Literature.— The subject is treated, in loc, by the following : various works on NT Theology ; Salmond, Christ. Dnc.t. of Im- mortality \ Petavel, The, Problem of Immortality (1892); Toy, Jndnifim, and Christianity, ch. vii. (1892) ; Row, Future. Retri- bution ; Maurice, Theological Essays ; R. H. Charles, Eschatol- opy, chs. ix. x. ; .J. Fyfe, The Ilereafter (1890) ; Wendt, Teaching of Jesm, Eng. tr. i. pp. .364-408, ii. pp. 340-374. W. R. Alger, Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Lifc'^O (1880), is critical from the point of view of a past generation, but con- tains, amid much strained and perverse exegesis, and consider-
able rhetoric, many illuminating suggestions in favour of a final Restoration. On the same or kindred lines, but with truer exegesis, are Farrar, Eternal Hope (1878), Mercif and Judgment (1881) ; Cox, Salimtor Mundi : Is Christ the Saoiour of all Men ? (1877); Jukes, The Second Death and the Restitution of all Things (188S) ; Plumptre, Spirits in Prison (see pp. 193-204 for citation of divines, ancient and modern, in favour of Restora- tion) ; Letters of Erskine of Linlathen — one on ' Final Salvation
of all.' T. H. Wright.
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. — 1. St. Paul's summary of the Resurrection appearances (1 Co
15) is, says Godet {Com. ii. 435), the most ancient and most official of the records we possess. If Harnack's chronology be made our basis {Gesch. der Altchristl. Lit. vol. ii. (i.) 236 fi'.), our Lord's death was in A.D. 29 or 30 ; St. Paul's conversion in 30 ; his correspondence with Corinth, 53. His visit to St. Peter at Jerusalem would be in 33. Thus he had known this tradition for nearly 20 years, and recorded it within 23 years of the Resurrec- tion. On St. Paul's list of the witnesses we note : —(1) That it is a list and not a narrative. It is the barest summary, expressed with the utmost con- ciseness (cf. Cambr. Theol. Essays, p. 331). (2) It is derived and not original (1 Co 15^ 'I received' [irapiXa^ov], ' I delivered unto you ' [Trap^Sco/ca]). If we here possess a primitive tradition orally com- municated to St. Paul by the older Apostles, then it would be uncritical to infer that St. Paul ' knows nothing' of any appearance which he does not record. (3) The order of the list is chronological. This is shown by the use of eXra, lireira : ' then to the Twelve ; then ... to above 500 ; then ... to James ; then to all the apostles.' (4) The purpose is not primarily apologetic (cf. Cambridge Theol. Essays, 395, 329, 330). The Resurrection of Christ was not disputed at Corinth. The intro- duction of the list here is due to that instinct for systematic completenesss, that determination to go down to first principles, which is eminently char- acteristic of St. Paul, rather than to any apolo- gist's desire to convince men who do not believe that Christ is risen. (5) The selection is evidently official (cf. Knowling, Testimony of St. Paul, p. 301)— St. Peter as the first of the Apostles, St. James head of the Church at Jerusalem. ' Peter and James were at the time of writing the two most prominent persons in the Christian Society, St. Paul himself not being excepted' {Ch. Quart. Bev., Jan. 1906, p. 330). The same applies to the Apostles in a body. The other appearance is recorded for its numerical importance. Thus the omission of the Women from this official list is not surprising. It is noticeable that the Fourth Gos- pel, although recording the appearance to Mary Magdalene, yet omits it from the official enumera- tion (Jn 21^''). Thus the Fourth Gospel supports St. Paul's procedure, and demonstrates that omis- sion is not necessarily due to ignorance.
On St. Paul's list of the witnesses, see, further, Ch. Quart. Rev., Jan. 1906, 327-331 ; Knowling, Testimony of St. Paul ; Gess, Das Dogma von Christi Person und Werk, xvii.
2. The personal testimony of St. Paul to Christ's Resurrection. — A comparison of the three accounts of St. Paul's conversion in Ac 9. 22. 26, which may be respectively denoted A, B, and C, shows certain variations.
(1) The intervention of Ananias, contained in A and B, is omitted in C ; the instruction given by him being in substance transferred in C to Christ. It may be, as Blass considers (Act. Apost. ix.), that the historic order is maintained in A and B rather than in C, since such instruction as to the Apostle's duty would come more naturally under calmer circumstances and at a later time. It should also be noted that of these three accounts the first is the historian's narrative in the course of the events, where Ananias would necessarily be mentioned. The second was sjioken to the Jewish throng on the ascent to the PriPtoriuni, where the mention of Ananias and his ortho- doxy would be reassuring to the hearers (cf. Knowling, op. cit.). The third, spoken before the magistrates, omits him, because the reference would not in any degree strengthen the Apostle's case, nor be desirable on Ananias' account. Again, it is note-
50G EESU ERECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
worthy that the incident of Ananias is, as Blass sa.ys, separable from the main event. Its omission by St. Paul in 1 Cor. shows this. It does, however, entail the important loss of reference to St. Paul's baptism given in A and B. It may be psychologi- cally difficult to separate Ananias' instructions from St. Paul's own reflexions. But this again is distinct from the momentous issue.