IF

Chapter VIII

AFTER THE RESURRECTION

F it were possible for any feature of the Gospels to be more perplexing, on the current theories as to their origin, than the manner in which they begin, it would be the abrupt, and, from a literary point of view, unsatisfactory way in which they terminate.

Neither Matthew nor John mentions the Ascension of our Lord. They relate the facts connected with His Resurrection, and describe some of the instances in which He manifested Himself to His disciples. Then they come to a sudden close.

The authentic Gospel of Mark, which ends chapter xvi. 8, terminates even more abruptly than Matthew and John. The last twelve verses of Mark in our New Testament are well understood to be a subsequent addition made in early times, not part of the work as originally published. In the Revised Version this portion is divided from the authentic Gospel by a space, and in the margin is found the following note: "The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel." But it is the internal evidence that is decisive. Even the English reader feels that he is in a different atmosphere here than in the rest of the Gospel. As to the original Greek it is enough to quote the words of Alford: "Internal evidence is, I think, very weighty against Mark's being the author. No less than twenty-one words and expressions occur in it (and some of them several times) which are never elsewhere used by Mark, whose adherence to his own peculiar phrases is remarkable." The truth is that, in the

second, third or fourth century, some well-intentioned publisher, thinking some further statement needful, concocted this addendum from the other Gospels, and affixed it to the copies of Mark which he put into circulation, whence it found its way into the few surviving manuscripts which contain it. Rejecting then these last twelve verses, Mark has less to say about the Resurrection and the events that followed than any other Gospel. It does not mention any one of the appearances of Jesus and indeed does not directly assert the fact of the Resurrection at all; although it is manifest that the writer believed it, and was just on the point of describing some of the appearances of Jesus when he brought his story to an end. And it may be added that Peter, as if to prevent any erroneous inference being drawn from the silence of the Gospel of which he was the real author, asserts the fact of the Resurrection in his first Epistle.

It thus appears that Luke is the only Gospel that mentions the Ascension. And the account in Luke, for so wonderful and important an event, is singularly brief and inadequate.

Admitting however that Luke does bring the history to a suitable conclusion, can anything be more surprising than the sudden and unfinished ending of the other three? That one should merely state in an oblique and inferential way that Christ was risen from the dead; that another should relate the fact in detail and add only a short account of an appointed interview with the Eleven in Galilee; and that a third should narrate at length the intercourse which, on several occasions after His resurrection, He had with the disciples in Galilee ; and that the three should then come to a full stop, without a single word to intimate what afterwards became of Him, is marvellous in the extreme.

We, who have been familiar with the Gospels from infancy, and in reading them have our minds charged with all the facts of the story, including the details of the Ascension as narrated in the Acts, may never have been struck with this peculiarity. But let us try to imagine the case of a person who, having no

prior knowledge of the facts, sees and reads either Matthew, Mark or John for the first time in mature age. For it must be remembered that, in the early years of Christianity, it was precisely into the hands of such persons that a single Gospel would frequently fall. How amazed and perplexed such a reader would be! Especially if, as would sometimes happen, he had no opportunity of learning by inquiry what had finally become of Him who formed the subject of the narrative. How he would wonder, and form in his mind such questions as these: Did Jesus die again, or is He still alive; and, if alive, where is He now and what is He doing? Moreover, Matthew, Mark and John must have foreseen this; they knew that the very name of Jesus was as yet unknown to the great majority of men, and that such questionings must certainly arise when their books were put into circulation. How is it that they failed to supply so essential a piece of information as the fact of Christ's Ascension to the skies?

If it had been one Gospel only that was left in this incomplete state, it might have been suspected that the final page of the manuscript had been accidentally lost. But, it being the case with three Gospels, no such explanation is possible. On any theory whatever (except one) the fact is absolutely unaccountable. As to the unbelieving theories, such as those of Strauss, Baur and Rénan, respecting the origin of the Gospels, they are simply shut out of court by this one peculiarity.

Unbelieving critics have never been tired of calling attention to the weakness of the testimony to the fact of our Lord's Ascension; and it must be admitted that this event is not supported by so strong a chain of evidence as some of the other facts connected with our Lord's life on earth. But it should be noted that, just in proportion as the evidence for the Ascension is weak, so the evidence for the fact of the Resurrection becomes increasingly strong. For the meagreness of the information that is afforded in the Gospels as to the termination of our Lord's earthly career is proof positive that the original narrators, of whose stories the Gospels are

composed, finished their work before that career had in fact terminated, and therefore that they wrote their accounts of the Resurrection directly after it happened.

After the Ascension, the Apostles had no time to spare for writing. For the first few days they were fully occupied with meetings and prayer and the election of Matthias to the vacant Apostleship. Then came the day of Pentecost, with the outpouring of the Spirit, and a large ingathering of converts to the Church, causing them an immense amount of work. Hence the Gospel narratives, with the exception of the third, were never completed, and even the few sentences which form the conclusion to the third appear to have been hastily added. When, after the lapse of a number of years, the narratives were finally redacted, the redactors conscientiously declined to add any new statement to the original records.

G

Chapter IX

VIVIDNESS OF DESCRIPTION; SIMPLICITY OF LANGUAGE; POSITIVENESS

T

HE whole style and character of the narratives are in harmony with the idea that they were written at the time the events occurred. They have the freshness of a diary; the life and movement of an instantaneous photograph. They abound in minute details, just such as would strike an observer at the time; but which no memory could long retain or imagination invent. Facts are related with the utmost simplicity. The personality of the writer never appears. There is no sign of passion; no expression of admiration for the Master, or resentment towards His opponents; of delight when He confounds His enemies, or of sympathy with Him when the object of their insult. There is no striving after effect; no attempt at embellishment. Adjectives are rare; adverbs and adverbial phrases are almost absent. There is nought but a bare statement of facts, plain and unvarnished like the evidence of an honest witness in a court of justice. And yet the stories are not cold, stiff or formal. Their very simplicity adds to their warmth and vigour, and secures the sympathies of the reader.

Note also the positive manner in which facts are asserted. There is never the least doubt or hesitation in any statement. Not once do we find the expression Aéyerau (on dit; it is said), so common with the Greek historians. There are no references to authorities, as in some of the historical books of the Old Testament. There is not the slightest hint that the