye-witness of most.
of the events. Mark, because his narra
tive breaks off with 16. 8, is so far to be used
for the appearances of the Lord, as infer
ences from the intended continuation of the
narratives can be drawn from verses 1-8;
but it is obvious that the greatest care is
here required lest one fall into arbitrary in-

28 The Resurrection of Jesus
terpretations. That Luke had a good tra
dition in his special source is attested by its
harmony with John, only that we are not in
a position to judge how far he allows this
source to speak. Finally Matthew also had
reliable information, but is little concerned
about the outward details of the events.

[Note. The verb used by Paul in verse 18,
laropfioai, is very suggestive. The word see in A. V.
does not express its meaning, nor does the render
ing to become acquainted, usually given by commen
tators, fully convey the idea intended. Paul does
not say he went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, nor
to become acquainted with Peter; such was not his
real main purpose at all ; but he went up to history
Peter, to obtain facts from, to question, examine
Peter. The verb loropko, historeo, signifies to ask,
to inquire into, to find out what one has to relate
as a fact; and the noun, such knowledge as is ob
tained by inquiry, a written account of facts, his
tory. Paul then went up to Jerusalem to examine
Peter concerning historical facts in the life of Christ.
—Editor.]

II
THE HISTORICALLY DEMON
STRABLE FACT
Whatever one may think of the miracle
of the Easter story, he must, at all events
acknowledge that it is founded upon some
fact. An examination of the actual circum
stances would be impossible save that it is
accurately ascertained what can be found
out as historically true. Of course the
opinion of the value of the records has
here a decisive influence; but it should be
possible to obtain some fixed points from
which further inquiry can proceed. In the
following we shall put together what ap
pears to us to be historically indisputable. At
the same time we will confine ourselves to
the essential, that which is decisive for prov
ing the fact of the resurrection. An inquiry
into all details of the Gospel accounts is
outside the setting of our present task, and it
is therefore not our intention to give up as
unhistorical what is not here mentioned.
We only wish to obtain a basis which shall
29

30 The Resurrection of Jesus
make a decision possible on the essential con
tents of the Easter story.
i. It is generally acknowledged that the
disciples became deeply dejected when Jesus
was taken and crucified. As the entire Gos
pel narrative attests, before Easter they
could not accommodate themselves to the
suffering of their Master. Unto the end
they showed surprise and opposition to the
repeated passion prophecies of the Lord,
and obstinately warded off the thought of
his death. This fact must be adhered to
even when the announcement of the passion
has to be considered as something additional.
The description of the behavior of the dis
ciples would only show how difficult it was
for them to understand then and even after
ward the suffering fate of the Master. The
flight of the Twelve in Gethsemane (Mark
14. 50), the denial of Peter (Mark 14. 66-
y2) and the aloofness of most disciples at
the crucifixion (Mark 15. 40 seq.; Luke 23.
49) prove that the events of those critical
days had completely surprised them. How
far the thought of a resurrection of Jesus
was from them even on the Easter morri
is seen in the intention of the women to

Historically Demonstrable Fact 31
anoint the Lord (Mark 16. 1). The dispo
sition of the disciples on the days after the
crucifixion of Jesus is best characterized by
that inimitable word of the Emmaus pil
grims (Luke 24. 21) : "We trusted that it
had been he which should have redeemed
Israel." Their belief in the prophetical mis
sion of Jesus did not disappear, nor their
love for him ; but the trust in his Messianic
calling is gone, or, is at least deeply shaken.
That in all this we have a faithful record,
later history confirms. As for the Phari
sees, Saul (comp. Gal. 3. 13), and so for
the Jews in general, the Crucifixion was an
offence from which they turned away with
loathing (1 Cor. 1. 23; Gal. 5. n). It re
quired a complete reversal of national views,
hopes and feelings for the Jew to surmount
the stumbling-block of the cross. Hence we
can hardly realize to ourselves the wretched
despondency and despair in the days before
Easter. 2. It is equally certain that the disciples
some time afterward became firmly con
vinced of the resurrection of Jesus. The
whole primitive church is founded on this
faith. It cannot have originated in the

32 The Resurrection of Jesus
course of historical development, but must
ever have been the common property of
Christendom. All writers of the New
Testament presuppose it as a matter of
Gospel, or expressly attest it.
3. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus was
sustained from the beginning by the convic
tion that the Risen Lord had repeatedly ap
peared to his people and had presented him
self to them alive. How these appearances
are to be explained is a question by itself;
their actuality cannot be denied. The ac
count of Paul in 1 Cor. 15. 3-8 vouches for
it, and it cannot be touched by any scepti
cism. Though the records, in numbering
the appearances, may differ much, it must
not be forgotten that none of them claims to
be complete, especially as each selects ma
terial according to certain points of view.
Even diversities which cannot be harmon
ized, can only prove that the tradition was
not clear as to details ; not however that no
appearances had taken place at all. But we
are not lacking in a considerable stock of
common recollections.
Of the appearances mentioned by Paul
(1 Cor. 15. 5-8) some can certainly be

Historically Demonstrable Fact 33
identified, others not without probability,
with those mentioned in the Gospels. Thus,
as witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus are
mentioned: Peter (Luke 24. 34); the
Twelve (Luke 24. 36-49; John 20. 19-23;
Mark 16. 14-18) ; perhaps the five hundred
brethren (Matt. 28. 16-20) ; in the gospel
of the Hebrews only James ; probably all the
apostles (Luke 24. 50, 51; Acts 1. 3-1 1).
Passed over by Paul and mentioned only in
the Gospels are the appearances to Mary
Magdalene (John 20. 11-18; Matt. 28. 9
seq.; Mark 16. 9-1 1) ; to the Emmaus pil
grims (Luke 24. 13-33; Mark 16. 12 seq.) ;
to the Twelve, including Thomas (John 20.
26-29) ; to the seven disciples by the Galilean
sea (John 21). That Christophanies of a
more private, pastoral character happened
to some disciples recorded in tradition can
not be strange. More conspicuous is the
passing over of self-manifestations of the
Lord before larger circles. One was evi
dently satisfied to assert that the Lord ap
peared to a number of appointed witnesses.
The certain recollection of individual cases
was more valuable than a great number of
testimonies difficult to control. For the rest,

34 The Resurrection of Jesus
traits of an individual character are some
times generalized and combined with the
appearances before larger circles. Thus the
doubt of Thomas (John 20. 23 seq.) may
be referred to in Matt. 28. 16 ; Luke 24, 37 ;
Mark 16. 11, 13, 14, but in the absence of
details that cannot be stated positively as a
fact. 4. Though often disputed, yet it is his
torically certain that the disciples believed
they saw the Risen Jesus in the same body
which was laid in the sepulcher, but that it
had become spiritualized. All accounts
speak of a bodily resurrection ; nevertheless,
the identity of the dead body with the risen
body is more strongly emphasized in the
Gospels, but by Paul its glorification. Ac
cording to all four Gospels the women at the
sepulcher learn that Jesus is no longer there,
but is risen. This can only be understood as
a bodily resurrection. Mary recognizes the
'Lord by the sound of his voice (John 20.
16) ; Jesus shows unto his disciples his hands
and his side (John 20. 20, 27 ; Luke 24. 39) ;
he allows men to touch his body (Matt. 28.
9 ; Luke 24. 39 ; John 20. 27) ; he even eats
with them to convince them of the reality of

Historically Demonstrable Fact 35
his bodily resurrection (Luke 24. 41-43;
Acts 10. 41). Though these traits might
lead to the idea that the Risen had returned
into the former earthly, human life, yet
there are others which point to a glorified
existence. Jesus suddenly appears among
his disciples, the doors being shut (Luke 24.
36; John 20. 19, 26) and disappears just as
unexpectedly (Luke 24. 31). The disciples
associate no more with him as formerly;
they only know him when he makes himself
known (Luke 24. 31, 35; John 20. 16) and
observe a remarkable reserve toward him
(John 21). This is explained from his
having already entered into his glory (Luke
24. 26). According to Paul the Risen
One has a "glorious body" (Phil. 3. 21),:
a spiritual body, serving the spirit entirely
as organ (1 Cor. 15. 44); but, changed
and glorified, it is nevertheless the same
which was once laid in the grave. This
is especially clear from 1 Cor. 15. 3, 4.
To the statement that Jesus was buried,
the apostle immediately adds the other,
that he rose again the third day accord
ing to the Scriptures. Burial and resur
rection stand in such close relation that

36 The Resurrection of Jesus
no other idea is possible than that Jesus rose
with the body which was formerly buried.
This is confirmed by other expressions of the
apostle. He repeatedly calls baptism a being
buried and raised with Christ (Rom. 6. 3
seq.; Col. 2. 12). The analogy is only ap
propriate in so far that it presupposes the
raising of the body of Jesus which was
buried. When the candidate for baptism,
according to the rite of antiquity, was
plunged into the water, was, as it were,
buried in it, and afterward came out of the
water as a new man and yet as the same
person, this act represented the burial and
raising of Jesus. No thought of a coarse
materiality of the resurrection body comes
to the apostle from this line of reflection.
As he expected that at the coming of Christ
the living believers would experience a
transformation of their bodies, he also pre
supposed that the dead body of the Lord
had at its raising been glorified in a higher
form of existence. It is possible that the
recollection of Paul that he once saw the
heavenly One may have given a peculiar
stamp to the picture of the glorified Christ ;
yet he agrees with the evangelists that the

Historically Demonstrable Fact 37
earthly body of Jesus was not decayed in
the grave, but was raised and glorified.
5. In closest relation to what has just
been said, stands the certainty of the dis
ciples that the sepulcher of Jesus was found
empty. The disputers of the resurrection of
Jesus differ in their opinion as to whether
we have to deal here with an historical fact ;
but they in an unconceivable manner make
their own position difficult by not admitting
the empty sepulcher, since they thereby de
prive themselves of the strongest starting-
point for a natural explanation of the belief
of the disciples. That the body of Jesus
had not been interred in some unknown cor
ner, but was honorably buried, is beyond
question. Romans and Jews did not refuse
a decent burial to criminals whose relatives
asked for the body. Concerning the burial
of Jesus in the neighborhood of Golgotha,
the four Gospels give an account perfectly
harmonious in the main, and Paul also ac
counts the burial of Jesus among the fixed
beliefs of the primitive church (1 Cor. 15.
4; comp. Rom. 6. 4; Col. 2. 12). Mark dis
tinctly states how the women carefully be
held where Jesus was laid (15. 47), and

38 The Resurrection of Jesus
were troubled on the Easter morning be
cause they were unable to roll away the
stone from the door of the sepulcher (16.
3) ; one of them, no doubt being well ac
quainted with the locality. Again, we read
in all the Gospels that the women who went
very early on the Easter morning to the
sepulcher found it empty. Luke (24. 12,
24) and John (20. 1-10) attest the same
of such as belonged to* the apostolic circle.
Even the enemies of Jesus bear here an un
mistakable witness to the fact. It has never
been objected to the resurrection preaching
of the disciples that the body of Jesus was
still in the sepulcher as Peter (Acts "2. 29),
in explanation of Psalm 16, refers to David's
sepulcher and which naturally would have
been in Jerusalem. The manufactured report
spread by the Jews, that the disciples had
stolen the body (Matt. 28. 13, 15), shows
that the fact that the sepulcher was empty
could not even be denied. What is objected
to in the historical account of the Gospels on
this point is of no importance. He is mis
taken who thinks that the news of the empty
sepulcher would have induced the apostles,
or perhaps a mass of inquisitive people to

Historically Demonstrable Fact 39
visit the sepulcher. It may have been a few
hours before the disciples, who hardly lived
together, had been informed of the experi
ence of Mary Magdalene ; besides the fear of
the Jews might have prevented many of
them from showing themselves in public.
But after the first appearance of the Risen
had taken place, the attention of the dis
ciples was turned from the empty sepulcher
to the Lord himself, and there was no need
to seek the proof of the resurrection of the
Lord in the disappearance of the body. This
is illustrated by the account of Paul ( 1 Cor.
15. 3 seq.), who here certainly sets forth
the knowledge of the church, and not a sup
posedly more spiritual subjective opinion
differing from the view of the Palestinians.
6. It is of noteworthy importance that the
oldest statement placed the resurrection of
Jesus, and thus also the first appearance of
the Risen One, on the third day after the
Crucifixion. The third day is the most
strongly attested date of the resurrection.
Paul refers for it to the belief of the congre
gation. All four Gospels at least, preclude
a later date, stating that on the Easter
morning it became known to the disciples or

40 The Resurrection of Jesus
the women, not only that the sepulcher was
empty, but also that the Lord had risen
'(Mark 16. 1-8). Matthew and Luke men
tion the third day directly as the date of the
resurrection by the prediction of Jesus, that
he would rise again "after three days"
(Mark 8. 31 ; 9. 31 ; 10. 34), the announce
ment of the resurrection "on the third
day," has reference to the fact of its ful
fillment (Matt. 16. 21 ; 17. 23; 20. 19; Luke
9. 22 ; 18. 33 ; especially 24. 7 and 46). An
other witness for this date is the Christian
celebration of Sunday, the beginning of
which reaches back to the apostolic age.
That it was borrowed from Babylonian or
Persian sun-cult is out of the question.
Though there may be more trustworthy
traces of a distinction of the Sabbath above
the other days of the week in pre-Christian
heathendom or Judaism than is really the
case, the Christian Sunday celebration has,
at all events, nothing to do with Sun-wor
ship. Not even the astrological name "Sun
day" was used by the Christians of the first
centuries. In the New Testament the festive
day is called after truly Jewish usage, "the
first day of the week" (1 Cor. 16. 2; Acts

Historically Demonstrable Fact 41
20. 7), or is already called "the Lord's Day"
Rev. 1. 10), which is its truly Christian no
tation. When the church transferred its re
ligious celebration to the first day of the
week, and not to the Sabbath of Jewish cus
tom, it must have had a special reason ; and
according to the unanimous testimony of
the church fathers, it was the resurrection
of Jesus on the first day of the week — the
third day after the Crucifixion.
The effort to derive this particular date
from heathenish notions, perhaps from the
idea of Parseeism, that after death the soul
still hovers three days and three nightls
about the body, is just as abortive as the
falling back upon Old Testament passages
like Jonah 2. 1, or Jesus's predictions like
Matt. 12. 40. The question is here always of
"three days" instead of the "third day," and
Hos. 6. 2, "after two days will he revive us ;
in the third day he will raise us up, and we
shall live again in his sight" has too much
the stamp of a proverbial mode of expres
sion to fix definitely the time of the resur
rection of Jesus. Besides, this passage
played no part whatever in the Scripture
proof of the oldest church. Not even the

42 The Resurrection of Jesus
finding of the empty sepulcher made it pos
sible to fix the time of the resurrection of
Jesus, since no one knew when the sepulcher
had become empty. The dating of the resur
rection on the third day finds a satisfactory
explanation only in this, that on this day
the appearances of the Risen One took place.
This is also attested by all three Gospels,
which in general record the self-manifesta
tions of the Risen Jesus.
7. From the record we learn that the first
appearance of the Lord took place at Jeru-
salem. It is at the present time almost gen->
erally conceded that the disciples had been
there on the Easter morning; this is clear"
from Mark 16. 7. They would then have
learned that the sepulcher of Jesus had been
found empty (John 20. 2). The original
silence of the women (Mark 16. 8) may not
have lasted very long. Having learned of
the empty tomb they would not have left
Jerusalem at once, especially as the Feast of
Unleavened Bread detained them. Thus the
circumstances are entirely in accord with
that which is demanded by the date of the
resurrection, and is attested by Matthew (28.
9 seq.), Luke (24) and John (20. 11 seq.),

Historically Demonstrable Fact 43
that the first appearance of the Risen Lord
took place in Jerusalem. When in Mark
(16. 7) the word of the angel expressly
promises to the disciples a seeing of the Lord
in Galilee, this does not preclude that appear
ances took place also in Jerusalem. A pre
diction is not necessarily an account of what
happened, especially since the word of the
angel contains only a reproduction of Jesus's
own declaration (Mark 14. 28). What is
supposed in Mark 16. 7 finds its answer in
the assumption that important appearances
of Jesus took place also in Galilee. The one
sided emphasis on such a one in Matthew
(28. 7, 10, 16), can not preclude Jerusalem
Christophanies, because through the absence
of almost any historical individual traits the
text in Matt. 28. 16-20 makes the impression
of having been condensed. The possibility
at any rate exists that "the 'either-or' of the
statements resolves into an 'as-well-as' of the
facts." That the disciples, at the end of the
feast, returned to their Galilean homes, is
a matter of course, as on the other hand the
founding of the church in Jerusalem proves
that the abode of the disciples in Galilee was
of long duration. On this account the self-

44 The Resurrection of Jesus
manifestations of the Risen One there could
easily recede in tradition. The room for ap
pearances in Jerusalem and Galilee is cer
tainly warranted by history.
8. During how long a period Christoph
anies took place cannot be accurately as
certained. According to Acts i. 3, it was a
space of forty days, but forty may be meant
as a round number. Paul considers the ap
pearance which happened to him as the last
of all (1 Cor. 15. 8). The Christophanies
came to an end in a comparatively short
time, without considering a repetition of
them as necessary or possible.
The alleged points only show the ground
lines of the resurrection history. As to the
details many things remain uncertain and
indistinct. This is in part due to the already
described state of the sources, in part also
to the nature of the events in question. We
have not a connected series of events to
deal with. Jesus no longer dwelt in the
midst of his disciples. He appears to them
only now and then, and these experiences
are always during special hours of rest.
Then their whole interest is concentrated
upon the center of the event, the person of

Historically Demonstrable Fact 45
the Lord, and all accessory circumstances
recede. In the fragmentary character of the
narratives the peculiarity of the events is
reflected. It were unreasonable to expect
a full account where, as a matter of fact,
single pictures only can be offered. What
remains of minor contradictions in the par
allel accounts, aside from this, goes hardly
beyond that which can be perceived in the
whole history of the Gospels. Where hu
man observation and description participate
in the presentation of a course of history,
we shall always find differences in the ac
counts, especially where the narrators are
eye-witnesses. But one need not therefore
doubt the credibility of the record. A judge
of very long experience and famous for his
knowledge of men once said that perfect
agreement of the witnesses is always a proof
that, though they did not agree in their in
dividual statements, yet it harmonized them
as to the main fact. Whoever exercises a
minute critique on such details and uses it to
discredit the recorded events, shows no
historical tact.
The fundamental facts of the Easter story
can well be perceived. Though a different

46 The Resurrection of Jesus
estimate of the records may displace the
conception as to details, on the whole there
should be an agreement in all parts as to the
established fact. We cannot go further back
than to the oldest belief of the Church.
Whoever thinks that he must deny it all
value, and prefers to put his own construc
tions in its place, should be conscious that
this means to resign historical knowledge.
But in the case of an event which evidently
has produced the most powerful historical
effect, it should not be impossible to find
trustworthy traces.

Ill
EXPLANATIONS OF THE HISTOR
ICAL FACTS
Briefly condensing the historically de^
monstrable facts of the Easter events, the fol
lowing can be stated. The disciples, most
deeply affected by the death of the Lord
and not knowing what to make of his Mes-
siahship, on the third day after the Cruci
fixion, and later on more frequently, be
lieved that they had seen Jesus in Jerusalem
and elsewhere, risen from the grave to a
new, glorified life. One can admit this with
out either sharing the belief of the disciples
or opposing it. It concerns here only the
acknowledgment of an historical fact, which,
allowing small deductions, cannot at all be
discredited in its reality. The church-his
torical, yea, the world-historical importance
which the faith of the disciples has obtained
presses to further inquiry; more yet, the
religious interest which is attached to the
testimony of the disciples. How did they
obtain the certainty that Jesus rose from

48 The Resurrection of Jesus
the dead? Is their belief based on a real,
outward event, and if so, of what nature is
it ? Or, has a change merely taken place in
their consciousness, which may have been
caused by outward circumstances, but has
not in it its real, last reason? Analogy with
like phenomena induces the sceptic to ex
plain the origin of the faith of the disciples
in a purely natural way. The opponents of
Christianity have pursued that course from
the oldest times of the church. In modern
times even members of the church have fol
lowed them, and today it is a settled fact
in large circles that an explanation wholly
precluding the miraculous of the resurrec
tion belief may well be consistent with
Christianity. A careful examination of this
question is the more urgently needed.
Two views formerly emphasized, have
now disappeared. According to the fraud
theory the disciples did not believe in the
resurrection of Jesus, but as the evil report
of the Jews (Matt. 28. 13, 15) asserted,
knowingly invented the resurrection of the
Lord. This could be expected from them
only if one misjudged their moral sincerity
so evident in all the writings of the New

Explanations of Historical Facts 49
Testament, and ignored the sufferings which
they had to endure just because of their
faith in the Risen Lord. The swoon theory
asserted that when Jesus was taken from the
cross, he was not yet quite dead and that he
revived to a new life in the cool sepulcher.
But it did not answer the question how the
half-dead could appear to the disciples as the
conqueror of death, and what had finally
become of him. Both attempts of explica
tion must be considered as wholly abortive
because they are opposed from the very start
by every historical probability. To deal fur
ther with them were labor thrown away.
Only two interpretations of the facts are to
be taken seriously. They agree in that they
transfer the appearances of Jesus exclusively
to the consciousness of the disciples, but they
entirely differ in the derivation of these phe
nomena. According to the one these Chris
tophanies are only a reflection of the dispo
sitions and views of the disciples (subjective
vision theory). By the other they are con
sidered as an effect of God and Christ on the
consciousness of the disciples (objective
vision theory). While formally agreeing
these expositions differ much materially, and

50 The Resurrection of Jesus
must be treated singly, though many things
which concern the one apply also to the
other.

The Christophanies as a Mere Re
flection of the Consciousness of
the Disciples
As the church history of all centuries
shows, mighty religious movements were
frequently accompanied by visionary phe
nomena. Individuals or larger circles have
not seldom heard heavenly voices, seen
angels, saints, or departed dead who gave
them commissions and encouraged them to
action. The supposition is offered that the
Christophanies of the disciples must also
thus be considered; their seeing of the Risen
One was only the result of their continual
mental occupation concerning the Lord,
whose picture had indelibly impressed itself
upon their souls. Some peculiarities of the
Easter accounts could thus be easily ex
plained, but the question is whether, on the
whole, this does justice to the historical
facts. Visionary appearances usually presuppose

Explanations of Historical Facts 5 1
an over-excitement of the mental and phys
ical life. Sometimes a diseased condition is
the cause, sometimes the disposition to ec
stasy rests on extrordinary bodily or mental
exertion and fatigue. The attempt has often
been made to point out a physical disposition
to visions on the part of the disciples of
Jesus, but this is a daring undertaking. It
may lawfully be admissible to make a med
ical diagnosis of a man after 2,000 years on
the basis of scanty and often disputed rec
ords. But at any rate one should not make
the disciples run as fast as possible first to
Galilee and then, a long time after Easter
have experienced visions there when one
must imagine in them a special asthenia of
the nervous system. In Galilee their af
fected mind could sooner be quieted than in
Jerusalem, where everything recalled the
fearful events of Monday, Tuesday, and
Good Friday, and where fear for one's own
safety enhanced mental excitement. But it
does not pay to dispute about possibilities
which completely recede before careful
examination. A serious consideration against the vision
theory is this, that the disciples must have

52 The Resurrection of Jesus
imagined that they must consider the ap
pearances of the Lord as real events. In a
dream we imagine that everything is real
which happens to us, and when we
suddenly awake a few minutes may pass be
fore we realize that we have been only
dreaming. But the quiet insight comes
without fail. In like manner it should have
happened to the disciples had the seeing of
the Risen Lord been of a visionary kind.
During the period of ecstasy they might well
have thought they saw Jesus bodily, heard
his words, touched his body; but afterward
they would become conscious that they had
seen a vision. But the question ought to have
come to them at once whether what they had
seen in a vision could lay claim to full reality.
It would be correct to state that Peter, after
awakening from the vision, considered the
sheet filled with all manner of unclean beasts
(Acts 10. 10-19, 2&)> as no more really ex
isting than Paul did the Macedonian who in
vited him to come to Europe (Acts 16. 9)'.
The more frequently the apostles had visions,
the more able they would be to discern
between vision and reality (comp. Acts 12.
9-1 1). One can here only avail himself of

Explanations of Historical Facts 53
the supposition that later tradition, as it is
extant in our Gospels, has transferred to the
outer world what the original witnesses ex
perienced and announced only as mental
events. Ostensibly one can refer here to
Paul. In 1 Cor. 15. 5-8, he speaks of the
self-manifestations of Christ in a term which
is indeed sometimes used of visions. But
Paul himself makes it evident that he did not
consider the appearances of the Risen Christ
as mere visions. His own experience before
Damascus is proof of that. We will not
withal refer to the Acts of the Apostles,
which in its three narratives of the con
version of Paul (Acts 9. 1-9; 22. 3-1 1 ; 26.
4-18) presupposes that his companions had
possibly also received an impression of the
self-manifestation of Christ, and records
that Paul in consequence of the brightness of
the appearance had lost his sight. The op
position party would find here also a later
description. Paul himself accurately dis
tinguishes the experience before Damascus
from the visions which he frequently had
afterward. Of these he did not like to speak
(2 Cor. 12. 1-5) and never made use of
them in his preaching. But the appearances

54 The Resurrection of Jesus
of the Lord before Damascus he treats as a
unique manifestation by which he became
convinced in an indubitable manner of the
bodily resurrection of the Lord and of his
glorified life (i Cor. 9. 1 ; 15. 8; comp. Gal.
2. 16) . From this follows a posteriori, a con
clusion for the appearances which the dis
ciples had. As surely as Paul was con
vinced that he had seen the Risen Christ in
bodily form, so surely did he also consider
the seeing of the first disciples not as a mere
vision, not as a purely mental picture.
It is usually objected to that the special
value of the first appearances of Jesus rests
on this, that in them the disciples thought
they saw the Lord on earth, whereas he was
seen later only in heaven. On this account
Paul did not mention the vision of Stephen,
which was so highly important for him
(Acts 7. 51 seq.), among the appearances
he records in 1 Cor. 15. But this expedient
is abortive in every respect. It does not
answer the question why it is that after a
certain point of time the disciples did not
expect to see Christ again on earth, but only
in heaven; besides, it completely ignores the
actual fact. On the Damascus road Paul

Explanations of Historical Facts 55
saw Jesus not on earth but in heaven, and he
nevertheless was convinced that he saw him
bodily. Reversedly, in a later vision he saw
the Lord by his side (Acts 23. 11), and
Luke, who narrates this, sees therein nothing
conflicting with his account of the ascension
(Acts 2. 3-1 1 ). It is not the place where
one sees Christ but the manner in which he
is seen which establishes the distinction be
tween those first fundamental appearances
and the later visions.
To this difference the fact also points that
the self-manifestations of Jesus were made
only to a considerably small number of
people and ceased entirely after a certain
time. Visionary movements as a rule are
more intensive and lasting. In the persecu
tion which began immediately after the
founding of the church and increased after
ward, an increase of visions would have
been more likely than their rapid disappear
ance. We hear nothing of any attempt on
this account to obtain appearances of the
Lord. No one undertook to bring about
visions by fasting and asceticism. They
were ever reserved as special favors of the
Lord. Under the supposition of the vision

56 The Resurrection of Jesus
theory this is just as strange as the isolated
appearance and rapid ending of the appear
ances. With all this we have not yet touched the
main question: How is the accomplishment
of Christophanies in the disciples to be ex
plained? A vision occurs only when one is
constantly occupied with an object. It does
not bring before the spiritual eye entirely
strange pictures in an arbitrary manner, but
uses ideas which already exist in the mind.
Perhaps it brings the solution of a question
with which the mind had already busied
itself for a long time. It does not offer
something wholly unexpected, something
which lies completely outside the horizon.
If the Easter appearances were visions of
this kind, faith in the Risen One did not
produce them, but their expectations. The
disciples, must at least have already asked
themselves whether the Lord had not, after
all, come again to life. The faith must have
already been nascent, perhaps yet almost
unconscious, and came into view only with
the appearance of the Risen Lord. Vision
does not convince the unbeliever but it con
firms the believer.

Explanations of Historical Facts 57
How little the Easter narratives fit here is
obvious. The doubt of the disciples plays in
them an important part, and the appearances
of Jesus always come unexpectedly and sur
prisingly. This instance may be put aside
by the assertion that one has to deal here
with perspicuous apologetics. But to all
doubt in the resurrection the church opposed
the assurance that the disciples had by no
means credulously become victims of fraud
or self-deception; it was rather with diffi
culty that they could be convinced of the
certainty of the appearances of Christ. But
this criticism does not suffice to put aside a
fact attested by the apostle Paul. Among
the appearances in 1 Cor. 15. 5-8, he men
tions one to James, evidently the brother of
the Lord (Gal. 1. 19; 2. 9, 12). Before the
death of Jesus we never meet with James
among the disciples of the Lord. According
to John 8. 5 his brethren did not believe on
him, and the same idea causes the narrative
in Mark 3. 21, according to which the
friends of Jesus went out to lay hold of him,
for they said, "He is beside himself." Soon
after Easter (Acts 1. 14)' and later on (1
Cor. 9. 5) the brethren of the Lord belong to

58 The Resurrection of Jesus
the congregation of the believers in the Mes
siah. This change can hardly be explained
in any other way than that it had been
brought about by the appearance which
James experienced. We have therefore to
deal here with a seeing which has faith not
as a cause, but as an effect.
This is still more decidedly the case with
Paul. True, efforts have been made to show
by a careful psychological inquiry that the
conditions existed in him which could and
must lead to a Christ vision. But this is in
complete contradiction to Paul's own state
ments. Of doubts in the correctness of his
service under the law and of his good con
science in persecuting zeal, of which so much
is made in modern descriptions of the con
version of the apostle, he knew nothing
himself. He states rather that until the time
when it pleased God to reveal his Son in him
he had advanced in Judaism and become a
fanatical persecutor of the church (Gal. i.
13-16)'. Also the touching description of
the conflict between to will and to perform
(Rom. 7. 7-25)' can only be adduced as a
natural explanation of his conversion when
one forgets that in this section we have the

Explanations of Historical Facts 59
statement of a Christian about his con
dition without Christ, not the confession of
a still unbelieving Pharisee. It is certain
that a deeply founded love of truth and a
rare religio-moral seriousness had already
distinguished the persecutor Paul; but with
this the disposition for a visionary seeing of
the Risen Christ was not given. The sud
denness and force of his inner change were
also wholly unintelligible, had long prepara
tion paved the way for his conversion.
Not only James and Paul, but the first
apostles also, offer no sufficient cause for
the origin of Christ visions. How, in the
course of thirty-six hours, the disciples
should have come from the deepest hopeless
ness to the most joyous certainty that Jesus
lives, remains an unsolved problem. Had a
slowly germinating belief in Easter grown
into gradual maturity, it would not have led
to visions. But in the event that faith had
come suddenly it is incomprehensible how
the change could have taken place in so short
a time. It is questionable whether the vision
theory can escape this dilemma.
How does it suggest that the Easter be
lief originated? We receive no uniform

60 The Resurrection of Jesus
answer. Most pleasing is the assumption
that the impression of the person of Jesus
upon his disciples had been so marked that
his picture accompanied them day and night.
The contrast between the unique grandeur
and the awful fate of the Lord was con
tinually with them, and finally found its so
lution in a vision. But such a development
would have required more time than the
space of hardly two days, and the question
how the disciples came to this conviction
at the moment of the resurrection of Jesus,
is eluded. The disciples must have had a
certain basis to accept something so extra
ordinary. Here predictive words and types
of the Old Testament, like Psalm 16; Isa.
53 ; Jonah 2. 1 ; Hos. 6. 2, seem to offer
themselves in explanation ; but they are too
indefinite to have originated the Easter be
lief. Only when other proof existed for the
disciples that Jesus was risen was their at
tention directed to those testimonies of the
Old Testament (comp. John 2. 22; 20. 9).
The same applies to Jesus's own prediction
of his resurrection. The behavior of the
disciples in those critical days sufficiently
shows that those prophetic words of the

Explanations of Historical Facts 6i
Lord had made no impression upon them.
Besides, Mark clearly states that the dis
ciples first of all did not know what to do
with Jesus's prophecy of the resurrection
(Mark 9. 10; comp. John 2. 22).
With greater reason one could refer to
the empty sepulcher. The disappearance of
the body of Jesus could have indeed awak
ened the thought of the resurrection of the
Lord. In itself it would rather have led to
the assumption of a displacing of the body
(comp. John 20. 2, 15), but belief in a bodily
resurrection of eminent men of God was
much propagated at that time. Thus Herod
thought that the Baptist executed by him
had again appeared in the person of Jesus ;
and in the Lord the people variously beheld
one of the former prophets who had to come
to life again (Mark 6. 14; 8. 27 seq.). But
we must not here overlook an important dif
ference. The popular opinion presupposed
in all these cases a return to the earthly
mode of existence; whereas, from the be
ginning the disciples were convinced that
Jesus was risen to a glorified life. Still more
important is another circumstance. Herod
and the masses were only led to the thought

62 The Resurrection of Jesus
of a resurrection of the dead by the extra
ordinary miracles of Jesus; the wonderful
deeds wrought by him demanded an unusual
explanation. Thus it was supposed that
Jesus must have previously lived in a higher
world. This conclusion however completely
ceased in the minds of the disciples in those
days after the Crucifixion; their hope, that
in Jesus the Messiah had appeared, seemed
to have been thoroughly refuted. Then they
recognized also that no miraculous inter
vention had taken place which could have
served or upheld their faith. Nothing had
happened which required a supernatural ex
planation. The cross seemed to have de
stroyed their expectations forever. There
was no reason to suppose that Jesus was
risen. Instead of recommending the vision
theory, the empty sepulcher rather refutes
it. The question how the body of Jesus had
disappeared no critic has answered satis
factorily. The tradition had certainly noth
ing to do with it. It had no power to dispose
of the body, and at any rate, it would not
have omitted to refute the resurrection ser
mon of the disciples by a reference to the

Explanations of Historical Facts 63
real whereabouts of the body had it been in
a position to do so. We might sooner think
that Joseph of Arimathea might have trans
ferred the body, which for the time being
was in his tomb, to another place. But for a
length of time this could not have been hid
den from the disciples, even if Joseph's con
nection with the congregation had only been
a very loose one. From the standpoint of
the vision theory, nothing remains but to
think of some inexplicable accident.
In recent times Babylonian mythology has
also been called to explain the belief in the
resurrection. The temporary disappearance
and reappearance of the stars, like the
withering and flourishing of the vegetation,
has variously been presented in Oriental
religions as a death and resurrection of the
gods. An immediate transference of these
notions to Jesus is indeed not to be thought
of. It is supposed, therefore, that in view
of the syncretism of that time, such ideas
were natural to Judaism, and what long ago
had been predicted of the Messiah, the dis
ciples applied to the person of Jesus. Were
such the case the idea of a Christ who died
and rose again should have been the common

64 The Resurrection of Jesus
property of Judaism, or at least of some of
its circles; that such cannot have been the
case is sufficiently proved by the reception
which the preaching of the Crucified One
has found among the Jews. How much this
must also be applied to the disciples has
been already shown from their behavior
concerning the passion-prophecies of Jesus.
The Christian Easter faith besides leads
much farther than the Babylonian resurrec
tion myths : here the question is always of a
revival which is followed by a new dying.
Hope does not go beyond the orbit of life.
But the disciples of Jesus were convinced
that the Christ who rose from the dead is no
more to die, but is once for all removed
from the power of death (Rom. 6. 9). To
such resurrection belief the Babylonian
religion never rose.
The Christophanies as the Work of
God and Christ on the Conscious
ness of the Disciples
The undeniable defects of the vision
theory in its setting thus far treated have re
sulted in giving to it a different turn.

Explanations of Historical Facts 65
Prominent thinkers conceived the appear
ances of the Risen Lord as visions whose
origin are not to be sought in the imagination
of the disciples, but in the work of God and
Christ. In this way the revelation charac
ter of the appearances is preserved, and to
the conviction of the disciples that Jesus
truly lives, a divine security is given. But
this does not explain what induced the dis
ciples to distinguish the first appearances of
the Risen One from later Christ visions, and
the empty sepulcher remains still an un
solved problem. Besides, we cannot see the
necessity of such visions. The belief of the
disciples in the person of Jesus was too
deeply rooted for the death sentence of the
Sanhedrin to have made them doubt the
divine sending of the Lord. Without visions
they firmly believed that the spirit of Jesus
was safe in the hands of God, like that
of all the pious ones and prophets of the
Old Testament. To perform unnecessary
miracles is not the way of God; and the
appearances of the Risen Jesus had actually
given to the disciples much more than the
confidence that Jesus's life was not ex
tinguished. The advantage of this form of

66 The Resurrection of Jesus
the vision theory is in the removal of the
difficulties which lie in the idea of a resur
rection body. Many indissoluble questions
cease as soon as one supposes that, in conse
quence of their other views, the disciples re
ferred a purely spiritual self-attestation of
the Lord to a being risen to a bodily life.
In the vision they could have seen, heard
and touched Jesus, as the accounts of the
Gospels presuppose, without therefore in
ferring a corresponding corporality. But
this is only a seeming advantage. We can
just as little get an idea of a real, personal
existence which is detached from all con
ditions of the earthly-bodily life, as of a
resurrection-body. Our entire existence is
so dependent upon the conditions of the
sensuous world, that only a shadowy exist
ence seems to remain when we leave out the
material. How thinking, volition and feel
ing are possible without brains and nerves,
besides how effect upon others can take place
without bodily mediation is entirely beyond
our comprehension. The self-attestations of
Christ are made more intelligible by giving
up his bodily resurrection; by putting a
merely imagined and constructed miracle in

Explanations of Historical Facts 67
the place of one historically accredited. The
objective vision theory is the effort to medi
ate between the apostolic testimony and
modern criticism, which really does no jus
tice to either of the factors.
The Christophanies as Demonstrating
the Bodily Resurrection of the
Lord
Thus remains that explanation of the fact
which the New Testament presupposes
throughout, the acknowledgment of the
bodily resurrection of Jesus. True, this too
leaves many questions open; above all the
glorified personality of the Risen Christ is to
us a mysterious and absolutely inconceiv
able quality1 ; but the question is whether on
this account it must also be unreal. We,
whose life is limited to time and space, can
have no conception of an existence which is
without these limits; and yet, the very
noblest and best in our life points beyond the
visible world to a higher order of things in
1 It may be mysterious, but certainly not " inconceiv
able." The mysterious and as yet incomprehensible na
ture of ether, its laws and qualities, is very suggestive
from a purely scientific point of view. — Editor.

68 The Resurrection of Jesus
which the glaring dissonances of the spirit
ual and bodily existence are resolved into
harmony. In different ways the attempt
has been made to bring within our compre
hension the peculiar nature of the body of
the risen Christ. It has been assumed that
only for the time being the body of Jesus
received the form in which he became vis
ible, or some facts especially offensive to
our philosophic thinking were credited to the
account of tradition, which formed certain
events more concretely. All these are suppo
sitions without any certain foundation, be
cause we have no rule for estimating things
which are absolutely beyond our experience.
It is true that not all who were present at
the appearances of the Risen One, perceived
one and the same thing. The Lord was
known by the disciples only so far as he
made himself known, and their eyes were
opened for the seeing of him. But one
thing was at all times certain : that the Lord
had really and bodily come to them, proved
himself alive to them, and gave them direc
tions for their present work. We stand here
before a miracle which precludes every
natural explanation. Whoever thinks that

Explanations of Historical Facts 69
he must refuse such a one from the start,
would do the same if the historical attesta
tion of the resurrection of Jesus were even
more evident and tangible than it actually
was. Whether one acknowledges a miracle
or not is a matter of one's view of life and
faith, not of historical judgment and scien
tific inquiry. The decision on the miracle
of the resurrection of Jesus depends in the
end on whether one shares the religious com
prehensive view of the Bible, and especially
what importance one ascribes to the person
of Jesus. The resurrection of the Lord is
and remains, therefore, an article of faith.

IV
THE MEANING OF THE RESURREC
TION OF JESUS
We must consider the resurrection of
Jesus from its historical effects. Without
the Easter experience the disciples had nev
er found the courage to preach Jesus as the
Messiah to all the world. The Christian
church would never have been founded, and
the course of the history of the world would
consequently have been led into entirely
different paths. As far as we can survey
the past there is no event of such compre
hensive reach as this fact, which, however,
does not make the resurrection of Jesus an
object of faith. It could be a certainty to us
that it is the most important event in the
history of the world and yet not obtain any
relation to our personal life.
It is otherwise when we perceive in the
resurrection of the Lord a deed of God, a
sign which is given to us in support of our
faith. Thus it becomes a manifestation of
the power of God which overcomes death,

Meaning of Resurrection of Jesus 71
and holds out to us prospects of restoration
from the state of death.1

The resurrection of Jesus has a decisive
importance for us when we consider its
bearing upon the person of the Lord. Jesus
intended not to be merely a pattern of faith
and love; he appeared not merely as a
prophet who proclaimed the decree of God
and enjoins the commandments of God. He
claimed to be the Messiah of his people, the
Lord of the church, yea, the Saviour of the
world. He demanded belief in his person
and attested that in him God has approached
humanity as nowhere else. Was he not
asking too much by this ? He may have de
voted himself to God with the whole fervor
of a religious genius and consumed his life
in the service of love, but in this one point
should he not have paid the inevitable tribute
to the notions of his people and time by esti
mating the significance of his life in the form
of the Messianic consciousness, and thereby
necessarily overrating it ? To such questions
1 The author here branches off to express opinions not
exactly germane to the critical inquiry he has been pur
suing, and they are for that reason omitted. — Editor.

•J2 The Resurrection of Jesus
of doubt the resurrection of Jesus gives us a
divine answer. In it the Father acknowl
edged the Son and put upon his life arid
work the seal of divine attestation.
Even with this the most important is not
yet said. Had Jesus remained in the grave,
an after effect upon the millenniums of his
tory might have proceeded. His word and
example would not cease to influence human
ity and hold before it high ideals of love to
God and fellow-man, but the person of
Jesus himself would be nevertheless a quan
tity of the past. The dead can no more
interfere with the earthly life. He could no
more assert his will and assist later genera
tions in their new relations with word and
deed. Never-resting history passes over
him, to be led by new personalities to new
tasks and new goals. Here lies the real
nucleus of the Easter message. It concerns
the question of the lasting importance of
the person of Christ. If Jesus be not risen,
he may be an important factor in the history
of the Kingdom of God, but he is not the
everlasting head of the church. He may
give us a powerful impulse to faith, but he
cannot be the object of faith and adoration.

Meaning of Resurrection of Jesus 73
We cannot trust in him as our Redeemer,
nor call upon him as our Lord; we have
nothing to expect from him; only fanatics
could rely on him. In the opposite case,
the resurrection of Jesus gives us the cer
tainty that a lasting communion is consum
mated between us and God. In him human
ity has its representative before God. In
his death Christ not only established a new
relation to God, but continually assured also
to everyone in his weakness his continuous
connection with God. More perfectly than
during his earthly life is he now the executor
of the divine decree of salvation to the world,
the Lord who, exalted to the participation in
God's government of the world, governs the
course of his church and leads everyone to
faith. With Jesus's resurrection an entirely
new prospect is opened to humanity. With
him its head, it finds itself in a new relation
to God. In his person it has the pledge for
the forgiveness of its sin and for the attain
ment of the appointment given to it by God.
In him it sees the creative will of God most
gloriously realized, and that, by it, the final
victory over death is also guaranteed.
Thus indeed the entire state of faith and

74 The Resurrection of Jesus
salvation of the Church is attached to the
confession :
"On the third day he rose again from the
dead."

YALE'UNIVERSITY LIBRARY