Is it not possible that the story of the Walk to Kmmans has a like origin ? The name Cleopas ( = ('leopatros) is just such as we .should expect to hnd in the same Heroilian circle. In any ea.se, the source bears other marks of being a good one. It gives a grapiiic; pi(-turc of the dejection through which the di.sciples passed; and the phrase 'we hoped that it was he which should redeem Israel' points hack to a time before the dreams of national triumph had been purilieil of the gro.s.ser element in them. But most striking of ail is the direct conlirtnatiou by St. Paul (1 Co If)'') of another very incidentiil reference, the appearance to Peter (Lk 2;{"). Not only does St. Paul confirm the fact, but ho put» it practically in the same place in the series.
Wo have, then, every reason to think both that the special source used by St. Luke was excellent in itself, and also that it agreed in substance with the fragmentary record of .St. Mark.
If St. Luke thus reaches a hand in one direction
towards St. Mark, he does so in another direction towarils St. .John. For the appearance of Lk ii4^^i- corresponds to that of Jn 20""' ; and both alike receive the seal of authentication from St. Paul (1 Cor 15'). We may not, for the reason given above, use Mk Ifi" in ratification of Jn 2l)"'f . We note, however, that the incident of St. Thomas is a striking concrete illustration of the disbelief on which so many of our authorities lay .stress.* For the rest, the narrative in the Ftmrth (Jospel must go with the problem as to that Gospel generally. It has found a vigorous recent defender in I)r. I>oofs {Die. Atiferstehungsberic/Ue und ihr Wert, Leipzig, 18i)8).
The peculiar element in Mt might have seemed to possess the lowest claim to accejitance, were it not for the singular convergence of )iroof that something like the injunction of Mt 2H1'-' must have been given, or most probably Wiis given, by our Lord Himself (see p. 024 sup. ; also p. 213 ff. ). Wo Ijelieve that for this paragraph, too, there is solid foiiiidatioM.
And yet the Resurrection is a part of the evangelical narrative for which the leading wit- ness is, after all, not the Gospels, Init St. Paul — the double witne.'<s of what St. Paul says and what he implies. It is hardly possible for testiminiy to be .stronger than this is. In the .same precise and deliberate manner in which he had rehearsed the particidars of the Last Supper, St. Paul eiuimerates one by one the leading appearances of the Lord after the Uesurrection : (1) to Peter, (2) to the Twelve (as a body), (3) to an assembly of more than five hundred, (4) to James, (5) to all the apo.stles (1 Co LV'-').
We have spoken of these as the 'leading' appearances, because St. Paul doubtless has in view, not all w'lio under any circumstances ' saw the Lord,' but those who were specially cho.sen and commissioned to be witnesses of the Kesur- rection (Ac 1-- 4^^ cf. 1 Co IS'"), i.e. as we should say, to a.ssert and preach it publicly. For this reason there would be nothing in St. Paul's list to exclude such an appearance as that to Mary Magdalene (Jn 'iO"-'"). It may have been on this ground — becau.se the two disciples involved were not otherwise conspicuous as ,active preachers or prominent leaders — that St. Paid does not mention the scene on the road to Kmmaus. But it is equally possible that the story of this had not reached him.
We have .seen by what a striking coincidence this story confirms, from a wholly independent nuarter, the first appearance to Peter. The next in order, that to the Twelve, m.ay well be identical with that which is more exactly described in Lk 24-"f, .In 2(1'''--'*. The appearance to .lanu's is attested by another line of tradition embodied in the (iospel according to the Hebrews. Beyond this identifications are uncertain.
St. Paul content.s himself with a bare enumera- tion, not from lack of knowledge, but because he a.ssumes knowledge in his readers. He reminds the Corinthians of what he had deliver>-d unto them first of all (iv irpurois, i.e. at the very begin- ning of his ministry among them). This throws back the date of the evidence some four years — we may say from the year Au to 51, possibly earlier, but at the latest from 57 to 53.
We are thus brought to much the same date a.s lliat of another piece of evidence, not so detailed
• Tills tmlt f!» not l«'i*» niitlu-ntic tM-cniisc tt pn.«5c<J ovit from Iirlliinry ilotMimolits liit«» wcttnOnry (siicti fts tin* t'opllr work <)i<«rovi<rt><l t>y <'nrl Sctiiiiltlt niiil roinnu'ntttl ii|Hilt Itv llnrtuirk It) Th^nl. .^imlirn H. Wfiim tUtr\lehriicht). It ri'ally iltM'?* tliniw tiiln n-llcr. anil tlif rnrly <lt!trt|>lfi« niw ttint tt throw Itittt ri'lli-f. till* rcvnlFilori <if fi'i-link' ••ii tlii> imrt uf tlii* wtliit>i«.v>» to !)iu Iti-Hitrrri'tiot) mill ttic ntri'iitrth of tlii'lr convlcllun. othcrwt)'. jliirnark. |>. '^, tiliil Liior^, p. 'i\.
040
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
!>s that in 1 C'i>, but (juite as t-xplicil, Sd far as the fact of the Kcsmrection is coiicenicil, the evi- dence of the first extant NT writiiij;, 1 'I'h I'M", 'riie assureil tone of these piussages shows, not only tliat the apostle is speakin;; from tlie very stmnsest pei'sonal conviction, but that he is con- fident of carrying; his readers witli liiin ; we may go furihir and say that tlie belief lo which he gives this expression was urn|Uesti(>ned, Ihe uni- vei-sal belief of Christians. We might infer this fnmi the attitude of St. I'aul in regard to it. Unfortunately, we have no evidence eciually early from the Church of Palestine ; but as soon iis evidence begins to appear it is all to the same effect. The early chapters of Ac no doubt repre- sent a Palestiniiin tradition, perhaps a written tradition ; and they take the same line as St. I'aid in making it the chief function of the apostles to bear witness to the Kesurrection (.\c l*-22etc.). We need not pursue this evidence farther.