~ 90 ~
this view unhesitatingly[1]. He seems indeed to go further and hold that the story that the Resurrection took place on the first day of the week was an afterthought. He does not, I imagine, doubt that the Church from the first believed that her risen Master had appeared to his disciples, or that this belief was the foundation of the Gospel. But he thinks that the story of the tomb being found empty on the first day of the week, and the placing of the first appearances on the same day arose from an a priori conviction that the Resurrection must have happened on what had become the Lord's day, whereas in reality it had become the Lord's day, because, as being the 'principal day' of the week and the day of the chief of the great Seven, it seemed to be especially suited for the service of the Lord of Glory.
My readers will probably agree with me that this extreme theory is as improbable as it is arbitrary. The belief that Jesus rose on the day after the Sabbath belongs to the earliest form of the Gospel narrative. For though Mark breaks off without relating any appearances, and quite possibly in the lost conclusion did not record any as happening till the disciples returned to Galilee, he clearly states that the Resurrection had taken place when the women arrived at the tomb. Further an earlier witness than Mark, namely Paul, practically says the same thing,
- ↑ Les Mystères Paiens, pp. 223–229.
