f the ascension itself, but clearly implies it. In contrast
with Matthew it is noticeable that Luke shows no knowledge of any
appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. John is quite independent
of Mark, as well as of Matthew and Luke. He mentions only Mary Magdalene
in connection with the early visit to the tomb, though perhaps he implies
the presence of others with her ("we" in xx. 2). He tells of a visit of
Peter and John to the tomb, of an appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene,
of an appearance to ten of the disciples in the evening, and a week later
to the eleven, including Thomas. So far this gospel makes no reference to
appearances in Galilee; but in the appendix (chapter xxi.) there is added
a manifestation to seven disciples as they were fishing on the Sea of
Galilee.

214. Criticism which seeks to discredit the gospels, for instance most
recently Reville in his "Jesus de Nazareth," discovers two separate and
mutually exclusive lines of tradition,--one telling of appearances in
Galilee, represented by Mark and the last chapter in John, the other
telling of appearances in or near Jerusalem, and found in Luke and the
twentieth chapter of John. It is said that the gospels have sought to
blend the two cycles, as when Matthew tells of an appearance to the women
in Jerusalem on their way from the tomb, and when the last chapter of John
adds to the original gospel a Galilean appearance. Luke, however, who
makes no reference at all to Galilean manifestations, is taken to prove
that originally the one cycle knew nothing of the other. This theory
falls, however, before the uniform tradition of appearances on the third
day, which must have been in Jerusalem, and the very early testimony of
Paul to an appearance to above five hundred brethren at once, which could
not have been in Judea. It need not surprise us that there should have
been two cycles of tradition, not however mutually exclusive, if Jesus did
appear both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. The same kind of local interest
which is supposed to explain the one-sidedness of the synoptic story of
the public ministry would easily account for one line of tradition which
reported Galilean appearances, and another which reported those in
Jerusalem. Luke may have had access to information which furnished him
only the Jerusalem story. John and Peter, however, must have known the
wider facts. The very divergences and seeming contradictions of the
gospels, troublesome as th