A vision of departed persons does not necessarily imply their resurrection. If Moses and Elijah were seen at the Transfigura- tion of Christ, did the disciples infer their resurrection? Con- temporary belief in the Apostolic age had assumed that patriarch and prophet and saint of OT times lived on in Paradise, but this did not involve belief in their resurrection. Visions were per- fectly compatil)le with the continuance of the dead body in the grave, and no belief in their resurrection would ensue. Why then did the Apostle, having seen Christ after His death, affirm His Resurrection (cf. Schmoller in SK, 1894, p. 689)? Was it not because this 'seeing' Him was consciously different from the seeing in a dream, or from any kind of seeing except one involving physical identity ? The idea of resurrection introduces an after- deatii e-xperience as it concerns the body. It affirms that that which rose is also, howe\er altered, that which died.
Separating, then, the ordinary visions of the Apostolic age from those decisive earlier appearances of .Jesus, the question is, says Keim, Were those visions of the Risen Jesus merely self-generated natural products explicable by psychology? This, he replies, is 'contradicted first by the evidently simple, solemn, almost lifeless, cold, unfamiliarcharacterof themanifestations.' 'There are reserve and reticence in the face of the strange phenomenon. There is no trace of a happy, sweet, prolonged repose in the bosom of him who is again endowed with life and love.' And secondly, a merely subjective explanation becomes ' still more glaringly inadequate' when we consider the abrupt cessation of the appearances. Advocates of the Vision theory have consistently postulated an extended duration of time, years during which the appearances were reiterated. ' This is as true with regard to the hypothesis as it is false and frivolous with regard to the Apostolic account ' (p. 356). ' There was no host of appearances, no exuberance, no indescribable irregularity, no violent transi- tion.' ' .lust when fervid minds are beginning to grow fanatical, the fanaticism al)solutely and entirely ceases.' And thirdly, the immediate result of the visions is vigorous practical activity. Mere psychological plienomena do not move this way. 'The spirits that men call up are not so quicklv laid' (p. 3.57). 'If, therefore, there was actually an early or immediate transition from the visions to a calm self-possession, and to a self-possessed energy, then the visions did not proceed from self-generated visionarv over-excitement and fanatical agitation among the multitude ' (p. 3.'')8).
Keiin's judgment, then, upon the Vision theory, as a whole, is as follows : ' All these considerations compel us to admit that the theory which has recently become the favourite one is only an hypothesis which, while it explains something, leaves the main fact unexplained, and, indeed, subordinates what is histori- cally attested to weak and untenable views ' (p. 358).
(4) Keim then comes to his own explanation. ' If the visions are not something humanly generated or self-generated, if they are not blossom and fruit of an illusion-producing over-excitement, if they are not something strange and mysterious, if they are directly accompanied by astonishingly clear percej)- tions and resoh'cs, tlien tiiere still remains one originating source, hitherto unmentioned, namely, God and the glorified Christ' (p. 361). Keim accord-
ingly propounds a tlieoiy of objective Vision created by Christ Himself. ' If the power tiiat produces the vision comes, as according to our view it does, entirely from without, and the sub- jective seeing is merely the reflex form of what is objective, the immediate cessation of the seeing and of the will to see, as soon as the operating power ceases to operate, becomes perfectly intellig- ible.' 'Even the corporeal appearance may be granted to those who are afraid of losing every- thing unless they have this plastic representation for their thought and their faith ' (p. 362). Thus, according to this view, tlie Resurrection manifesta- tions are a God-created message of victory. To quote Keim's oft-quoted expression, they are ' a telegram from heaven,' an evidence given by Christ Himself and by the power of God.
This objective Vision theory, although far be- neath the Christian conviction, is neverthele.ss a very remarkable approximation towards it. It is a most significant recognition of the inadequate character of all purely subjective explanations of the Apostles' belief. It acknowledges a God-created reality in the Easter faith. The theories of fraud and fiction and self-delusion are hereby deliberately set aside. The Almighty produced the Apostles' faith.
On the objective Vision theory see, further, Steude, Aufersteh- uncj, p. 99 ; Lotze, Microcosmos, ii. 480 (Eng. tr.).
The ultimate reasons for rejecting the Resur- rection evidence are not historical. As Sabatier truly says, ' Even if the differences were perfectly reconciled, or even did not exist at all, men who will not admit the miraculous would none the less decisively reject the witness. As Zeller frankly acknowledges, their rejection is based on a philo- sophic theory, and not on historic considerations' (UAputre Paul, p. 42). Strauss long ago fully admitted that ' the origin of that faith in the dis- ciples is fully accounted for if we look upon the Resurrection of Jesus, as the Evangelists describe it, as an external miraculous occurrence ' (Neiv Life, i. 399). Nothing can be more genuine than Strauss' acknowledgment that he was controlled by a priori considerations, to which the fact of a resurrection was inadmissible ; cf. p. 397 : —