t)f the critical theories respecting the origin of the Eucharist, that which we have just mentioned is the most important. Harnack"s contention, that it was sometimes administered with water instead of wine, not only here and there among the sects, but in the main body of the Church, belongs rather to the history of the Early (.'luirch than to the Life of our Lord. It turns, however, upon a somewhat cavalier treatment of the text of Justin, and has met with strong opposition and (it is believed) practically no acceptance.
LiTKRATi'p.K. — A .'iummnry may W grivcn of the more recent special literature to most of which reference has been made. Lnhstein, La Doctrine tU la Ceiif, Lausanne, ISsO; a lucid ex- Iiosition dating from tlie time before the rise of tlie newer tlieories, A reasonable criticism may go back to it with advant- age. IIarnael<, TC vn, ii.. Isyi (repl'ies by Zahu, Brot u. Wtin, Leipzig, l-^i'-J; Jiilicher. as below; Ileadlam. Cttttifi. llev. IsyS, p. U'H ; .lUliclier in Thenl. Alihantllnngen V. ran WeismJcA'er f/turit/w^f, Freiburc i. It. lst)2; Spitta, Zitr Gettch. u. Lit. d. Cri-hrixtfutumH, (Jottiuffcn ; I*. Gardner, The Origin of thi Lont'it Snjwer, London, lsl>3 (comp, also a criticism bv Mr. Wright, XT ProMemi. p. 134 If.); Grafe in Z. /. T/ie'iil. u. h'ircfte, 1S95 (said to l»e an excellent summary of the contro- versy) ; Schultzen. Vat Ahnulviahl iw ^vy. 'Gottinpen, 1S.59 (also a full review and examination) ; Sehaefer, Datt /hrretiumhl, tJutersloh. 1S9T. My. Wordsworth's Visitatiort .Addresses on The Itoli/ Communion ('2nd ed. 1S021, thoujjh written before the controversy and dealing' lartrely with the litiirpical aspect of the question, may be specially commended to Kngli^h readers.
V. The Resurrection. — For our present pur- pose the discussion of the Resurrection of our Lord will resolve itself into a consideration of (1) the evidence attesting the fact ; (2) the sequence of the events, or the appearances wliich fullnwed the Hesurrection ; (:!) the explanations which have been put forward to account for the Resurrection without miracle ; (4) its doctrinal significance.
(1) 7'he Attestation. — A fact so stupendous as the Resurrection needs to be supported by strong evidence, and very strong evidence both as regards (ptantity and (juality is forthcoming ; but all p.arts of it are not of ecptal value, and it is well that the authorities should be compared with each other and critically estimated.
When this is done one piece of evidence drops almost entirely to the rear — the concluding verses of St. Mark. This is not invalidated merely by the fact that the verses were probably not part of the original Gospel. Since Mr. Conybeare's dis- covery of the Armenian JIS, which appears to refer them to the ' presbyter Ariston ' or 'Aristion,'
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
C'i'J
it i.s fair t(j altacli tliat name to tlieiii, because, altlinu^li ilie aiuhorily is but slender, there is iKiiliinj,' at all to compete with it ; and the Aristion mentioned by Eusebius {HE iii. :)'.») as one of the ' elders ' consulted by Hapias, would suit the con- ditions as well as any one else belongins to the same f;eneration (say a.d. 100-12o). Such an au- thority cannot be wholly without weight ; if it reliresenled a distinct line of tradition, its weight would be considerable. But when the verses Mk \ii''--< are examined, it seems ])retty clear that the earlier portion of them is really a summary of the narratives in the extant (iospels of St. Luke and St. John, and therefore adds nothing to these Gos- pels beyond such further sanction as the name of Aristion may nive to them. It is proof that the Btatements in those Gospels were accepted as sat- isfactory by a prominent Church teacher, him- self a depositary of traditif)n, in the region where St. .John had been active. So nuicli the verses •contribute, but not more.
There is still some mystery lianging over the close of the Second Gospel. The most probable view appears to be that its original conclusion has been lost — it is more likely than not — by some purely mechanical accident. The fragment that remains, Mk Ui'-'', is insutlicient to enable us to trace it to its source. If we could be sure that it was complete, we should have to say that St. JIark w.os nut here drawing upon the I'etrine tra- dition, because that tradition could not have failed to speak of the ai)pearance to I'cter himself. It is, however, possible that that was contained in the missing iiortion.
This may detract somewhat from the weight of tlie common Syiiopt. narrative, which is here disap- pointingly meagre. And yet, if we are to throw the absence of any mark of Veti'inc origin into the one scale, there is a little bit of confirmatory evi- dence which it is fair to throw into the other. All through the history of the Passion St. Luke has access to a special source, which we may well believe to have been oral, but which gave him some items of good information. This information relates especially to the court of Herod Antipas (Lk 23'-'-), and it is natural to connect it with the ))articular mention of -Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward' in Lk 8-'. Now this very .same Joanna appears again in St. Luke's account of the visit of the women to the sepulchre (Lk 24'''). The rest of the paragraph appears to be based as usual upon St. Mark. But the renewed mention of Joaiuui is an indication of the special source, which at least goes to show that there was nothing in that source which conflicted with the JIarcan document. In other words, it confirms that document by a distinct line of testimony (cf. Lk 23-'--<).