The list of the appearances given in the various narratives is as follows :
(1) Mark's account (in the genuine portion) records none. But the abrupt way in which the narrative breaks oil' in the middle of a sentence at 16" ('for they were afraid of . . .' [Moli'att]) points to the fact that the writer meant to add some account of the meeting of the Risen Lord with the disciples in Galilee referred to in v.'. The probability is that such was added and that it is lost. There is good reason for believing that Matthew has worked up into his last chapter much of the matter contained in the lost ending of Mark, adding certain incidents for which he relied upon his own resources (see Chase's art. 'The Lord's Command to Baptize ' in JThSt vi. [1904-05] 481 ti'.). The Mk. App. (16«-=») records appear- ances to Mary Magdalene (v.*), to two disciples on the way to Eramaus (v.'-), and to the Eleven at meat (v.").
(•2) ;l/(ri</ic»o records two appearances — the first to the women in or near Jerusalem on the morning of the Resurrection (28'-"-), and then to the Eleven in Galilee on a mountain ' where Jesus had ap- pointed them ' (vv. ">■="), the meeting referred to in forecast in Mark.
(3) Luke records three : ' i the two disciples on the way to I'^mmaus (24"'^-), to the ' eleven . . . and them that were with them' in Jeru.salem (v.3«ff-), and to Peter, this preceding the last and being indirectly stated (v." ; cf. 1 Co 15'). Luke
also refers (v.""'-) to a meeting on the day of A.sceusiou at Bethany (more fully reported in Ac 1*-'-).
(4) John, writing with knowledge of the other Gospels and filling up fnjm bis reminiscences what the others had left untolil, records four: the ap- pearance to Mary Magiialcne in the garden {'20'''"") ; an appearance to the disciples (without Thomas) the same evening in Jerusalem (vv.'"'-"); another aijpearance a week later to the disciples (with Ihomas) in Jerusalem (vv.^"--") ; and lastly, an a)ipearance to seven disciples some time later at the Sea of Tiberias (21'"'^).
(5) Extra-canonical Gospels. — The Gospel ace. to the Hebrews tells of an appearance to James, and the Gospel of Peter .seems on the point of narrating an incident not unlike the a]ipearance to the seven at the Sea of Tiberias when the fragment ends abruptlj'. Both narratives, however, are distinctly secondary in character and add nothing of a trust- worthy nature to the canonical accounts.
It is against the accounts of the appearances in the Gospels that the argument from discrepancies has most force. It has to be frankly admitted that the records present many dilliculties in the way of constructing a coherent harmonized account. ' Whichever way we turn, dilliculties meet us, which the documents to which we have access do not enable us to remove ' (Sanday, Outlines of Life of Christ, p. 180). These difiiculties concern in the main two points : (i. ) the sequence or time order of the appearances, and (ii.) their place or locality.
(i. ) The sequence or time order of the appearances. — None of the Gospels presents us with an ordered statement of the whole facts. St. I'aul's list in 1 Co 15 is no doubt given in chronological order, but it does not profess to be complete, and leaves room for other ajipearances to be added. By the time the Gospel accounts were written, however, it may have been too late to lind out with any precision how this or that ailditional appearing preserved in tradition was related in time to the others. In particular the relation of the ap]ie.'ir- ance to Mary Magdalene (re<-orded by Jn. and Mk. App.) to the appearance to tlie women recorded in Mt 28^"'" is left by the narratives in uncertainty — an uncertainty connected with the seeming con- fusion in the First and Third Gospels, between Mary's return to Jerusalem and the return of the other women. Again, Luke gives the impression that all the appearances took place on the day of the Resurrection, and that the Ascension itself took place on the evening of that day. But this is contrary to what we lind in the other Gospel accounts, where the appearances are represented as extending over a consideraljle time. And it is contrary to Luke's own account in Ac 1, where he interposes ' forty days' between the Resurrection and the Ascension, and assumes the ajipearances of Christ to be spread over the whole period (cf. Ac 13^', ' many days'). The hitter ' contradiction ' is made much of by Strauss and Keim, and, more recently, by Weizsiicker ami Meyer. 'I'he explana- tion is to be found, however, in Luke's highly com- pressed or condensed style of narr live in the closing chapter of his Gospel (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Eomnn Citizen, London, 1895, p. 17, 'compressed to the highest degree'). Chase maintains that there are good grounds for thinking that the opening section of the Acts was already composed before the closing sccti(m of the Gospel (Gospels, p. 40), and Denncy says that in all jirob- ahility it was produced continuously with it (Jesus and the Gospel, p. 142). Having in view from the l)eginning to write a sequel to his Gospel, giving a more detailed account of the events leading up to the Ascension, the Evangelist 'fore-shortens' and compresses the narrative in the Gosjjel, treating