Jewish writings (see, e.g., T. K. Cheyne, liihle Problems, London, 1904, p. 113). In answer to this it is sufficient here to note that St. Paul claims to stand in this matter precisely on the .same ground as the earlier apostles. The gospel he had i>rcaclied to the Corinthians in its two great affirmations^ the atoning .significance of the Death and the reality of the Resurrection on the third day — was not, he claims, original to him ; he had but ' handed on' the tradition which he had himself 'received.' The attempt to explain the primitive apostolic belief in the Resurrection on the third day as an inference from Scripture will be considered later (below, II. ii. 3).
(b) The ajifh'.arings of the Risen Christ. — St. Paul's witness to the Resurrection includes, however, not only the rising on the third d.'iy but the fact of subsequent appearings of the Risen Lord. In his outline statement in 1 Go 15 the following list of appearances is given : ' He aiipeared to Cephas ; then to the twelve ; after that he appeared to over five hundred brethren at once, tlie majority of whom survive to this day thoiigli some have died ; after that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also —
this so-called " abortion" of an apostle'
«).
1) The purpose for which St. Paul adduced this list lias to be noted, for tlie consideration of this at once removes certain objections which have been urged against it. There were some members of the Corinthian Church (tiH^, v.'-) who denied the fact of the resurrection of the dead — not the re- surrection of Jesus in particular, but the resurrec- tion of the dead generally- They said, ' There is no such thing as a resurrection of dead persons' (ava- CTaais veKpuiv ovk ^gtiv, v.'- ; cf. v.-^, 'dead men are not raised at all ' [SXws]), asserting a universal nega- tive. Who these rivi^ were St. Paul does not saj', but we know that in his missionary labours anionic the Greeks the subject of teaching which proved the^chief stumbling-block was the resurrection of the dead. In Athens, e.g., we are told tliat, when he began to speak of the resurrection of dead men (di'dcTTacro' v(KpCiv), they derided the very idea, and theii- manifest impatience and ridicule forced him to terminate his speech abruptly (Ac 17'- ; cf. 26'"). These TiK^s in Corinth shared the prejudice of Greek culture against the idea of a bodily resurrection. They denied the possibility of the fact. They repeated the dogma ' Dead men do not rise' as the last word of philosophy, much as in modern times the similar dogma ' Miracles do not happen ' has been repeated as the last word of science.
To deny the resurrection of the dead is by implication to deny Christ's resurrection, and to do this is to contravene the Gosj>el witness, and, further, as St. Paul shows by the reductio ad absurdum argument, to render the whole saving worth of the gospel inett'ective (vv.'''"'*), and to show that tliey believed the gospel heedlessly or at haphazard (fi/cB, v.-) without seriously realizing the facts involved. So, before advancing to the doctrinal discussion which was the real purpose of his argument in this great chapter, St. Paul felt called to rehearse the historical evidence for ( 'hrist's bodily resurrection which he had 'received,' and which he had already 'delivered ' to them by word of mouth when he was among them. In this re- hearsal he recalled not only the Burial and the fact of the Resurrection <m the third d.ay , but a summary of the chief appearings of the Lord after His re- surrection. Whether St. Paul is here giving his own summarized statement of the principal wit- nesses to the Resurrection or, as some maintain, a stereotyped or formulated summary list which he had himself received and had handed on to the Corinthians ('a selection made for purposes of preaching' [Sanday, UDli ii. 640"]) does not afl'ect
334 RESUKRECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
the argument. In either case the list given is a suniMiary .statement of evidence already received.
The reineiiihrance of this supplies a complete answer to the ohjections drawn from St. Paul's omitting to refer to certain appearances recoriled in the Gospels. Weizsacker, e.g., argues from St. Paul's silence as to the appearance to the women at the grave, recorded in the Gospels, and from his placing the appearance to St. Peter lir.st in his list of C'hristophanies, to his ignorance of the fact. ' The only possible explanation is that the Apostle \vas ignor.ant of its existence' (Apo.H. Age", i. 5). And from this he proceeds to draw the inference that, since ' Paul's knowledge of these things must have come from the heads of the primitive Church, therefore it is the primitive Church itself that was ignorant of any such tradition,' which is, therefore, a 'later product' (p. 6). Such is the conclusion to which Weizsacker conies on the sup- position on which he proceeds that St. Paul is here relating the appearances ' in order to prove the fact' of the Resurrection, 'proof which he under- takes so earnestly and carries out with such pre- cision'(p. 5). To like etTect Schmiedel : 'By his careful enumeration with "then . . . next . . . next . . . then . . . lastly" (elTa . . . lireira . . . lireira . . . elra . . . ^crxavoi', 15^"^) he guarantees not only chronological order but also completeness' {EBi iv. 4058). On this ground he argues, like Weizsacker, from St. Paul's omission of reference to the appearance to the women to his ignorance of the fact, and hence to the supposition that the Jerusalem Church, from which St. Paul derived his facts, included in its testimony to the Resurrec- tion no such stories of the appearing of Jesus to the women as are now found in the Gospels. It is doubtless a fair inference from St. Paul's manner of expressing himself that he gives the appearances which he mentions in what he considers their chronological order. So much ' then . . . after that . . .,' etc., denotes or imjilies. '