Following Our Lord's appearances to Magdalene and the other women, what happened next?
If we had only the first two gospels, and the last chapter of the fourth, we might conclude (too hastily) that all further appearances took place in Galilee. If we only had St. Luke and his "Acts" we might think (just as rashly) that they all took place in Jerusalem.
If we look at the earliest written evidence of all (I Col-. 15.4-8, which takes us right back to the time of Saul's conversion, say six years after the Crucifixion) we are still left guessing, because this is not a time-list of the Appearances but a more or less official list of persons who claimed to have seen the Lord.
What seems fairly clear is that during the first 30 or 40 years (about a similar period as between now and V.E. Day 1945) the oral tradition of the Resurrection was passed on along two main streams, one through the disciples in Galilee and later in Antioch, and the other through disciples around Jerusalem itself. '
It is all rather guess-work, but did these two streams correspond roughly with the influence of the apostles Peter and James respectively? And also perhaps with the two different kinds of converts: on one hand the Greek-speaking "Gentilelovers" together with the Galilean enthusiasts who had marched with Jesus to Jerusalem, and on the other hand the stricter Judaizers, pharisees, priests and such like, who had joined up in the earliest years?
That there was tension between these two "parties" is clear from the Acts, and it was only resolved by the tragic dying away of the Jerusalem Church itself after the Seige of Jerusalem.
If we hear all this in mind we can perhaps glimpse some inkling of a solution to the greatest of all New Testament problems — why St. Luke quite deliberately omits all mention of Galilee in his accounts of the