JESUS
CHRIST
(5)
To
the
ten
Apostles
on
the
same
day
in
Jerusalem
(Mk
16"-i»,
Lk
24
»-",
Jn
20i=-»',
1
Co
15').
(6)
To
the
eleven
Apostles
a
week
later
in
Jerusalem
(Jn
2(y»-
29).
(7)
To
several
disciolea,
including
at
least
four
Apostles,
at
the
Sea
of
Galilee
(Jn
21i-2»);
(8)
To
five
hundred
brethren
(1
Co
15';
cf.
perhaps
Mt
28
"-20).
(9)
To
James
(1
Co
15').
(10)
To
the
Apostles
at
Jerusalem
before
the
Ascension
(Lk
24«»-S2,
Ac
!'■
';
cf.
Mk
16'»).
St.
Paul
adds
the
appearance
to
himself
on
the
way
to
Damascus
(1
Co
15^
00
.
(Milligan,
Resurrection
of
our
Lord,
259-261).
The
accounts
present
many
difficulties.
Why
does
Mt.
relate
the
appearance
in
Jerusalem
to
the
women
only,
and
ignore
the
all-important
manifestations
to
the
Twelve?
If,
according
to
the
message
of
the
angel,
the
scene
of
the
intercourse
of
the
risen
Lord
with
His
disciples
was
to
be
in
Galilee,
why
does
Lk.
record
only
appearances
in
Jerusalem
and
in
the
neighbourhood?
Further,
as
the
disciples
are
in
Jerusalem
eight
days
after
the
Resurrection,
and
again
at
the
Ascension,
it
seems
difiBcult
to
interpolate
a
return
to
GaUlee
in
which
the
Apostles
resumed
their
former
avocations
(Jn
21').
It
has
been
supposed
by
some
that
after
the
Crucifixion
the
disciples
returned
to
Galilee,
that
it
was
among
the
haunts
which
were
instinct
with
memories
of
Him
that
Jesus
returned
to
them
in
vision,
and
that
this
older
recollection,
though
not
altogether
eradicated,
has
been
blurred
in
the
Gospels
by
later
manipula-tion.
But
the
most
certain
of
all
the
facts
is
that
belief
in
the
Resurrection
began
on
the
third
day
—
which
points
to
Jerusalem;
while
the
difficulty
about
fitting
the
Galilsean
appearances
into
the
chronological
scheme
is
reduced
by
consideration
of
the
rapidity
with
which
the
little
country
could
be
traversed.
(3)
The
mode
of
existence
of
the
risen
Christ.
—
There
are
two
sets
of
notices
which
are
not
easily
combined
in
an
intelligible
conception.
On
the
one
hand,
there
are
several
statements
which
create
the
impression
that
Jesus
resumed
the
same
mode
of
bodily
existence
which
was
interrupted
at
His
death
upon
the
cross.
The
story
of
the
empty
tomb
(Mk
16'-'||)
meant
that
the
body
which
had
hung
upon
the
cross
was
revivified.
That
it
was
a
body
of
flesh
and
blood,
capable
of
being
handled,
and
sustained
by
food
and
drink
—
not
an
apparition
of
a
spiritualistic
kind,
—
is
a
point
which
is
specially
emphasized
in
details
of
the
narratives
(Jn
20^',
Lk
24"').
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
far
from
being
a
normal
Ufe
in
the
body.
His
face
and
form
have
a
strange
aspect.
He
appears
suddenly
in
the
midst,
the
doors
being
shut
(Jn
202"),
and
as
suddenly
vanishes
out
of
their
sight
(Lk
24").
To
this
series
belong
the
references
of
St.
Paul,
who
places
the
appear-ance
to
himself
on
a
level
with
the
others,
and
speaks
of
Christ
as
possessing
a
body
which
is
not
of
flesh
and
blood,
but
has
been
transfigured
and
glorified
(1
Co
15'°,
Ph
32').
The
explanation
of
the
phenomena,
according
to
Schleiermacher,
is
that
in
the
one
set
of
statements
we
have
the
matter
described
from
the
side
of
the
risen
Christ,
in
the
other
an
account
of
the
impression
which
He
made
on
the
disciples
(.Leben
Jesu).
Others
con-ceive
that
while
after
the
Resurrection
He
existed
as
a
spiritual
being.
He
yet
assumed
material
substance
and
form
at
special
moments
for
special
purposes
(Rothe,
Theologische
Ethik).
The
primitive
theory
probably
was
that
after
the
Resurrection
His
mode
of
existence
was
the
same
as
during
the
ministry,
with
an
augmenta-tion
of
the
power
over
His
body
which
He
even
then
possessed
(Mk
6"-'°),
and
that
only
at
the
Ascension
was
the
body
transformed.
Some
modern
theologians
hold
that
the
body
was
raised
from
the
grave
as
a
spiritual
body,
others
that
it
was
gradually
spiritualized
in
the
period
between
the
Resurrection
and
the
Ascension.
The
phenomena
belong
to
a
sphere
about
which
we
cannot
dogmatize.
(4)
Denial
of
the
Resurrection.
—
The
negative
case
has
JESUS
CHRIST
two
branches:
(1)
a
critical
examination
of
the
historical
evidence;
(2)
a
hypothesis
which
shall
explain
how
the
Church
came
to
believe
that
Jesus
had
risen
from
the
dead.
On
the
first
head
it
has
already
been
suggested
that
it
is
unfair
to
magnify
the
discrepancies
and
ignore
the
important
consensus.
The
explanations
began
with
(1)
ike
theory
of
imposture.
The
disciples,
it
was
said^
were
unwilling
to
return
to
work,
and
in
order
that
they
might
still
have
a
measage^hey
stole
the
body,
and
pretended
that
Christ
had
risen
(Reimarus,
Von
dem
Zwecke
Jesu
u.
seiner
JUnger,
1892).
No
one
now
believes
that
any
great
reli^on,
least
of
all
Christianity,
was
founded
on
fraud
.
The
disciples
might
indeed
have
been
themselves
deceived
by
finding
the
tomb
empty.
Joseph
of
Arimathsea
might
have
removed
the
body
to
another
f
rave
without
the
knowledge
of
the
diaciples(0,
Holtzmann,
leben
Jesu,
1901).
But
it
is
difficult
to
believe
that
a
mis-apprehension
so
easily
corrected
could
have
been
allowed
to
develop
into
the
universal
belief
that
He
had
been
seen
alive.
(2)
In
the
school
of
Eighteenth
Century
RationaUam
the
favourite
explanation
was
that
Jesus
did
not
really
die
on
,
the
cross,
but
revived
in
the
cool
of
the
sepulchre,
and
again
'
appeared
among
His
disciples
(most
recently
Hase,
Oesch.
Jesu^,
727
ff.).
It
is
true
that
to
escape
with
His
life
after
being
nailed
to
the
cross
might
have
been
described
as
a
resurrection
from
the
dead;
but
it
is
incredible
that
the
Roman
soldiers
should
have
failed
to
carry
outthe
execution
of
a
condemned
man,
and
equally
incredible
that
a
lacerated
and
emaciated
man,
who
soon
afterwards
died
of
His
wounds,
should
have
made
the
impression
of
having
come
off
as
more
than
a
conqueror.
(3)
The
usual
explanation
now
given
from
the
natural-istic
standpointisthattheappearanceswerepureZywsionaT^.
Visions
are
common
phenomena
of
the
rehgious
life
in
times
of
excitement;
they
are,
moreover,
often
contagious,
and
it
is
supposed
that
they
began
with
the
women,
prob-ably
with
Mary
Magdalene
(Renan,
Life
of
Jesus,
Eng.
tr.
p
296)
,
and
were
repeated
for
a
time
in
the
Apostolic
circle.
Themostweightyobjectionsto
thishypothesis
are^that
while
in
other
cases
tne
visions
have
followed
faith,
in
the
case
before
us
they
created
it
out
of
sorrow
and
despair,
and
also
that
while
other
visions
have
led
to
nothing
consider-able,
these
brought
the
Church
into
existence
and
im-measurably
enriched
the
higher
life
of
the
world.
(4)
The
hypothesis
of
Keim
is
to
the
effect
that
the
ap-pearances
were
real
in
so
far
that
Jesus,
whose
spirit
had
returned
to
God,
produced
upon
the
minds
of
believers
im-pressions
which
they
interpreted
as
bodily
manifestations.
Christian
faith
oversteps
these
boundaries
(of
the
natural
order)
,
not
merely
in
the
certain
assurance
that
Jeaus
took
His
couise
to
the
higher
world
of
spirits,
but
also
in
the
conviction
that
it
was
He
and
no
other
who,
as
dead
yet
risen
again,
as
celestially
glorified
even
if
not
risen,
vouch-safed
visions
to
His
disciples.
It
thus
completes
and
illumines
what
to
science
remained
an
obscure
point
and
a
vexatious
limitation
of
its
knowledge*
(Jesus
of
Nazara,
Eng.
tr.
vi.
p.
360).
This
theory
deserves
to
be
treated
with
more
respect
than
it
has
commonly
received
from
apologists.
It
at
least
rejects
the
idea
that
the
visions
were
hallucinations;
and
we
are
not
so
well-informed
as
to
the
nature
of
existence
as
to
be
able
to
deny
reaUty
to
what
is
given
in
experiences
which
are
due
to
the
power,
and
which
are
according
to
the
purpose,
of
God.
The
moat
serious
difficulty
for
those
who
follow
the
records
is
that
it
supposes
that
the
grave
was
not
left
empty,
and
that
the
bod^
underwent
corruption.
(5)
Another
theory,
which
has
recently
had
some
currency
(M.aTtineau,SeatofAuthorityinReligiml,]^p.Z63-7).fmd8the
basis
of
the
belief
in
a
physical
resurrection
in
a
misconcep-tion
of
the
meaning
of^
mystical
utterances
of
the
disciples
about
union
arid
communion
with
Christ.
It
is,
however,
clear
that
St.
Paul
distinguished
very
clearly
between
the
experi-ence
that
to
him
'
to
live
was
Christ,'
or
that
'
Christ
lived
in
him.'
and
the
appearance
which
he
had
witnessed
on
the
way
to
Damascus.
'They
said
they
had
seen
Jesus
after
His
death,
and
their
hearers
understood
them
to
mean
they
had
seen
Him
in
the
body.'
If
they
were
not
put
right
by
the
Apostles,
it
is
f
airlysaid
that
this
somewhat
compromised
their
character
for
candour
(Bruce,
Apologetics\
396
f
.).
The
impression
conveyed
by
a
review
of
the
various
theories
is
that
the
phenomena
which
generated
the
faith
of
the
Church
have
not
been
explained
on
naturaUstic
principles.
They
are
intelligible
only
as
an
intermin-gling
of
two
universes
of
being
ordinarily
kept
distinct.
They
have
something
in
common
with
the
phenomena
of
Spiritualism,
and
as
a
fact
the
SpirituaUst
claims
