3i2 KKSURRECTIUN OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
two or three distinct occasions as if tliey were con- tinuous, knowing that facts well known in the Church would lender impossible the supposition that all the events recorded took place in a single day.
(ii.) The scene or locality of the appearances. — More serious is the difficulty which confronts us here. St. I'aul in 1 Co 15 makes no mention of locality, but the Gospel accounts are divided be- tween CJalilee and Jerusaleui. Matthew and prob- ably Mark (orit;inal conclusion) lay the stress upon Galilee. In Mark indeed (in the genuine portion) no record is given of any appearances, but the women are bidden by the angel at the tomb to say that the Kisen Lord would meet the disciples in Galilee (16'). The .same message of the angel is given even more empliatically in Mt 28' — 'Go quickly and tell' — and (unless vv.'"'" represent, as P. Rohrbach maintains [see A. B. Uruce, EGT, in fo('.], the same fact in another form) repeated by Jesus Himself when He appears to these women on their way to execute the charge of the angel (28'"). A promise to the same ell'ect had already been given by Jesus to His disciples before they left the upper room for the Garden of Getlisemane, and is recorded by both Matthew and Mark (Mt 26^-, Mk U^).
In accordance with this message and promise is the programme of appearances given in the First Gospel. The eleven disciples departed into Galilee (28'*), and there saw Jesus, and there also received the great commission. Go and make dis- ciples of all nations. No record is given of any appearance of Jesus to the apostles in or near Jerusalem. And it is probable that the original conclusion of Mark carried out the same programme. Luke and John, however, conhne their account to appearances in Jerusalem and neighbourhood. Luke, who records (in ch. 24) the appearances to the two on the way to Emmaus, to Peter, and to the Eleven, all in or near Jerusalem, ends his account with a command of Jesus to the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they were 'clothed with power from on high ' (v. ■''■'). But this appears definitely to exclude any departure into Galilee, and the possibility of an ajjpearance there. In line with this is the dili'erent representation of the angelic message given in Luke from that in Matthew and Mark. The Marcan version, ' He goeth before you into Galilee : there shall ye see him, as he said unto you' (16'), becomes in Luke, ' Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying,' etc. (24'''-). That is to say, the message as given by Luke becomes not a direction to go into Galilee, but a reminder that Christ spoke to them about His resurrection when He was yet with them in Galilee. In like manner, all the appear- ances mentioned in the Fourth Gospel except that in the Appendix (ch. 21) are placed in Jerusalem, and the author indicates that the disciples remained at least a week in Jerusalem after the Resurrection (20=«).
What are we to make of this discrepancy ? Are these two versions or traditions to be regarded as contradictory and ' irreconcilable' alternatives, only one of which can be received, the other being ruled out as unhistorioal ? This is bow, e.g., Strauss and Weizsacker represent the case (New Life of Jesus, i. 435, and Apost. Age^, i. 2f.). If so, the question is, Which is the more trustworthy ? The usual course among critics has been to prefer the tradition in Matthew and Mark as the more primary, and to confine the appearances to Galilee. The appearances to the apostles at Jerusalem were, it is represented, unknown to Matthew and Mark, and form a later addition to the earliest version of the Uesurrection-story which spoke only of Galilee.
This Galiltean theory, which we shall go on to
discuss, is generally maintained in connexion with a naturalistic visionary theory of the Resur- rection. The advantage of it lot this purpose is obvious. By separating the appearances from the events of the third day and transferring them to Galilee, it gives more time for visions to develop amid scenes coloured by memory and imagination. As Strauss puts it, 'If the transference of the apjiearanccs to Galilee dis-engages us from the third day as the period of the commencement of them, the longer time thus gained makes the re- action in the minds of the disciples more conceivable' (New Life, i. 437). Support for this Galilajau theory has been sought in the extra-canonical Gospel uf Peter, where in xiv. 58-60 the disciples are repre- sented as returning to Galilee in .sorrow and there- fore witlumt knowledge of the Resurrection. The dilliculties of this theory have been forcibly pointed out by ¥. Loofs (Die Auferstehungsberichte and ikr Wert, Leipzig, 1898, pp. 18-25), who shows that it requires an impossible misrepresentation of the facts. To place the first appearance of our Lord in Galilee, it is of course necessary to transfer the apostles from Jerusalem. But this has no historical basis whatever. The words, ' they [the disciples] all forsook him and Hed' (Mk 14''''), the upliolders of this theory interpret as referring to a llight not from the Garden of Gethsemane, but direct home to Galilee.