The fact of the return of Jesus alive from the grave (comp. Ammon, l)c rrrn J. C. reviviscentia, Erlang. 1808 ; Griesbach, TJejiiniih. undi Evawjel. suas de resurrecticnte Domini narralimii :< Iniii.o lint, Jena, 1783; Friedrich, in Eichhorn's Biblioth. vii, 2U4 sq. ; Diiderl. De J. C. in vif. reditu, Utr. 1841) is not invalidated by Strauss's ingeni- ous hypotheses (ii, 645 ; see Hase, p. 212; Theile, p. 105 sq. ; comp. Kiihn, IVie yiny Ch. durch des Grahes Thiir, Strals. 1838) ; but if Jesus had been rperely dead in ap- pearance, so delicate a constitution, already exhausted by sufferings before crucifixion, M'ould certainly not have revived \^ithout special — that is, medical — assistance (Neander, p. 708) : in the cold rock-vault, in an atmo- sphere loaded with the odor of aromatics, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, in utter prostration, he would, in the ordinary course of things, have rather been killed than resuscitated. His return to life must therefore be regarded as a true miracle. See Kesue- RECTiox. On the grave of .Jesus, see Golootha.
After he had risen (he lay some thirty-six hours in the grave ; not three full days, as asserted by Styffarth, Summary ofChronol. IHscor. N. Y. 1857. p. 188 \, he first I showed himself to Mary JIagdalene (Matt, xxviii. 9;
JESUS CHRIST
884
JESUS CHRIST
Mark xvi, 9 ; John xx, 14 ; but about the same hour to the other women, see Strong's Greek Harmony, p. 3G4), then to his apostles in various places in and about Jeru- salem (Luke xxiv, 13 sq., 3G sq.; John xx, 19 sq.), and was recognised by them— not immediatelj^, it is true (for the few iiast days of suffering may have considerably disfigured liim bodily), but yet luiequivocalh'— as their crucified teacher (Ncander, p. 715 sq.), and even handled, although with some reserve (Luke xxiv, 37; Jolin xxi, 12). He did not appear in public; had he done so, his enemies woidd have found opportunity to remove him a second time out of the way, or to represent him to the people as a sham Jesus : his resurrection could have its true significance to his believers only (see generally Jahn, X(tchtrarje, p. 1 sq.). After a stay of 40 days, he was visibly carried up into the sky before the eyes of liis (lisci|)les (Luke xxiv, 51 ; Acts i, 9. Mark xvi, 19, is of doubtful authenticity). Of this, three evangelical witnesses (Matthew, ilark, and John) relate nothing (for very improbable reasons of this, see Flatt's Maguz. viii, 55 sq.), althougli the last implies it in the words of Jesus, " I ascend to my Father," and closes his Gospel with the last interview of Jesus in Galilee, at the Sea of Tiberias (John xxi ; compare Matt, xxviii, IG). The apostles, in the doctrinal expositions, occasionally allude to this ascension (avaXiji^tc) of Jesus (Acts iii, 2 1 ; 1 Tim. iii, IG ;. Kev. xii, 5), and often speak (Acts ii, 33 ; v, 31 ; vii, 55, 5G ; Rom. viii, 34 ; Eph. i, 20 ; Col. iii, 1) of Christ as seated at the right hand of God (see Griesbach, Sijl- lofje locor. A'. T. ad adscens. Christi in cccL spectaniium, Jena, 1793 ; also in his Opusciil. ii, 471 sq. ; B. Crusius, Bibl. Tlieol. p. 400). Over the final disposal of tlie body of Christ after its ascension from the earth, an impene- trable veil must ever rest. The account of the ascen- sion (see Stud. undKrit. 1841, iii, 597 sq.) is still treated by many of the critical theologians (comp. Ammon, A s- censits J. C. in coel, histor. Bibl. Gotting. 1800, also in his Nov. opusc. theol. ; Horst, in Horn's Gotting. Museum f. Theol. I, ii, 3 sq. ; J>r. iiber Rational, p. 238 sq. ; Strauss, ii, G72 sq. ; Ha.se, p. 220) as one of the myths (moulded on the well-known O.-T. examples. Gen. v, 24; 2 Kings ii, 11, and serving as a basis of the expectation of his visible return from heaven. Acts i, 11 ; for, that the Jews of that day believed in an ascension of the Messiah to heaven [comp. John vi, G2], ai)pears from the book Zo- har [Scliiittgen, Ilorm Ilebr. ii, 59G] : the comparisons witli heathen apotheoses are not in point [B. Hasse, Ilis- toriie (k Clir. in vilum et cml. redeunte ex narrat. Lie. de Romuln illustratio, Kegiom. 1805 ; Gfriirer, U rchristenth. I,ii, 374 sq.], and the theories of Bauer in Flatt's ALag. xvi, 173 sq., Seiler, Weichert, and Himly [see Bret- schneidcr, Sgst. Kntinckel. p. 589 ; Otterboin, JJe adscen- sione in ccelnn adxpectabiU modo facta, Duisb. 1802 ; or Fogtmann, Gomm. de in aduin aiUcensu, Havn. 182G] are as Uttle to the purpose) that originated among the Chris- tians, or were even invented by the apostles (Gramberg, lleligionsid. ii, 4G1) — a view tliat is forbidden by the close proximity of the incident in ]K)int of time {London [ W'esleyau J Itei-ieu; July, 18G1 ). It can, therefore, only be regarded as a preternatural occurrence (Neander, p. 72(1). See Ascension,
11. Uespecting the personal appearance of Jesus we know nothing with certainty. According to Eusebius (Hist. Kcd. vii, 18), the woman who was cured of her haemorrhage (jMatt. ix, 20) had erected from thankful- ness a brazen statue (see Ha&ci Diisertat. syllof/e, p. 314 sq.; com)), lleinichen, Lxc. 10 ad Eusebius, iii,' 397 sq. ; Thilo, Cod. apocr. i, 5G2 s(}.) of Jesus at Paneas (C;esa- rea-1'hilippi), which was destroyed (Sozom. Hist, Eccl. V, 21) at the command of the emperor Julian (compare Nicepli. Hist. Eccl. vi, 15). Jesus himself, according to several ancient (but scarcely trustworthv) statements (Evagr. iv, 27; Niceph. ii, 7), sent his likeness to Ab- garus (q. v.) at Edessa (comp. Bar-Hebr. Chron. p. 118), where was also said to liavc been found the liandker- chicf of Christ with an imprint of his countenance (Ce- drenus, Hist. p. 17G ; Bar-lieUneus, Chron, p. 168). Still