cheenc03a.pdf

RESURRECTION- AND 1 SCENSION-NARRATIVES
ir by no meanr indispensable, and we need not lay
stress on the indication us to this given in the Gospel of
Peter and in the Didnikniio (above, % 5 [ f]. 76). All
these psychological elements, however, will be more fully
considered later (537).
(,b) On the other hand, we are unable to attach
we~ghto the view that the disciples were gradually led
by a study of the OT to u conviction that Jerur was
alive. and that thus in the end they came to have
virions in nhich they beheld his form.
Virions do not arise by processes so gradual or ro placid. It
ix certainly correct to suppose that ccitaizi pusages pf the OT
must havc had an influence on the thoughts of the d~sciplss in
those criricai drys' but not that they were then di~coverd for
the first rime rr a ;."It of study. Rather ,""~tth~,. have been
long frmilirr when suddenly, under the >mprgrrlo+ made by the
death of J~&, they acquirca ncw all4 decl?i"e n nificilnce u
c0n"i"ci.g the bereave* on- that the contlllued fife of Jesus
war mndejirrured by the word of God.
(c) FIQ~ our list of such pvrager must be excluded many
whtch are frequently quoted as belonging to if' for example,
Is. 258 Pr. 133 1 j Ezck. 185-9 P1.21 (?lfhough'it appears to
be cited in Acol3 jg in thir and m particular Pr. 1610.
nlfhough lhir ir cited in Aclr 2 2 ~ ; 13;~: ~ cat ir $id in the
Hebrew tcxt ir that God will not rnRer h13 pmvs worrh8ppei to
die(cpy. 9). When @ byafalse etymology (nnd='to destroy,'
instead of ?:v='to sink') renden i&fh, which, mr the
psmllelbm sonclu,ivcly means 'grave: by 'destruction'
(64Bopd). the miicranrlatron ir lnnocuovr u long as this word
rr taren to mean 'death,' u the tran,1arori certainly took it. if
becomes misleading only on the Chrirrian interpretation wdich
undersiandr the bodily corruption that followr death. Parsager
of the OT from which the disciples could really hare dram
their conviction a5 t" the rerurrer1on of Jesus are Er.36 (see
its employment by Jesus himself in Mk.12aaf) IS.% f
Eoi. 0% z K. 205, perhaps also Pr. 118 17 Job lS nys,, %";
very ~pecinlly Ps.86 13 110 r (cp Brmdl, +g3-jo+). It must
always be borne in mind, ii is hardly necer.ary to sy, that
they did not interpret ruth parragerin a critical manner and
with rcfsrcnce to the context, but ramply v rhey reemed to
present to them a consoling thought.
(d)N* weight cz" be given ro the objection that the image of
me I. which picxnted ltre~f lo the disciples canlot
have been subjective because at first they did nor resogn1sc
it. Thht they failed to do so is stated only in pasrage.
which muit be regarded i s unhirtoricsl (Lk. 24 r6 Jn.2014);
in ~ k. 243741 it is nor even said that he war not recopired.
(L) Another objection, that though perhaps the subjcctive
explanation might be admissible in the care of a
single individual, it wholly fails in the case of appearances
to several, not to speak of the case of 500 at
once, appears at firrt sight to hnve great weight. As
against thir it in worth mentioning that one of the most
recent upholders of an objective resurrection of Jesus.
Steude (St/rr. 1887, pp. 273~275) qnite giver up thir
argument. In point of fact there is ampie evidence to
prove that visions have been reen by many, in the
chrer of Thomas of Canterbury. Savonarola, the
Spanish general Pacchi, several cruraderr4ays and
even months after their death-and similar occurrences
also in the cares of 800 French soldiers, the Camirardr
in 1686-1707, the followers of the Roman Catholic
priest Poschl in Upper Austria in 1811-1818, the
Preaching~sickners ' and ' Reading-sickness' in Swedrn
in 1841-1854, and so forth.' That in circumstances
of general excitement and highiy strung expectation
visions are contagious, and that othrrs easily perceive
that which at firrt had been seen by only one, is, in
view of the accumulated evidence, a fact not to be
denied.
(f) The attempt has been made to argue from this.
on the contrary, that subjective visions cannot be
thought of as explaining the recorded facts of the
resurrection, inasmuch as in that case we should be
entitled to expect very many more recorded visions
than are enumerated by Paul. That, hoivever, would
depend on the amount of predisporition to virions. It
is very easily conceivable that this may very rapidly
have diminished when, by meanr of a moderate number
of reported appearances, the conviction had become
established that Jerur had risen. On thir account it is
also best to presume that the firrt five appearances
followed one another very quickly. Ail the more
confidently in that case could Paul speak of that which
he had himself received as being the Last of all (5 ro h).
The consideration which above all others causes the
most serious misgivings, is the state of deep depression
ion in which the disciples were left by the
of Bi Peter, death of Jesus. Is it conceivable that
in such circumstances rubiertive virions
should have come to them 7
(a) This question, however, is essentially simplified
by what has been pointed out above (P .- - 16 el, . if we
sippose in addition-that it was Peter alone who received
the firrt vision. Could he but once find himself
able to say that he had seen Terur, the others no
longer needed to be able to raise themselves out of
their state of prostration by their own strength; what
had happened to Peter supplied what was wanting in
this respect. The quertion thus narrows itself to this:
Is the possibility of a subjective vision excluded in the
care even of Peter?
(b) Undoubtedly an unurually strong faith was
needed, if in Peter the thought that Jesus, notwithstanding
his death, war still alive, war to become so
powerfui that at last it could take the form of a vision.
Ail the requisite conditions, however, were present.
We do not at all Lay weight upon the consideration.
that with the return to Galilee the reminiscences of
Jesus associated with those localities would again take
the upper hand over the impression which his death
had made ; for indeed thir impression was indelible.
But alongside of this impression there would also be
recollections of the prcdictione of Jerur.
We do not
refer here primarily to the predictiuns of his rrruirection
(see 8 22 n ); those referring to his coming again from
heaven to set up the kingdom of God upon earthpredictions
which are cerolinly quite historical (see
GOSPELS, 8 145 [f])-are much more importaot.
They also, it in true, might seem to have been decisively
falsified by the death of Jesus: for with Peter also it
wrs an infallible word of God, that every one that
hangs on a tree is cursed (Dt. 2193: cp Gal. 313).
Precisely here, however, there is a difference between
the cases of the two apostles: Paul could apply this
thesis to Jerur in cold blood, because he had never
personally known him (2 Cor. 516, when rightly interpreted);
Peter could not-he owed too much to him.
To speak moreexactly, the reason why Peter, even after
the crucifixion, did not cease wholly to have faith in the
prediction of Jesus, lay partly in the deep impression of
his utter trustworthiness which he had left upon his
disciple, and partly also in the religious inheritance which
Peter felt he owed him, in the ineradicable conviction of
the truth of his cause. From this conviction of tile
truth of Tesus' cause the conviction of his continued
personal life was inseparable in the thought of that
age. In this sense Renan's saying (Agdtres, 44, ET
70) . , is true: I r r aui a rerurcitk Tkrur. c'est I'amour.'
(c) There is y;t another po;nt, which for the tnort
part is utterly overlooked in this connection. We do
not mean the lively temperament of Peter ; for whether
that made him specially susceptible to visions cannot be
raid. We refer to the fact that Peter had denied his
4084