It is noticeable that although there were doubts in the Apostolic Ai;e on the subject of resurrection (1 Co lii'-, 2 Ti 2'^'), it is not as to the resurrection of Christ, but as to that of Christians. St. Paul argues on the assumption that Christ was really raised as from a premiss common to himself and Ills opponents.
And it is no less noticeable that even the most rationalistic of Christian sects, those (f.;).) which denied the \irgin-Birth, nevertheless shared the belief in the Resurrection (Irena^us, ailr. I fur. i. xxvi. 1, 2 [where non before similiter .should be expunged] ; Hippolytus, lief. Ila-r. vii. .'55).
(2) The Seqvence and Scene of the Events. — It is not an exaggeration — it is only putting in words the impression left by the facts — to say that the conviction among Christians that Christ was really raised, dates from the vi-ry morrow of the Kesur- rection itself. It was not a growth spread over a long period and receiving gradual accretions of strength ; but it sprang suddenly into existence, and it swept irresistibly over the whole body of disciples. Of the force and universality of the belief there can be no doubt; but when we come to details it would seem that from the first there was a certain amount of confusion, which was never wholly cleared up. We have records of a number of appearances, not all contained in a single authority, but scattere.d over several distinct authorities; and it is probable enough that even when all the recorded appearances are put together they would not exliaust all those that were ex- perienced. Different traditions must have cir- culated in different quarters, and specimens of these traditions have come down to ns without being digested into accordance with a single type. The list which approaches most nearly to this character, that which is given by St. Paul in 1 Co, is, as we have seen, not so much a digest as a .selection. It is a selection made for purposes of preaching, and consisting of items which had already been used for this purpose. Compared with this, a story like the AValk to Emmaus is such as might have come out of private memoirs. The brief record in St. Mark is more central, but in its present condition it is too mutilated to satisfy curiosity. The narrative of St. John is no less authoritative than that of St. Paul, but it is authority of a rather different kind. St. Paul writes as the active^ practical missionary, who seeks to communicate the fire of his own convic- tion to others. St. John also wishes to spread conviction (Jn 203'), but he does so by bringing forth the stores of long and inten.se recoUectinns from his own breast. He too selects what had taken the most personal hold upon him, and does not try to cover the whole ground.
It is as a consequence of these conditions that when we come to look intu the narratives of the Kesurrection we find them un;ussiinilated and un- harmonized. It is not exactly easy to tit ihem into each other. The most important differenci,' is as to the chief scene of the appearances. Was it Jerusalem and the neighbourhood, or was it Galilee? The authorities are divided. SI. Paul and the Go.spel according to the Hebrews make no mention of locality. Mt and Mk throw the stress upon Galilee. The latter Go.spel does not indeed (in the genuine portion) record a Galihean appear- ance, but the women are bidden to say that '.he risen Lord would meet the disciples in Galilee (Mk 10'). This is in fulfilment of a pronii.se to the same effect given in the course of the Last Supper, and recorded in the same two (iospels (Mk 14-", Mt 2>'r''^). The express mention of pre- diction and fulfilment in both Gospels not only proves their presence in the common original, but also .shows that they were no accidental feature in that original, but an essential part of the whole conception. We have besides a (Jalihean apjiear- ance described in Jn 21, and clearly imiilied at the point where the fraixment of the Gospel of Peter breaks off {Ev. Pet. § 12 [(iO]).
On the other hand, all the scenes of Jn 21) are laid in Jerusalem ; and Jems, or the neighbour- hood is the only locality recognized in I.k 24, which ends with a command to the disciples to wait in the city for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24<'-').
It is not unnatural that the critical school should regard these two versions as alternatives, one of which only can be taken. The more usual course has been to follow that of Mk and Mt, with or without the supposition that the grave was really found empty (Loot's, p. 18 ff.). According as this assumption was made or not, several constructions were possible, but all equally speculative.
Dr. Loots has, however, recently argued in favour of the other tradition represented by Lk-,In 20. And he has certainly succeeded in showing that there is as much intrinsic proba- bility on this side as on the other. But, in order to carry out this theory, he is obliged to treat Jn 21 as having a different origin from the rest of the Gospel, and as falling into two parts, one of which (the fishing scene = Lk 5'-") has got misplaced, not having originally belonged to the period after the Re.surrection, while the other (the dialogue of Jn 21'^^) had originally nothing to connect it with Galilee. These are strong measures, which, how- ever high our estimate of the tradition, Lk-.Tn, are obviously not open to one who thinks that the identity of style between Jn 21 and the rest of the Go.spel is too great to permit of their separation (the argument in Expos. 1892, i. 380 ff., may easily be extended to ch. 21).