narrative is lost, and the P/esen „^arly all exunt MhS
appendix; but the fact that it ap,|ar ^^^^^^ ^^ ^ ^,
and versions points to an earlj u^^ . ^^^^^ ^^me two
?el.ation with Mark. h.mse\tO Tten a^^^^^^^^ The
fuller narratives, going behind ^ne for different classes of writers, Matthew and Luke wnling ^ ^^^^^^^ ^,
readers, with the two .main sources r independently
basis of their narratives a™"!:^^ ^^5^ it_ sometimes the material thus ^"PPljf 'J' 'C^s a'.d ea'^h adding iuforniation giving it new point a"d u "ness, an ^^^.^ depe.ide.ice
derived from his o*"°V''"ler narrative portions on Mark is of Matthew and Luke in their narr ^^^ criticism (F.
reckoned 'the one ^ohd .contribution ^^^.^^.^, gj„,burgh^
C. Burkitt. The '^"^.^'''.'""'T^c.s Matthew ' \ do., 1912 p..vu). 1900, p. 37 ;cf. W.C.Allen /CO, b.»ia ^^.^^^ jjark is a
It cannot, however be argued tna,^ secondary author- primary authority, .Matthew an,lL,uK assumption.
Ft" s. Much critical argument proceeds^^.^^ ^^ ,^ as if the narratives of the * irsi ^^^^^^^^ and an.v
simple 'writing up' and embelhsh.ng g .^^^ asunhistorica
detiilsnotfoundm the lattei were 1 j'^^portant portion of
and legendary. .Luke e.^^'n the Resurrection sectio s
his whole narrative-the Pass'on a ^^ independent
-wholly, deserts Mark and prefers^ t^^.^ information Chase information. ,As ,to the sou Criticism, pp. I7 Jiit-)
^G„spels in the i»3'''''/„.^j"*,''e" and the elders of the Church nakes out a strong .^seoj James ana ^^^^_^^ ^^ with whom Luke w?^ brought in p _^,^^ see Ac 211512; salem some twenty-five years aKer in j^^^u^rection. one of Now James was a primary "Jtufs " narrative would
Siose who saw the Lord. «°.that Lu^ „m h^ ^^ jja^ (c .
befn touch with hrst-hand mfom at on Fourth Gospel,
Ik 1'-:) Then later still, the "r'ter u ^.^ ^^^^^
having a knowledge »' t^';nt'anrpe?haps1n some details to rive, w-ishing to supplement and pern P,^ ^^ ^^^^ j^^_^_.^^. . correct them, m connexion with the narr^ ^^^.^^ ^^^^
tion in particular, the wr'ter with hnj m^^^^^.P secutive account, affords xam ^^^^^ ^^ ^"bstance at
growing tendency among c"tiost ^^ ^^^^ ^p^^y^ j hn
least, this Gospel represents a genui ,,eminiscences of the
written in his old age. contaimng anthem .^^^^^ ^^^,^
Lord's words and work .These re, ^^ many years
been moulded by the writer s <^f^^. and inten>retation
on their significance. ^» th'^t remmi ,|^^^^ ^^^ ^^a^
are often so interwoven that it «dthcu ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ and the other begins, but this noes ^ blending of fact and
worthy character of the Gospel. ^^_^^^^ j^„^ „ e who
interpreution; but the inten^retat _^^_^^ ^^ for getting at had an unique position and unq ^^^ ^^ interpret. It
the heart and truth of that wnicii ^jun, of one of the
ii the mind of Christ seen through tne 11 C'ridosm
first a.S closest of f'' "mrS p^"' Indeed, John's of the Fourth Gospel, O'^ford, iw^, p '^ ,,( a great account may be truest to reality. the m j _^^^^^^^
niSZient Will be told long 5-ars aJWrwards^w^^ auoroach to truth, not by the prosaic ^_^^ ^^ jhe
oify what lay on the surface, but rathe by^___j ^^^ he
time discerned something of .tsgrancle.^^^ u perhaps a recalled it instinctively idealized ^t^^^ ^^ ^^^ memory of a necessary condition for .the prcserv ^i 19 an appen-
niomentous spiritual, cnsis (Chase PW ; v^ ^^ ^et it must dixtotbeGospelwhichclosedattheen ^^^^^^ .p^^^
have become an .mtegral part of the P.^ ^^ ,,^ ^ ^ for no trace exists of a Gospe witi ^^ ^^^^ internal and similar to the rest of the Go^P.'^ • ™„,,' her of critics support external evidence an vncreasmg Simseff composed this piece
1 rf UrelYtSr'hSvi"^ «"'*'^ the Gospel, or we have here the
RESUKKECTIOX OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST 33'J
work of that circle of friends and disciples wlio surrounded the Apostle at Kpliesus, who had oftL'n heani him relate tlie facts contained in it, and who liave reproduced them in his own lanjjuajfe.')
It is often urged against the narratives of the Gospels that none of thfi writers were first-hand witnesses, hut if the Fourth Gospel, as a (growing \veii;ht of criticism encouraijcs us to be- lieve, is a genuine work of the apostle JoJm, we have at least one sucli witness of first-rank importance. But further, Mark was the compjininii and interpreter of I'etor, another primary witness, liesidea, Luke was the companion of St. i'aul, and St. Paul had direct communication with Peter, James, and other members of the ori^;inal apostolic company ; and Luke lays stress on the fact that the things which he relates rested on the testimony of those who were eye-witnesses. The Gospel of Matthew, if not directly the work of that Apostle — another first- hand witness — must have been written by one so closely asso- ciated with him that it ever afterwards passed as Matthew's own. We are thus, througliout, in contact with llrst-hand information, and all claim to be but recording a tradition well established in the Church, and derived originally from the apostles.
Approximate probable dates for the Gosi>ols may be given as follows: Mk. A.D. bO-70, Mt. Lk. (Gospel and Acts)A.D. 70-SO ; Jn. A.D. S5-HH) — all falling probably within the 1st century. The extra-canonical Gospels, theGofrpfl ticronfiii'i to the ihhtrioi and the G'Ufpel uf Peter, parts of whicli have been prei^crved, and both of which belong probably to the beginning of tiie '2nd cent., add little or nothing of a trustworthy character to the canonical accounts of the Kesurrection.