THE EVIDENCES OF THE RESURRECTION. the Resurrection of Christ either from the Scriptures-and this proves that the narrative of it was not intended as a fulfilment of previous expectancy-nor yet from the predictions of Christ to that effect; although without the one, and especially without the other, the empty grave would scarcely have wrought in them the assured conviction of the Resurrection of Christ.1 623 CHAP. XVI This brings us to the real question in hand. Since the Apostles and others evidently believed Him to be dead, and expected not His Resurrection, and since the fact of His Death was not to them a formidable, if any, objection to His Messianic Character-such as might have induced them to invent or imagine a Resurrection-how are we to account for the history of the Resurrection with all its details in all the four Gospels and by St. Paul? The details, or signs,' are clearly intended as evidences to all of the reality of the Resurrection, without which it would not have been believed; and their multiplication and variety must, therefore, be considered as indicating what otherwise would have been not only numerous but insuperable difficulties. Similarly, the language of St. Paula im- Gal. i. 18 plies a careful and searching inquiry on his part; the more rational, that, besides intrinsic difficulties and Jewish preconceptions against it, the objections to the fact must have been so often and coarsely obtruded on him, whether in disputation or by the jibes of the Greek scholars and students who derided his preaching.b b Acts xvii. 32 Hence, the question to be faced is this: Considering their previous state of mind and the absence of any motive, how are we to account for the change of mind on the part of the disciples in regard to the Resurrection? There can at least be no question, that they came to believe, and with the most absolute certitude, in the Resurrection as an historical fact; nor yet, that it formed the basis and substance of all their preaching of the Kingdom; nor yet, that St. Paul, up to his conversion a bitter enemy of Christ, was fully persuaded of it; nor--to go a step back-that Jesus Himself expected it. Indeed, the world would not have been converted to a dead Jewish Christ, however His intimate disciples might have continued to love His memory. But they preached everywhere, first and foremost, the Resurrection from the dead! In the language of St. Paul: 'If Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God... ye are yet in your sins.'c We must here dismiss what probably under- 1 Cor. xv. 'This is well argued by Weiss, Lehen Jesu, vol. ii. p. 608. 2 This is conveyed by the verb ἱστορέω. 14, 15, 17 BOOK V lies the chief objection to the Resurrection: its miraculous character. The objection to Miracles, as such, proceeds on that false Supranaturalism, which traces a Miracle to the immediate fiat of the Almighty without any intervening links; and, as already shown, it involves a vicious petitio principii. But, after all, the Miraculous is only the to us unprecedented and uncognisable-a very narrow basis on which to refuse historical investigation. And the historian has to account for the undoubted fact, that the Resurrection was the fundamental personal conviction of the Apostles and disciples, the basis of their preaching, and the final support of their martyrdom. What explanation then can be offered of it? 1. We may here put aside two hypotheses, now universally discarded even in Germany, and which probably have never been seriously entertained in this country. They are that of gross fraud on the part of the disciples, who had stolen the Body of Jesus—as to which even Strauss remarks, that such a falsehood is wholly incompatible with their after-life, heroism, and martyrdom;-and again this, that Christ had not been really dead when taken from the Cross, and that He gradually revived again. Not to speak of the many absurdities which this theory involves, it really shifts-if we acquit the disciples of complicity-the fraud upon Christ Himself. 2. The only other explanation, worthy of attention, is the socalled Vision-hypothesis: that the Apostles really believed in the Resurrection, but that mere visions of Christ had wrought in them this belief. The hypothesis has been variously modified. According to some, these visions were the outcome of an excited imagination, of a morbid state of the nervous system. To this there is, of course, the preliminary objection, that such visions presuppose a previous expectancy of the event, which, as we know, is the opposite of the fact. Again, such a 'Vision '-hypothesis in no way agrees with the many details and circumstances narrated in connection with the Risen One, Who is described as having appeared not only to one or another in the retirement of the chamber, but to many, and in a manner and circumstances which render the idea of a mere vision impossible. Besides, the visions of an excited imagination would not have endured and led to such results; most probably they would soon have given place to corresponding depression. The Vision-hypothesis is not much improved, if we regard the The whole subject of miracles requires fuller and clearer treatment than it has yet received. 2 Such as this, how with pierced Feet He could have gone to Emmaus. THE VISION-HYPOTHESIS. supposed vision as the result of reflection-that the disciples, con- This argument might, of course, be variously elaborated, and the account in the Gospels represented as the form which it afterwards took in the belief of the Church. But (a) the whole Visionhypothesis is shadowy and unreal, and the sacred writers themselves show that they knew the distinction between visions and real appearances; (b) it is impossible to reconcile it with such occurrences as that in St. Luke xxiv. 38-43 and St. John xxi. 13, and, if possible, even more so, to set aside all these details as the outcome of later tradition, for which there was no other basis than the desire of vindicating a vision; (c) it is incompatible with the careful inquiry of St. Paul, who, as on so many other occasions, is here a most important witness. (d) The theory involves the most arbitrary handling of the Gospel-narratives, such as that the Apostles had at once returned to Galilee, where the sight of the familiar scenes had kindled in them this enthusiasm; that the notices about the third day are to be rejected, &c. (e) So fundamental a belief could not have had its origin in a delusive vision. It is, as Keim has shown, incompatible with the calm clearness of conviction and strong purpose of action which are its outcome. Besides, are we to believe that the enthusiasm had first seized the women, then the Apostles, and so on? But how, in that case, about the 500 of whom St. Paul speaks? They could scarcely all have been seized with the same mania. (f) A mere vision is unthinkable under such circumstances as the walk to Emmaus, the conversation with Thomas, with Peter, &c. Besides, it is incom patible with the giving of such definite 2 These two modes of accounting for 625 CHAP. XVI BOOK a St. Luke xxiv. 38-43 a such a narrative as that recorded by St. Luke seems almost designed to render the Vision-hypothesis' impossible. We are expressly told, that the appearance of the Risen Christ, so far from meeting their anticipations, had affrighted them, and that they had thought it spectral, on which Christ had reassured them, and bidden them handle Him, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold Me having.' Lastly, who removed the Body of Christ from the tomb? Six weeks afterwards, Peter preached the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem. If Christ's enemies had removed the Body, they could easily have silenced Peter; if His friends, they would have been guilty of such fraud, as not even Strauss deems possible in the circumstances. The theories of deception, delusion,' and vision being thus impossible, and the à priori objection to the fact, as involving a Miracle, being a petitio principii, the historical student is shut up to the simple acceptance of the narrative. To this conclusion the unpreparedness of the disciples, their previous opinions, their new testimony unto martyrdom, the foundation of the Christian Church, the testimony of so many, singly and in company, and the series of recorded manifestations during forty days, and in such different circumstances, where mistake was impossible, had already pointed with unerring certainty. And even if slight discrepancies, nay, some not strictly historical details, which might have been the outcome of earliest tradition in the Apostolic Church, could be shown in those accounts which were not of eyewitnesses, it would assuredly not invalidate the great fact itself, which may unhesitatingly be pronounced that best established in history. At the same time we would carefully guard ourselves against the admission that those The most deeply painful, but also interesting study is that of the conclusion at which Keim ultimately arrives (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz. iii. pp. 600-605). It has already been stated with what merciless irony he exposes the fraud and the nondeath theory, as well as the arguments of Strauss. The Vision-hypothesis he seems at first to advocate with considerable ingenuity and rhetorical power. And he succeeds in this the more easily, that, alas, he surrenders-although most arbitrarilyalmost every historical detail in the narrative of the Resurrection! And yet what is the result at which he ultimately arrives? He shows, perhaps more conclusively than any one else, that the Vision-hypothesis is also impossible! Having done so, he virtually admits that he cannot offer any explanation as to 'the mys terious exit' of the life of Jesus. Probably the visions of the Risen Christ were granted directly by God Himself and by the glorified Christ (p. 602). 'Nay, even the bodily appearance itself may be conceded to those who without it fear to lose all' (p. 603). But from this there is but a very small step to the teaching of the Church. At any rate, the greatest of negative critics has, by the admission of his inability to explain the Resurrection in a natural manner, given the fullest confirmation to the fundamental article of our Christian faith. 2 Reuss (Hist. Evang. p. 698) well remarks, that if this fundamental dogma of the Church had been the outcome of invention, care would have been taken that the accounts of it should be in the strictest and most literal agreement. 'THE LORD IS RISEN INDEED.' hypothetical flaws really exist in the narratives. On the contrary, we believe them capable of the most satisfactory arrangement, unless under the strain of hypercriticism. We can, therefore, implicitly yield ourselves to the impression of these narratives, and, still more, to the realisation of that most sacred and blessed fact, which is alike the foundation of the Church, the inscription on the banner of her armies, the strength and comfort of every Christian heart, and the grand hope of humanity: "The Lord is risen indeed." Godet aptly concludes his able discussion of the subject by observing that, if Strauss admits that the Church would have never arisen if the Apostles had not had unshaken faith in the reality of Christ's Resurrection, we may add, that 627 CHAP. XVI |