'all the apostles.* To realize the weiglit of tliis testimony it must be taken as a whole and not in its isolated parts. The number and variety of the persons to whom the manifestations were made, as well as the character and status of the witnesses and tlie simultaneous jicrception by many, make this a stat(-*ment of evidence for the Resurrection which cannot be made light of by the impartial historian.
(3) The most important appearing of all, as giving St. Paul's direct evidence to the Resurrec- tion— an addition to the traditional list 'received' — has yet to be considered, lieliind St. Paul's preaching of the Resuircction tiicre stood not only the testimony of othfis, but the great liistorical fact of the liisen I^ord's ai)pearing to himself on the way to Damascus. ' Last of all (fcrxaro;' TTOLVTiav) he appeared also to me — to this so-called "abortion" of an apostle' (tOo-Trepei ryj ^^rpci/tari, v.s).
The AV translation ' as to one born out of due time ' finds the suggestion in wffjrepci tw eVrpw/iari to l)e that he was born too late to witness one of tlie normal appcarings of Christ after the Resurrection and before tiie Ast'ension. But J. Weiss points out (H. A. W. Meyer, Koinmentar uber das ST, Gottingen, lH*J8-78, Eng. tr., London, 1S73-95, m ^^<;.)that fKTf>u>fia means Ijorn not too late but too early, too quickly, the suggestion being that of the suddenness and violence of St. Paul's birth into Christ. His was an unripe and violent birth (cf. G. G. Findlay, EGT, * 1 Cor.,' London, 1000, in toe, * the unripe birth of one who was changed at a stroke from the persecutor into the Apostle, instead of maturing normally for his work '). In either case the point is the abnormality of St. Paul's birth into faith and apostleship, and probably the significance of the article is, as Weiss points out, that to eicTpw^a was an insulting epithet flung at St. Paul by those who belittled hia apostleship. In their eyes he was a real Missfieburt. .St. Paul adopts the title and gives it a deeper meaning, arguing that, notwithstanding his abnormality and unworthiness, his apostleship was as valid as that of the older apostles.
A considerable body of negative criticism has maintained tliat the appearance to St. Paul was of an inward visionary ciiaracter, and that, since he includes it in his list with the others without any discrimination between them except as regards time, using the same word {uipS-n) to describe all the appearances, he must have regarded these as like his own, visionary. Weizsacker, e.g., says: 'There is absolutely no jiroof that Paul presup- posed a physical Clnistojihany in the case of the older Apostles. Had he done .so he could not have put his own exjierience on a level with theirs. But since he does this, we must conclude that he looked upon the visions of his predecessors in the same light as his own ' (Apost. Age-, i. 9 ; cf. O. Ptleiderer, Christian Origins, Eng. tr., London, 1906, pp. 136 f., 160 f.). the 'more materialistic' accounts of the appearances given in the (lospels are the outcome of later * unliistorical embellish- ments.' The truth, however, is, as Westcott points out {Gospel of the Resurrextion, p. Ill), that the exact converse is the proper line of argu- ment. St. Paul, we have .seen, conceived of the Resurrection as a bodily resurrection, in this be- lieving himself to be at one with the older apostles, and his use of the .same term to describe all the appearances shows that he rcgardeil the appear- ance of the Risen Lord to himself on the road to Damascus as of the same kind as those granted to the others. He believed, and always acted on the belief, that he had seen the Risen Lord in the same sense as did those who saw Him during the forty days, that he was a witness of Christ's resurrection in the same sense as the others were, and the last of such witnesses; and this 'seeing' he regarded as containing the basis and justilication of his aiiostolic mission. He claimed to be as directly commissioned by our Lord in person as any other of the apostles (Gal I"'"). ' Am I not an apostle, have I not seen .Jesus our Lord?' (oi'xi'\-qffovv tov Kvpiov 7}fxu>v c'wpaKa, 1 Co 9') (cf. Jn 20"*, ^ujpa/fe t6v Ki'piov : v."^, fupaKafiiv rbv Kuptoi' ; v.^, iwpa.K6.s /j.e).
336 RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
' The phrase seems to have been current in tlie Apostolic Cliurch in speaking of a personal experi- ence of the appearances of the risen Christ ' (Swete, Appearances, p. 41 n.). That the reference here is to a risen appearance and not to a seeing of Jesus during His earthly life is ol)vious. For even if, as some maintain, St. I'aul had so seen the Lord, what he is concerned with in this passage is his claim to he an apostle and a witness equally with the Twelve of tlie Lord's resurrection ; and to justify this claim a ' seeing ' of the Kisen Lord was necessary.
The visionary character of this experience has sometimes been argued from the mere use of the term li^Sij, but this is illegitimate. The term is, indeed, sometimes used of 'visionary' seeing (e.i/. Ac 16") ; but it is used equally of seeing which is not visionary (e.g. Ac 7-°). ' What it suggests in almost every case is the idea of something sudden or unexpected ; that which is seen is conceived to be so, not because one is look- ing at it or for it, but because it has unexpectedly thrust itself upon the sight' (Denney, Je-nis and the Gospel, p. 116). Support for the visionary interpretation of the appearance has, however, been sought by reference to St. Paul's words else- where.