appearances.18 The expression & Kal Taρéλaßov, "which also I received", 19 can scarcely exclude human mediation even when read in the light of Paul's strong assertion in the Epistle to the Galatians in which human derivation of his Gospel is denied and its origin through the revelation of Jesus Christ is affirmed.20 The two are not inconsistent. Paul may have known of the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus prior to his conversion and have learned other details concerning them afterwards, and his Gospel, his interpretation of the meaning of these facts, still have been communicated, as he firmly believed, through the revelation of Jesus. The agreement of his faith with that of the primitive Christian community would not prove its human origin, nor would the divine origin of his faith and Gospel exclude his reception of information about Jesus from sources that commended themselves to him as trustworthy. And as Paul tells in the Epistle to the Galatians of his visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion and of his intercourse with Peter and James, the Lord's brother,21 and refers particularly to the appearance of Jesus to these two men,22 it is not unnatural to suppose that he learned on this occasion some of the details to which the words 8 Kai Tapéλaßov allude. Paul certainly can not have been aware of any difference between his and the primitive Christian faith in the matters thus recounted to the Corinthians and least of all in regard to the resurrection.

Heitmüller23 has argued that, as the Hellenistic Christianity of Damascus stands between Paul and the primitive Christian community, the inference from the one to the other should be qualified by this fact; and Maurenbrecher24

181 Cor. xv. 3 ff.

"Omitted by Marcion and certain Western Fathers, but well attested. Cf. J. Weiss, Meyer's Kommentar. Cf. also 1 Cor. xi. 23.

Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1912 (xiii), pp. 326 ff.

"Von Jerusalem nach Rom, 1910, pp. 36 ff.

has emphasized the importance of the Hellenistic element in the Jerusalem Church for the world-mission of Christianity. Maurenbrecher however attributes to this element not the origin—this, in agreement with the "liberal" view, he assigns to the experience of Peter-but the modification of the primitive faith in the resurrection or rather in the nature of the person of whom this was believed by both elements of the Church, the Galilean and the Jerusalem Hellenistic.25 Heitmüller's contention is valuable for its positive rather than its negative elements. Historically Hellenistic Christianity mediated between the primitive community and the Gentile Church in which Paul labored; but it is not likely that Paul's knowledge of primitive Christian faith was limited to or seriously modified by what he received through this channel. Heitmüller however does not affirm that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus was peculiar to or originated by Hellenistic Christianity. He admits that Paul's statement26 shows that the original Apostles preached the same Gospel, including the resurrection. His claim therefore regarding Paul's derivation of the tradition recorded in the opening verses of the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians-although unlikely in any exclusive sense-does not affect the inference in regard to the existence of a similar faith in the primitive community. This Heitmüller admits, with a qualification only of emphasis; as compared with Hellenistic Christianity and with Paul, the primitive community, as the sources of the Synoptic Gospels show, had a larger interest in the life of Jesus than Paul's summary of the content of the Gospel would suggest. Both things however are quite possible in the same community; for the summary statement does not deny the fuller historical background, and interest in the elements enumerated by Paul can scarcely have been lacking in the primitive community or have constituted the distinctive feature of Hellenistic Christianity. J. Weiss says:27

We are apt to underestimate the fact that the primitive community fashioned essential elements in the common Christianity which, to a certain extent, were complete before Paul,-the Messiah-faith, the worship of Christ, baptism, the Lord's Supper, the tradition of the words of Jesus and the story of His life, a number of Christian formulae, and the transformation or adoption of a Jewish or an Old Testament manner of thought. The tradition recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in particular Weiss traces to the primitive community.28

The second group of primary sources for knowledge of the pre-Pauline Christian faith concerning the resurrection of Jesus is composed of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. The other New Testament writings, with the exception of the Epistle of James, are later than most of the Epistles of Paul and have value in confirmation of the earlier evidence. This is especially true of the Gospel of John and of the first Epistle of Peter.29 It is generally admitted however that the Synoptic Gospels embody a tradition that is certainly as early as Paul's Epistles and probably is earlier. It is also widely recognized that Acts, whatever its date and authorship, is based in its opening chapters on an early source and contains much that is authentic regarding the beginnings of the Church in Jerusalem. Its Lukan authorship seems well established, as does also its date of composition at the expiration of the two years with which the narrative closes,—a date recently advocated by Koch30 and by Harnack31 and adopted by Maurenbrecher.32 This view of its authorship and date has an important bearing on the problem of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels; but it is not necessary in this connection to base an argument upon its validity. Most of those who date Acts later and two of the Synoptic Gospels after the year 70 admit that the literary sources of the

30 Die Abfassungszeit des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes, 1911.

Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und zur Abfassungszeit der synoptischen Evangelien, 1911; The Date of the Acts and of Synoptic Gospels, 1911.

Synoptic Gospels are earlier and were current in the Jerusalem Church in the sixties. These sources-according to the widely current "Two-Document" hypothesis-were some form of the Gospel of Mark and "Q"-a source composed chiefly of the discourse material common to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. But in regard to the Gospel of Luke and especially for that section in which the passion of Jesus is recorded, this hypothesis generally posits a third source, commonly referred to by the symbol "L". These three sources-Mk, Q, and L-had already assumed literary form in Greek prior to their embodiment in the Synoptic Gospels and in turn depend upon and reproduce an earlier oral tradition of the Jerusalem Church. There is still difference of opinion about the extent of Q. Some affirm, others deny that it included a narrative of the passion. It is not perfectly certain therefore whether on this hypothesis there are two or three sources underlying the Synoptic account of the death and resurrection of Jesus. This however does not affect the main issue; for whether of triple or of twofold derivation the Synoptic Gospels bear witness in twofold form to the belief of the early Church in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The text of the Gospel of Mark, it is true, has been transmitted in an incomplete form; but the loss concerns only the narrative of events subsequent to the resurrection and even for these a form of tradition different from that contained in the Gospel of Luke is preserved in the Gospel of Matthew.

The source used in the opening chapters of Acts bears witness to the same facts and by its account of the speeches of Peter testifies also to the conception of Jesus which obtained in the early Church as the result of the experience upon which this faith is, in this and the sources of the Synoptic Gospels, said to have rested.

But what does this represent? According to Heitmüller the sources of the Synoptic Gospels represent the view of Jesus that was current in the Jerusalem Church in the fifties

or sixties.33 Back of this these sources do not carry us. Still, this view must have had some justification. It is given not in the form of opinion about Jesus but in the form of a narrative of His life and teaching. Moreover we can not disre gard the fact that these sources had their origin in a religious community organized by a definite principle which must have served not only as a principle of differentiation but as the principle of an historical continuity which reached back certainly into the pre-Pauline period. For before his conversion Paul had made havoc of the faith and persecuted the Church of God.34 This principle can have been no other than the Messiah-faith which Paul knew and attacked; and this faith from the beginning must have included the resurrection, for not only is there no trace in any of the sources that it was ever lacking; there is no indication of its subsequent introduction; and it certainly formed part of the faith to which Paul was converted within four or five years of Jesus' death. The Gospels and Acts record what was continuously believed in the Christian community to have constituted the factual basis of its organizing principle and thus to have been the cause of its faith. The implications of these documents on any reasonable view of their date fully justify the belief that the resurrection of Jesus entered into and formed part of the faith of the primitive Christian community from its inception.

But how soon was this? Certainly prior to Paul's conversion and subsequent to Jesus' death. Acts dates the first expansive movement of the Christian faith in Jerusalem from the feast of Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover at which Jesus suffered. But belief in the resurrection of Jesus had existed before this according both to Paul and to the Gospels. In both the resurrection is definitely associated with the third day after the crucifixion; and while Paul

33

Article "Jesus Christus" in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, herausgegeben von Schiele und Zscharnack, ii (1912), pp. 356 ff; reprinted in his Jesus, 1913, pp. 28 ff; cf. Warfield in this REVIEW, 1914 (xii), pp. 315 ff.

Gal. i. 13, 23; cf. Acts ix. 21.