cheenc03a.pdf

RESURRECTION- AND 1 SCENSION-NARRATIVES
not mentioned that becomes very intelligible after Conybeore's
demotlstration (ZNTW, 1901, pp. 275.288 : cp
Hiab. /our". I. p. 96s) that evrn Eusebsui down to 325
A.D. read nothlng as to this in hilt. (cp Mi~lsTnY, 5 jc).
Verse 16 is the most elaborated dogmatic of the ipostollc
and port~apostolic time (Acts 16ji ; M~x~sTnr, 8 26).
he casting-our of devllr in u. XI rests on Mk. 6/13 Mt.
10, Lk. 9 1 lor,, the speaking with new tongues (i.e.,
lallguagesof foreign peop1es)on ~ cts 2 ~ ~ ~ SpmmuaL ~ ( c p
G~rrs, ; ' thq shall take up serpents' (u. 18) is
8 10)
borrowed partly from Acts 28 3 ~6
and partly from the
express promise of Jesus in Lk. 1019 ; thr gift of healing
of diseases by laying-on of hands from Acts 288. U'ithout
limitation to the mcthod by imposition of hands such
n gift ir already bestowed upon the apostles in Mt. 101
Lk. 9 r, and is exercised by then, in .Mk. 613 Lk. 96.
in the theory that the genuine conclusion of Mk. was
. - . removed on account of its inco~rairlencv
c&E& with the other gospels, we are led to t'
conjecture that what it stated must have
of mk been all the more oiieinai in oronortian
as the others are recent.
(a) IIvrnack and Rohrbach suppose that the lost
conclusion was what 1s" at the foundation of the Ciosoel
- . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~
(dl The conclusion of Mk. betrays no acquaintance
with Jn. 21 or the Gospel of Peter ; on the other hand
we wnnot ray with confidence that the author had
occasion to use them even had he known them. In the
Gospel of Peter (z,) the disciples are spoken of as in
Mk. 16.0 as 'mourning and weeping' (irsuBoQ~rr xal
~hoiovrrr). Rut this collocation of words ie quite
current (Lk. 6zj Ja6.49 Rev. 18rlr5z9), and the idea
conveyed war an obvious one both from the ritualion
itself and also as fulfilment of the prophecy in Jn. 1610,
and thus ir no proof of literary . dependence. .
(8) There & thus no particular reason why ~ve
should assign to a personal disciple of Jcsur such as
Aristion the authorship of so meagre an excerpt an
hlk. 169-20 from which abroluteiy nothing new is to be
learned.
"a. 9-so.
y) Ncither ir there much greater probability in theconjecture
of R~s~h(7'Ux. 2450.456) Ihrt in Conybeare'r Almenlrn
script by the re.b,ter Ariaton ir meant thc Jewrrh Chrlrtian
Adrtan of pel& in towhom the Dialogue between Jnron
and Papiscur is attriburcd. There is ~brolulely nothing specific.
ally JewirhChrirrian in the conslurion of Mk.(ree above 6 c).
The other part of Rexhr hypothesis-thrr it war this
who ar the rame rime togcrh~r the four gospels into
onc whoie-is quite inrdmirriblc. Rerch irablr to make out n
ew>,h-Chnsllnn . character for this grouping only inromvch as
'
It. ir rrslgned the firrr plrce.
Even apart, however. from the question abou, Arirton and
Arirtion the attempt to bring into clor~ connection the compasition
of hlk.IBg-zo and thc grouping of ,he four gospels as role
canoneal sou.ces for ,he lire jsrul muer be given up.
If, however, there be even merely an element of truth
(b) Of such hypotheses we may admit everything that
can be bared upon Mk.16~. Even if the women, as
r e read in v. 8. kept silence as to the injunction of the
angel, it still remains the fact that, accordingto the view
of the author, it was the divine will that 'the disciples
and Peter' should go to Galilee and there see the rlsen
Jesus. That the disciples should hare fulfilled this injunction
without being acquninted with it is explained
in the Gospel of Peter by the fact that the festival
had come to an end; according to GOSPELS, g 1 ~ o. 8
there is a quite diRerent explanation. In any case it
is clear that it cannot have been Mk'r intct~tion to
close his gospel at 168 ; he must have treated also the
Galilzean events fur which he had prepared his renders.
From the remarkable order 'his dircioles and Peter'
we must not concinde that an appearance to the disciples
was first related and then one to Peter: for it is not
said that his disciples and Peter will see him, but , ?el(
his disciples and Peter.' All we can conjecture i%ith
any confidence is that Peter in someway or other played
a special part in the lost narrative.
(c) What we find in Hnrnack and Rohrbach going
beyond this is quite untenable. That the Gospel uf
Peter and Jn. 21 have no common source, results at the
outset front the fact that the names of the apostles on
the shore of the lake are not the same (cp 5 gd, n.)
That Jn. 21 originally war a description of the first
appearance of the risen Jesus, ir in itself not impossible ;
but there is nothing that directly indicates it.
Id) Harnack and Rohrbach become very specially
involved in obscurities when they maintain that the
4054