But there is nothing to show that he considers his enumeration exhaustive. Indeed, there is every- thing against it. The statement here given is almost as condensed as it could possibly be, and it is diffi- cult to see how it could ever be mistaken for an ex- haustive evidential account of the proofs of Christ's resurrection. In this list nothing more than the names or numbers of the witnesses are given. No mention is made of locality or other detail of the appearances, not from lack of knowledge but because the Corinthians themselves would be able to till in the details from memory. The passage is but a recapitulation of oral teaching, giving in a summary fashion what he had enlarged upon in all its circumstances and signiHcance when he was among them. For this summary purpose St. Paul selects the appearances to the leaders of the Church whose names were well known to the Corinthians and would carry weight with them, and who were, like himself, specially chosen and commissioned to be witnesses of the Resurrection (1 Co 15'^; cf. Ac 122 433)_Cephas, the Twelve, St. James, all the apostles — mentioning, besides these, only the great crowning manifestation of the Risen Lord to ' more than five hundred brethren at once.' This in itself would explain the omission of the appearance to the women which had a more private significance and would not be of special interest to the Corin- thians. It may have been on this ground too, as Sanday .suggests {HDB ii. 639'>)— ' because the two disciples involved were not otherwise conspicuous as active preachers or jirominent leaders ' — that the appearing on the way to Emniaus is not men- tioned. In any case, the mere omission to mention this appearing or that to the women cannot be held to argue St. Paul's ignorance of tlie fact (though this was possible), much less warrant the conclusion
that the manifestation of Jesus to the women had no |>lace in the primitive Ciiurch tradition.
('2) Whether St. Paul means that the entire list of appearances here given (with the exception, of course, of that to himself) formed part of the original tradition which he had received has been disputed. The grammatical construction continues untroken to the end of v." ('that he hath been raised on the third day . . . and that he appeared to Cephas, then the twelve ') and then changes ('then he appeared,' etc.): and some hold that these later appearances were added to the list by St. Paul himself. But it is precarious to make the mere grammatical structure of the sentence the basis of reasoning. Such a break is not unusual with St. Paul. Certainly the implied idea would seem to be that St. Paul is here summarizing the common tradition which he had received, and it is natural to suppose that the recapitulation extends to the end of the series. Chase interprets the break in construction, if intentional, as denoting that ' the Apostle regards the appearances which he mentions as falling into two grou|)s,' and infers that ' he places the appearance to Cephas and that to the Twelve among the events "of the third day"' (Gospels in the Light of Hist. Criticism, p. 41).
A detailed examination of St. Paul's summary list will show how far it is in line with the Gospel accounts and confirms the narratives there (i^iven.
(i.) ' He appeared to Cephas.' The source of St. Paul's know- ledjre of this appearance is scarcely open to dispute. When he went up to Jerusalem to 'visit Cephas,' who can doubt that while St. Paul had much to say of his experiences on the Damascus road St. Peter told how the Master had appeared to himself on the very day of the Resurrection. Of the Evan- gelists. Luke alone mentions this appearance and assi^^ns to Peter the privilege of being the first apostle to whom the Risen Lord appeared (243^), The source of Luke's knowledge is not ditticult to trace.
(ii.) 'Then to the twelve.' 'The twelve' is here used as the official title of the apostolic body — a technical phrase (cf. Godet, in loc. ; Lake, Resurrection of Jesif>i Christ, p. 37) — without exact regard to number. It Is probable that the incident to which St. Paul here refers was the appearance to the Ten in the Upper Chamber on the evening of the Resurrection (Lk 243*', Jn 201!'), or the appearance to the Eleven (Thomas being present) a week later (Jn 20-^); or it may be that St. Paul's reference would cover both these incidents. It is the fact of the manifestation of the Lord to the assembled company of His selected companions that is referred to, and the absence of Thomas on the day of the Resurrection is an accident. Ac- cordingly, even if others were present on the first of these occasions, as Luke's language seems to imply ('the eleven and those that were with them,' v.'^^), the significance of the appear- ance would rest in the recognition of the Lord by His chosen friends.
(iii.) 'Then he appeared to above five hundred brethren once for air (t(/>a7ra|) — rather than 'at once' or 'simultaneously' (cf. Ro 6^", Ac 727 912 ioiO)_the implication of i4,drra$ being that not only did they see the Lord together but ' the occa- sion in question was the only one on which this large com- pany of disciples had so wonderful an experience' (CQR Ixi. [1906] 323). The identity of this appearance with that on a mountain in Galilee recorded in Mt SS-^f- — the appearance fore- told in the promise of vvj- 10 and anticipated in Mk 16'— has been maintained by many. And certainly this appearance would seem to require location in Galilee, not in Jerusalem. ' An appearance to so large a body of disciples at one time could only have taken place on the Galilean hills' (Swete, Appear- ances of our Lord after the Passion^ p. 82). Matthew, indeed, speaks only of 'the eleven disciples' in connexion with this meeting in Galilee, but in the expression ' some doubted ' (ot 5e efit'o-Tao-ac, Mt 28'^) there has been found an indirect indication of the presence of a larger body. 'In the small body of the eleven there is hardly room for a " some "' (Orr, Resurrection of Jes^ls, p. 190). Further, as H. Latham (Risen Master, Cambridge, 1901, p. 290) urges, a meeting with the Eleven only would not have necessitated an appointment in the hill country. It could have been held with perfect safety in a room at Capernaum. Matthew's speaking only of ' the eleven disciples ' in connexion with the meeting may be explained by the fact that his interest lay wholly in the commission of the Risen Lord to the apostles which was given at this meeting (cf. Chase, Gospels ill the Light of Hist. Criticism, p. 42). The identi- fication can never indeed be more than a probability. Weiss (in loc.) rejects it, and E. von Dobschutz (Ostern und PJinffsten, Leipzig, 19D3, p. 34), followed by Harnack and Lake, attempts to identify the appearance with the coming down of the Holy Spirit upon the assembled company on the Uay of Pentecost. But in any case it is to be noted that St. Paul, writing twenty- five years after the Resurrection, says that the majority of