It is at this point that some of the best attested details of the Ke.surrection interpose difficulties. To carry through a consistent theory of visioiLs, two con<litions are necessary, (a) If they arose, as StraiLss suiJ]>oses, from affectionate dwelling upon the personality of Jesus, combined with re- flexion upon certain passages of OT (Ps 10'", Is .53'"-'-), it follows, almost of necessity, that we must also with Strauss throw over the tradition of the 'third day,' and regard the belief as the out- come of a somewhat prolonge<l proces.s — a process spread over weeks and months rather than days. (h) On the other hand, if we must di.scard the tradition as to the beginning of the appearances, we must equally di.scard that as to their end. The wave of feveri.sh enthusiiism to which ou this hypothesis they owed their origin, certainly would not have subsided in the interval between Pa.s,sover and Pentecost. We note, as it is, an ascending scale in the appearances — they occur firet to iiuli- viduals (Mary Magdalene, Peter, tlu' Kmmaus disciples), then to the Ten and the Eleven, then to the Five Hundred. We can see how one appear- ance prepares the way for another. St. Peter (e.y.) must have been present at three or four. With this increasing weight of testimony, and increasing predisposition in the minds of the di.sciple.s. we should naturally expect that the appearance to the Five Hundred would contain within it.self the germs of an indelinite series. We .should not have been surpriseil if the whole body alike of Christians and of half Christians had caught the contagion. Hut that is not the ca.se. There is just the single ajipearance to James ; and then — the vision of St. Paul standing rather by itself — with one more appearance to the assembled apostles, the li.st comes to what seems an abrupt end.
This description of the facts rests on excellent evidence. The ' third day ' is hardly less firmly rooted in the tradition of the Church than the Resurrection Itself. We have it not only in the speech ascribed to St. Peter (Ac 10'"). but in the central testimony of St. Paul, and then in the oldest form of the Apo.stles' Creed. It is strange that so slight a detail should have been preserved at all, and still stranger that it .should hold th<» place it does in the standard of the Church's faith. We must needs regard it as original. And for the circumscribed area of the appearances, we liave at once the positive evidence of the canonical docu- ments, and a remarkable silence on the part of the extra-canonical.
These phenomena are difficult to reconcile with a theory of purely subjective visions. An honest inquirer like Keim felt the difficulty so strongly that, while regarding the appearances as es.sentially of the nature of visions, he held them to be not merely subjective, but divinely cau.sed, for the exjiress purpose of creating the belief in which they issued.
This is the least that nnist be a.sserted. A belief that has had .such incalculably momentous results must have had an .adequate caii.se. No ap|)aritlon, no mere hallucination of the .senses, ever yet moved the world. Hut we may doubt whether the theory, even as Keim iiresents It, is adequate or really called for. It belongs to the process of so trimming ilown the elemenls that we call snpernalural In the Gospel narratives its to bring them within the llmit.s of everyday experience. Hut that proce.s.s, we mu.sl needs think, has failed. The fads are too obstinate, the evidence for them is loo strong ; and the measures which we a|iply are loo narrow and bounded. It is better to keep sulislantlally the form which a somid tradition has handed down tu
Gi-2
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
us, cvoii ilKiuftli its contents in some degree pass our conipri'luMision.
(4) 'J he I'ermaiient Siyiiijicance of the lifnurrer- tioit. — The innermost nature of the Hesurrertion is hidden from us. And if we ask why the supreme proof that Ood had visited His jx'ciple took this piirlicular form, the answer we can give is but l)arlial. Some tiling's, however, seem to stand out clearly.
(a) In tlie first place it is obvious that the idea of a resurrection was present to men's minds. Herod thought that the works of .Jesus were works of the Baptist restored to life (Mk tl»"MI)- Men were (piite prepared to see Elijah or some oilier of the ancient prophets reajipear ujion the scene (Mk !»"-•' II, -In 1-'). In Palestine and amouK the circles in which Christianity arose, no mark of special divine indwelling seemed at the time so natural. The belief had not been allowed to grow up without a reason.
For {!>) from the very first the idea-s of bodily and spiritual resurrection were closely intertwined tojietlier. I'erhaps the oldest passage in which there is a hint of such an idea is the vision of Kzekiel (eh. .'!") ; and there the revivification of the liody is the symbol of a spiritual revival. This intimate connexion of bodily and spiritual is never lost sight of in Christianity.
((■) ' Die to live' is one of the most fundamental of Christian principles, and this principle is em- bodied once for all in the Hesurrection. If the one side was ' placarded ' before the eyes of the world (dal ;!') in the Crucifixion, the Uesurrection was a no less signal manifestation of the other. There is a double strain of inference and applica- tion.