139. Quality of the Body and Life of Jesus After the Resurrection. (Chapter 4. Death and Resurrection of Jesus.) (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined) (Strauss, David Friedrich)

But how are we to represent to ourselves this continuation of the life of Jesus after the resurrection, and especially the nature of ^{P.833} his body in this period? In order to answer this question we must once more cast a glance over the separate narratives of his appearances when risen.

According to Matthew, Jesus on the morning of the resurrection meets (aphnthsen) the women as they are hastening back from the grave; they recognize him, embrace his feet in sign of veneration, and he speaks to them. At the second interview on the Galilean mountain the disciples see him, but some still doubt, and here also Jesus speaks to them. of the manner in which he came and went, we have here no precise information.

In Luke, Jesus joins the two disciples who are on their way from Jerusalem to the neighbouring village of Emmaus (eggisaj suneporeueto autoij) they do not recognize him on the way, a circumstance which Luke attributes to a subjective hindrance produced in them by a higher influence, and only Mark, who compresses this event into few words, to an objective alteration of his form (e)n e(tera morfh). On the way Jesus converses with the two disciples, after their arrival in the village complies with their invitation to accompany them to their lodging, sits down to table with them, and proceeds according to his wont to break and distribute bread. In this moment the miraculous spell is withdrawn from the eyes of the disciples, and they know him: but in the same moment he becomes invisible to them. Just as suddenly as he here vanished, he appears to have shown himself immediately after in the assembly of the disciples, whenit is said that he all at once stood in the midst of them, and they, terrified at the sight, supposed that they saw a spirit. To dispel this alarming idea, Jesus showed them his hands and feet, and invited them to touch him, that by feeling his flesh and bones they might convince themselves that he was no spectre; he also caused a piece of broiled fish and of honeycomb to be brought to him, and ate it in their presence. The appearance to Simon is in Luke described by the expression w)fqh. Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians uses the same verb for all the Christophanies there enumerated, and Luke in the Acts comprises all the appearances of the risen Jesus during the forty days under the expressions "was seen" optanomenoj (i. 3.) and "appeared to" emfanh genesqai (x. 40.). In the same manner Mark describes the appearance to Mary Magdalene by e)fanh, and those to the disciples on the way to Emmaus and to the eleven by e)fanerwqh. John describes the appearance at the sea of Tiberias by e)fanerwsen e(auton, and to all the Christophanies narrated by him he applies the word e)fanerwqh. Mark and Luke add, as the close of the earthly life of the risen Jesus, that he was taken away from before the eyes of the disciples, and (by a cloud, according to Acts i. 9.) carried up to heaven.

^{P.834} In the fourth gospel Jesus first stands behind Mary Magdalene as she is turning away from the grave; she, however, does not recognize him even when he speaks to her, but takes him for the gardener, until he (in the tone so familiar to her) calls her by her name. When on this she attempts to manifest her veneration, Jesus prevents her by the words: "Touch me not," and sends her with a message to the disciples. The second appearance of Jesus in John occured under peculiarly remarkable circumstances. The disciples were assembled, from fear of the hostile Jews, with closed doors: when all at once Jesus came and stood in the midst of them, greeted them, and presented apparently to their sight only his hands and feet, that they might recognize him as their crucified master. When Thomas, who was not present, refused to be convinced by the account of his fellow-disciples of the reality of this appearance, and required for his satisfaction himself to see and touch the wounds of Jesus: the latter, in n appearance eight days after, granted him this proof, making him touch the marks of the nails in his hands and the wound in his side. Lastly, at the appearance by the sea of Galilee, Jesus stood on the shore in the morning twilight, without being known by the disciples in the ship, asked them for fish, and was at length recognized by John, through the rich draught of fishes which he procured them; still, however, the disciples, when come to land, did not venture to ask him whether it were really he Hereupon he distributed among them bread and fish, of which he doubtless himself partook, and finally held a conversation with John and Peter.

Now the general ideas which may be formed of the life of Jesus after his resurrection are two: either it was a natural and perfectly human life, and accordingly his body continued to be subject to the physical and organic laws; or his life was already of a higher, super- ^{P.835} human character, and his body supernatural and transfigured: and the accounts, taken unitedly, present certain traits to which, on the first view, each of these two ideas may respectively appeal. The human form with its natural members, the possibility of being known by means of them, the continuance of the marks of the wounds, the human speech, the acts of walking and breaking bread, - all these appear to speak in favour of a perfectly natural life on the part of Jesus even after the resurrection. If it were possible stili to demur to this, and to conjecture, that even a higher, heavenly corporeality might give itself such an aspect and perform such functions: all doubts must be quelled by the further statement, that Jesus after the resurrection consumed earthly food, and allowed himself to be touched. Such things are indeed ascribed even to higher beings in old myths, as for example, eating to the heavenly forms from whom Abraham received a visit (Gen. xviii. 8), and palpability to the god that wrestled with Jacob (Gen. xxxii.24ff.); but it must nevertheless be insisted that in reality both these conditions can only be-lono- to material, organized bodies. Hence not only the rationalists, but even orthodox expositors, consider these particulars as an irrefragable proof that the body and life of Jesus after the resurrection must be regarded as remaining still natural and human. This opinion is further supported by the remark, that in the state of the risen Jesus there is observable precisely the same progress as might be expected in the gradual, natural cure of a person severely wounded. In the first hours after the resurrection he is obliged to remain in the vicinity of the grave; in the afternoon his strength suffices for a walk to the neighbouring village of Emmaus; and only later is he able to undertake the more distant journey info Galilee. Then also in the permission to touch his body there exists the remarkable gradation, that on the morning of the resurrection Jesus forbids Mary Magdalene to touc him, because his wounded body was as yet too suffering and sensitive; but eight days later, he himself invites Thomas to touch his wounds. Even the circumstance that Jesus after his resurrection was so seldom with his disciples and for so short a time, is, according to this explanation, a proof that he had brought from the grave his natural, human body, for such an one would necessarily feel so weak from the wounds and torture of the cross, as always after short periods of exertion to require longer intervals of quiet retirement.

But the New Testament narratives, as we have seen, also contain particulars which favour the opposite idea of the corporeality of Jesus after the resurrection: hence the advocates of the opinion hitherto detailed must, undertake so to interpret these apparently antagonistic features that they may no longer present a contradiction. Here it may seem that the very expressions by which the appearances of Jesus are ordinarily introduced, as at the ^{P.836} appearance in the burning bush (Exod. iii. 2, LXX.); of the appearance of the angel in Tobit, xii. 19; of the angelic appearances in Matt. i. and ii., may seem already to point to something supernatural. As still more decided indications, the idea of a natural going and coming which may be presupposed in some scenes, is contradicted in others by a sudden appearance and disappearance; the supposition of an ordinary human body is opposed by the frequent non-recognition on the part of friends, indeed, by the express mention of another form, Irepa popfirj above all, the palpability of the body of Jesus appears to be opposed by the capability which, according to the first impression from the text, is lent to him in John, namely, that of entering through closed doors. But, that Mary Magdalene mistook Jesus at first for the gardener, is thought even by commentators who ordinarily are not diffident of the miraculous, to be most probably accounted for by the supposition that Jesus had borowed clothes from the gardener, who very likely dwelt near to the grave; moreover, say these writers, both in this instance and in the journey to Emrnaus, the disfiguration of the countenance of Jesus by the sufferings of crucifixion may have contributed to prevent his being recognized, and these two circumstances are alone to be understood from the expression e(tera morfh "another form," in Mark. As to the disciples going to Emmaus, in the joyful astonishment caused by the sudden recognition of him whom they had believed dead, Jesus, it is said, may easily have withdrawn from them unobserved in the most natural manner; which, however, they, to whom the whole fact of the resuscitation of Jesus was a miracle, might regard as a supernatural disappearance, Nor, we are told, does the expression: "he stood in the midst of them," especially in John, accompanied by the ordinary words "he came," and "he comes," imply anything supernatural, but merely the startling arrival of one who had just been spoken of, without his being expected; and the assembled disciples took him for a spirit, not because he entered in a miraculous manner, but because they could not believe in the real resuscitation of their deceased master. Lastly, even the trait which is supposed to be decisive against the opinion that the body of the risen Jesus was a natural and human one, the coming "when the doors were shut" in John, has long been interpreted even by orthodox theologians so as no longer to present any obstacle to that opinion.

We will not discuss explanations such as that of Heumann, according to which the doors were not those of the house in which the disciples were assembled, but the doors of Jerusalem in general, and the statement that they were shut is an intimation of its having been that hour of the night in which it was customary to close the ^{P.837} doors, while the fear of the Jews represents the motive, not for the closing of the doors, but for the assembling of the disciples. Apart from these expedients, Calvin himself pronounces the opinion that the body of the risen Jesus passed "per medium ferrum," to be "pueriles argutiae," for which the text gives no occasion, since it does not say that Jesus entered "per januas clausas," but only that he suddenly appeared among his disciples, "cum clauses essent januae." Still Calvin upholds the entrance of Jesus of which John here speaks as a miracle, which must consequently be supposed to consist in this, that Jesus entered "cum fores clauses fuissent, sed quae Domino veniente subito patuerunt ad nutum divinae majestatis ejus." While more modern orthodox divines only contend for the less definite position, that in the entrance of Jesus some miracle took place, its precise character being unascertained, Rationalism has found means entirely to banish the miraculous from the event. The closed doors, we are tld, were opened to Jesus by human hands; which John omits to notice, only because it is understood as a matter of course, indeed, it would have been absurd of him to say: they opened the doors for him, and he went in.

But in thus interpreting the words "He came, the doors being closed" theologians have been by no means unprejudiced. Least of all Calvin; for when he says, the papists maintain a real penetration of the body of Jesus through closed doors in order to gain support for their tenet that the body of Christ is immense, and contained in no place, "ut corpus Christi immensum esse, nulloque. loco contineri obtineant": it is plain that he combats that interpretation of the words of John merely to avoid giving any countenance to the offensive doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body. The more modern expositors, on the other hand, were interested in avoiding the contradiction which to our perceptions is contained in the statement, that a body can consist of solid matter, and yet pass without hinderance through other solid matter: but as we know not whether this was also a contradiction in the view of the New Testament writers, the apprehension of it gives us no authority to discard that interpretation, providing it be shown to be in accordance with the text. We might certainly, on a partial consideration, understand the expression "the doors being shut" as an intimation of the anxious state into which the disciples were thrown by the crucifixion of Jesus. But already the circumstance that this particular is repeated on the appearance of Jesus before Thomas excites doubts, since if the above was the only meaning, it was scarcely worth while to repeat the observation. But as in fact in this second instance the above cause for the closing of the doors no longer exists, while the words twn qurwn kekleismenwn are immediately united with erxetai ( he comes ); ^{P.838} what was before the most apparent meaning, namely, that they are intended to determine the manner of the coming of Jesus, is here heightened into a probability. Further, the repeated statement that Jesus came when the doors were closed is again followed by the words "stood among them," which imply that Jesus suddenly presented himself, without his approach having been seen: so it is undeniably evident that the writer here speaks of a coming without the ordinary means, consequently, of a miraculous coming. But did this miracle consist in passing through the boards of the doors? This is combated even by those who espouse the cause of miracles in general, and they confidently appeal to the fact, that it is nowhere said, he entered through the closed doors. But the evangelist does not mean to convey the precise notion that Jesus, as Michaelis expresses himself, passed straightthrough the pores of the wood of which the doors were made; he merely means that the doors were shut and remained so, and nevertheless Jesus suddenly stood in the chamber, walls, doors, in short all material barriers, forming no obstacle to his entrance. Thus in reply to their unjust demand of us, to show them in the text of John a precise determination which is quite away from the intention of this writer, we must ask them to explain why he has not noticed the (miraculous) opening of the doors, if he presupposed such a circumstance? In relation to this point Calvin very infelicitously refers to Acts xii.6ff., where it is narrated of Peter, that he came out of the closed prison; no one, he says, here supposes that the doors remained closed, and that Peter penetrated through wood and iron. Assuredly not: because here it is expressly said of the iron gate of the prison which led into the city, that it opened to him of its own accord (v. 10). This observation serves to give so lively and graphic an idea of te miracle, that our evangelist would certainly not, in two instances, have omitted a similar one, if he had thought of a miraculous opening of the doors. Thus in this narrative of John the supernatural will not admit of being removed or diminished: nor is the natural explanation more satisfactory in relation to the expressions by which Luke describes the coming and going of Jesus. For if, according to this evangelist, his coming was a "standing in the midst of the disciples," his going a becoming invisible to them, the concurrence of these two representations, taken in connection with the terror of the disciples and their mistaking him for a spirit, will hardly allow the supposition of anything else than a miraculous appearance. Besides, if we might perhaps form some idea how Jesus could enter in a natural manner without being observed into a room filled with men: we should still be at a loss to imagine how it could be possible for him, when he ^{P.839} sat at table at Emmaus, apparently with the two disciples alone, to withdraw himself from them unobserved, and so that they were not able to follow him.

That Mark, under the words erepa ftopr) understands a form miraculously altered, ought never to have been denied; but this is a point of minor importance, because it involves only the narrator's own interpretation of the circumstance which had been already stated, but with a different explanation, by Luke: namely, that the two disciples did not know Jesus. That Mary Magdalene took Jesus for the gardener, was hardly, in the view of the evangelist, the consequence of his having borrowed the gardener's clothes: rather, the spirit of the narrative would require us to explain her not knowing him by supposing that her eyes were held KparelaOai Luke xxiv. 16), or that Jesus had assumed another form; while her taking him for the gardener might then be simply accounted for by the fact that she met the unknown man in the garden. Nor are we authorized by the Gospel narratives to suppose a disfiguration of Jesus by the sufferings of the cross, and a gradual healing of his wounds. The words Touch me not in John if they were to be regarded as a prohibition of a touch as painful, would be in contradiction, not merely with Matthew, according to whom Jesus on the same morning-that of the resurrection-allowed the women to embrace his feet, but also with Luke, according to whom he on the same day invited the disciples to handle him; and we must then ask, which representation is correct? But there is nothing at all in the context to intimate that Jesus forbade Mary to touch him from fear of pain; he may have done so from various motives: concerning which, however, the obscurity of the passage has hitherto precluded any decision.

But the most singularly perverted inference is this: that the infrequent and brief interviews of Jesus with his disciples after the resurrection are a proof that he was as yet too weak for long and multiplied efforts, and consequently was undergoing a natural cure. On this very supposition of his needing bodily tendance, he should have been not seldom, but constantly, with his disciples, who were those from whom he could the most immediately expect such tendance. For where are we to suppose that he dwelt in the long intervals between his appearances? in solitude? in the open air? in the wilderness and on mountains? That was no suitable abode for an invalid, and nothing remains but to suppose that he must have been concealed among secret colleagues of whom evon his disciples knew nothing. But thus to conceal his real abode even from his own disciples, to show himself to them only seldom, and designedly ^{P.840} to present and withdraw himself suddenly, would be a kind of double dealing, an affectation of the supernatural, which would exhibit Jesus and his cause in a light foreign to the object itself so far as it lies before us in our original sources of information, and only thrown upon it by the dark lantern of modern, yet already obsolete, conceptions. The opinion of the evangelists is no other than that the risen Jesus, after those short appearances among his followers, withdrew like a higher being into invisibility, from which, on fitting occasions, he again stept forth.

Lastly, on the presupposition that Jesus by his resurrection returned to a purely natural existence, what conception must be formed of his end? In consistency he must be supposed, whether at the end of a longerf or a shorter time after his resuscitation, to have died a natural death; and accordingly Paulus intimates that the too intensely affected body of Jesus, notwithstanding it had recovered from the death-like rigidity produced by crucifixion, was yet completely worn out by natural maladies and consuming fever. That this is at least not the view of the evangelists concerning the end of Jesus is evident, since two of them represent him as taking leave of his disciples like an immortal, the others as being visibly carried up to heaven. Thus before the ascension, at the latest, if until then Jesus had retained a natural human body, it must have undergone a change which qualified him to dwell in the heavenly regions; the sediment of gross corporeality must have fallen to the earth, and only its finest essene have ascended. But of any natural remains of the ascended Jesus the evangelists say nothing; and as the disciples who were spectators of his ascension must have observed them had there been such, nothing is left for the upholders of this opinion but the expedient of certain theologians of the T bingen school, who regard as the residuum of the corporeality of Jesus, the cloud which enveloped him in his ascension, and in which what was material in him is supposed to have been dissolved and as it were evaporated. As thus the evangelists neither represent to themselves the end of the earthly life of Jesus after the resurrection as a natural death, nor mention any change undergone by his body at the ascension, and moreover narrate of Jesus in the interval between the resurrection and ascension things which are inconceivable of a natural body: they cannot have represented to themselves his life after the resurrection as natural, but only as supernatural, nor his body as material and organic, but only as transfgured.

In the point of view held by the evangelists, this conception is not contradicted even by those particulars which the friends of the ^{P.841} purely natural opinion respecting the life of the risen Jesus are accustomed to urge in their support. That Jesus ate and drank was, in the circle of ideas within which the Gospels originated, as far from presupposing a real necessity, as the meal of which the Lord partook with two angels in the tent of Abraham: the power of eating is here no proof of a necessity for eating. That he caused himself to be touched, was the only possible mode of refufing the conjecture that an incorporeal spectre had appeared to the disciples; moreover, divine existences, not merely in Grecian, but also (according to the passage above quoted, Gen. xxxii. 24.) in Hebrew antiquity, sometimes appeared palpable, in distinction from unsubstantial shades, though they otherwise showed themselves as little bound by the laws of materiality as the palpable Jesus, when he suddenly vanished, and was able to penetrate without hindrance into a room of which the door was closed. It is quite another question, whether on our more advanced position, and with our more correct knowledge of nature, those two different classes of particulars can be held compatible with each other. Here we must certainly say: a body which consumes visible food, must itself be visible; the consumption of food presupposes an organism, but an organism is organized matter, and this has not the property of alternately vanishing and becoming visible again at will. More especially, if the body of Jesus was capable of being felt, and presented perceptible flesh and bones, it thus exhibited the impenetrability of matter, proper to it as solid: if on the other hand he was able to pass into closed houses and rooms, unhindered by the interposition of walls and doors, he thus proved that the impenetrability of solid matter did not belong to him. Since then according to the Gospel accounts he must at the same time have had and not have had the same property: the Gospel representation of the corporeality of Jeus after the resurrection is manifested to be contradictory. And this contradiction is not of such a kind that it is divided among the different narrators; but the account of one and the same evangelist includes those contradictory features within itself. The brief account of Matthew, it is true, implies in the embracing of the feet of Jesus by the women (v. 9) only the attribute of palpability, ^{P.842} without at the same time presenting an opposite one; with Mark the case is reversed, his statement that Jesus appeared in another form (v. 12) implying something supernatural, while on the other hand he does not decidedly presuppose the opposite; in Luke, on the other hand, the permission to touch his body and the act of eating speak as decidedly in favour of organic materiality, as the sudden appearance and disappearance speak against it; but the members of this contradiction come the most directly into collision in John, where Jesus, immediately after he has entered into the closed room unimpeded by walls and doors, causes the doubting Thomas to touch him.