With regard to the _omissions_, none of our lists are at all complete, and this is often thought to be a difficulty. But as far as the _Gospels_ are concerned, the writers nowhere profess to give a complete list of Christ's appearances, any more than of His parables, or His miracles; they only record (as one of them tells us)[293] _selected instances_. And in the present case their choice is quite intelligible. Thus St. Matthew closes his Gospel, which is concerned chiefly with the Galilean ministry, with the farewell meeting in Galilee; St. John, whose Gospel is concerned chiefly with the Judæan ministry, ended his (before the last chapter was added, which seems a sort of appendix) with some of the appearances in Jerusalem. While St. Luke, who was more of an historian, and wrote everything _in order_,[294] though he describes most in detail the appearance to the two disciples at Emmaus (which is only natural if he was one of them), is yet careful to carry his narrative right on to the Ascension. Therefore, though they only record certain appearances, they may well have known of the others; and there can be little doubt that they did. [Footnote 293: John 20. 30.] [Footnote 294: Luke 1. 3.] Thus, St. Matthew speaks of the Eleven meeting Christ by _appointment_, so he must have known of some interview when this appointment was made, (perhaps the one on the Lake), as the messages to the women did not fix either the time or place.[295] In the same way St. Mark must have known of a meeting in Galilee, as he refers to it himself, and St. Luke of an appearance to St. Peter.[296] While St. John, though he does not record the Ascension, must certainly have known of it, as he refers to it twice in the words, _if ye should behold the Son of Man ascending_, and _I ascend unto My Father_, the former passage clearly showing that it was to be a visible ascent, and that the Apostles were to see it.[297] Plainly, then, the Evangelists did not relate every appearance they knew of, and the objection as far as they are concerned, may be dismissed at once. [Footnote 295: Matt. 28. 16, 7, 10.] [Footnote 296: Mark 16. 7; Luke 24. 34.] [Footnote 297: John 6. 62; 20. 17.] On the other hand, _St. Paul's list_ certainly looks as if it were meant to be complete; and this is no doubt a real difficulty. Surely, it is said, if the other appearances had occurred, or were even supposed to have occurred, when St. Paul wrote, he would have heard of them; and if he had heard of them, he would have mentioned them, as he was evidently trying to make out as strong a case as he could. He might perhaps have omitted the appearances to _women_, as their testimony was not considered of much value at the time; and they were not witnesses of the Resurrection, in the sense he alludes to--_i.e._, persons who went about preaching it;[298] but why should he have omitted the rest? [Footnote 298: 1 Cor. 15. 11.]