From what source the distinctive features of the Resurrection narratives in Mt. and Lk. were derived is not known. Atten- tion has often been drawn to their diversities. They are cer- tainly difficult to harmonize. But the substantial identity as to the central fact is not less impressive because of the diver- sities. The peculiar difficulties as to locality will be considered presently.
(4) The existing conclusion of Mark. — 'We may say with confidence,' writes Dr. Sanday [Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 241), 'that its date is earlier than the year 140 — whether we argue from the chronology of Aristion, its presumable author, or from its presence in the archetype of almost all extant MSS, or from the traces of it in writers so early as Justin and Irenfeus.' ' It belongs at the latest,' says Dr. Swete, ' to the earlier sub-Apostolic age ' (Apostles' Creed, p. 66). (See, further. Chase, Syriac Element in Codex Bczce, 1893, pp. 153-157).
(5) The Fourth Gospel. — The value set on this evidence Avill vary with critical estimates of the Fourth Gospel, into which it is impossible to enter here. Suffice it to say that a very marked tendency exists in more recent writers to return to older views. So advanced a critic as Jiilicher, for in- stance, dates the Gospel between A.D 100 and 110 (Introd. N.T. p. 401). In no case is reception or rejection more influenced by philosophic and theo- logical presuppositions than here.
We note then that the documentary evidence, while certainly less than we might desire, is ade- quate for its purpose. Partial discrepancies are not only compatible with, they may be confirma- tory of, substantial veracity (cf. Gwatkin, Gifford Led. ii. 48).
i. Canonical as contrasted with Apocryphal Gospels. — The Canonical narratives form but a small portion of the early accounts of Jesus Christ. And it is important to consider why we lay exclu- sive stress upon the Four. The Canonical Gospels, as their name implies, cannot be I'egarded merely as documents ; they are the property, and indeed
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST 50i
the product, of a community, the Christian Cliurch. The documentary evidence for tlie Kesurrection requires to be supplemented by the evidence of the existence of the institution and its principles. The Church gave its recognition to certain Gospels, and refused it to others.
' It was not the prestige of an Apostolic name that made it canonical, for the "Gospel of I'eter" was rejected. Great antiquity and respectful quotation by learned Church writers did not avail to include the "Gospel ace. to the Hebrews," nor did philosophical thoutflit avail the document commonly called the "Oxyrhynchus Lojfia"' (Burkitt, Gospel UiUory and its TransmUsion, p. 230).
What was the principle which led to their exclu- sion ? What was it that the Four Gospels had which these had not ? The answer manifestly is, that the contents of the Gospels called Canonical were in harmony with the prmciples of the Chris- tian community which received them. The Church recognized the Four as possessing characteiistics in which the others were more or less defective. ' And,' says Prof. Burkitt, ' it should not be forgotten that those of the non-canonical Gospels which we know enough of to pass judgment upon, show a sensible inferiority' (p. 259). ' Marcion's Gospel is in every way inferior to Luke, and the Gospel of Peter to either of the Synoptic accounts of the Passion ' (ib.). Their extravagant wonder-workings and obviously fictitious character impress readers of any school of thought (cf. Plleiderer, Urchristentum, ii. 121).
5. The empty grave. — This is witnessed to by (1) the Evangelists; cf. the original narrative of Mk. (le''"). 'There is no reason to doubt,' says O. Holtzmann, 'that the women could not carry out their purpose [of embalming the body], simply because they found the grave empty ' (Life of Jesus, p. 497). According to the tradition accepted by yt. Paul, the first manifestation was on the third day, and therefore in Jerusalem. This agrees with the Apostles' visit to the grave, which should be contrasted with their visit with our Lord to the grave of Lazarus. That the grave was empty, would also seem to be required by Jewish con- temporary ideas on resurrection (cf. Dn 12^).
Considerable thoufrht has of recent years been bestowed on St. John's description of the manner in which the grave-clothes were lying. As far back as Chrysostom's time, attention was called to the fact that myrrh was a drug which adheres so closely to the body that the grave-clothes would not easily be removed (in Joan. Horn. Ixxxv). Cyril of Alexandria suggested that, from the manner in which the grave-clothes lay folded, the Apostles were led to the idea of resurrection : ' Ex involutis linteaniinibus resnrrectionem colligunt,' as the Latin version renders it (Migne, vii 68:^). Latham's theory is that the word ivTiTvXtyfji.itii<i implies that the napkin which had been wrapped around the sacred head still partially retained the annular form thus given it (The Risen Master, p. 43). The grave-clothes still marked the spot where the body had rested, and still retained the general outline of the human form (cf. p. 50). If this inter- pretation be correct, that St. John saw the napkin which had bpen about the head of Jesus, not lying with the linen clothes, but apart, twisted round, away by itself, then the suggestion would be not only the emptiness of the grave, but that 'that which died had passed away into that which lived ' (Richmond, Gospel of the Rejection, p. 109).