Crucifixion and Resurrection

The real historical evidence for the Resurrection is the fact that it was believed and preached, and that it produced its fruit and effect in the phenomenon of the Christian Church, long before any of our Gospels were written. And it is in the light of this fact that the narratives of the Evangelists must be read. All three attest the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. Mark's Gospel breaks off before recording any appearance to His disciples. Both Luke and Matthew record several occasions on which He so appeared; but they severally reproduce different traditions. The appearances which Matthew describes take place with one exception in Galilee whither he reports that the apostles were instructed to proceed ; Luke, on the other hand, records appearances in Judaea only, and seems even to be at pains to remove the allusions to Galilee. The two traditions are not mutually exclusive, but if one only cor responds to the facts, the Jerusalem one is probably to be pre ferred. Close examination discloses other discrepancies between the narratives; but these do not affect the central witness which they convey, "The Lord is risen indeed, and bath appeared." The detail to which the greatest significance attaches is at the close of the story of Emmaus, "He was known of them in the break ing of bread," the germ of later Eucharistic practice and Eucha ristic experience.

His Birth and Boyhood.

Mark's Gospel opens when Jesus "began to be about thirty years of age." It is to Matthew and Luke that we owe all that is reported about the period before that. Throughout this section the two narratives are independent of one another, Luke being the more copious of the two. He relates the promise of the birth of a son first to Elizabeth, then to Mary, and the visit of Mary to Elizabeth. Then he describes the birth first of John the Baptist, then of Jesus, and completes his record with an account of the presentation of Jesus in the Temple after His circumcision and of His visit to the Temple with His parents when i 2 years old. Luke reserves to a later point the genealogy of Jesus, with which Matthew opens his Gospel; and whereas the former carries the list back from Jesus who was "as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to Adam "the son of God," the latter starts from Abraham and works down to Joseph "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus which is called Christ." Matthew then describes the birth of Jesus (with out any foregoing Annunciation), the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt and the return to Nazareth.

There can be no doubt that both the First Gospel and the Third —in the form in which we have it—represent the birth of Jesus as supernatural in character. His mother was betrothed to Joseph, but still a virgin when He was born. With regard to Luke's

account, however, it is possible that the passages which provide the evidence to this effect represent later insertions by the hand of the Evangelist himself. And while the story of the Annuncia tion in Matthew emphasizes the Messianic rank and function of the son who is to be born rather than what we should mean by the Divine Sonship, both Gospels have this in common that though ascribing supernatural powers to Jesus, they neither de scribe nor exhibit Him as other than man. The emergence of a high conception of Christ's Person which led ultimately to the acknowledgment of His Divinity took place before either of these Gospels was written, but it proceeded along different lines, and ap parently without any reference to or inference from a Virgin Birth, which does not appear to have formed part of the Apos tolic preaching. Neither Paul nor Mark betrays any knowledge of the tradition. It follows that it did not form an essential factor in the presentation of Jesus which we find in Mark or in the interpretation of Him which we owe to Paul. It is probable that "Luke became acquainted with the tradition for the first time, either when he was in process of writing his Gospel, or immediately afterwards. The First Gospel presupposes the Virgin Birth tradition, which had probably been known to its readers for some time, sufficiently long for problems to be raised and for difficulties to be started" (Vincent Taylor).

His Work and Teaching.

Mark has preserved but little of the teaching of Jesus compared with Luke and Matthew, who have incorporated in their Gospels large sections of the discourse document known as Q as well as other discourse material which each of them had received independently. The earliest collection of such material may possibly have been made by Luke at Caesarea about A.D. 43.

Jesus was primarily conspicuous in the eyes of His contem poraries as a healer and a teacher. When He was moved with compassion for the multitude "he began to teach them many things." He is constantly presented as "teaching" in the syna gogues, in a house, in the Temple, by the lake-side; and His teach ing was effective—"the common people heard him gladly." There was novelty in it, not only in its contents but in its quality. He "taught as One having authority, and not as the scribes." So He was both addressed and described as the Teacher, as John was described as the Baptizer. When men addressed Him as "Rabbi," they gave expression to the respect they felt for Him, His char acter and His teaching; though it is an anachronism for us to refer to Him as "a Jewish Rabbi" since it was only after the fall of Jerusalem that the title took on its modern connotation.