According to the fourth Gospel, on the first day of the week, after

sending to his disciples the message regarding his Ascension, which we

have discussed, when it was evening: xx. 19. "And the doors having been

shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and

stood in the midst, and saith unto them: Peace be unto you. 20. And

having said this, he

1 The statement in xxiv. 44, however, is suggestive as

showing how the fulfilment of the Prophets and Psalms is in

the mind of the writer. We have seen how much this idea

influenced the account of the Passion in the Gospels.

{463}

showed unto them both his hands and his side. The disciples, therefore,

rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21. So then he said to them again:

Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22. And

when he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye

the Holy Spirit: 23. Whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto

them; whosesoever ye retain they are retained." This appearance of Jesus

to the eleven bears so far analogy to that in the third Gospel, which

we have just examined, that it occurs upon the same day and to the same

persons. Is it probable that Jesus appeared twice upon the same evening

to the eleven disciples? The account in the fourth Gospel itself

confirms the only reasonable reply: that he did not do so; but the

narrative in the third Synoptic renders the matter certain. That

appearance was the first to the eleven (xxiv. 36 f.), and he then

conducted them towards Bethany, and ascended into heaven (v. 50 f.).

How then, we may inquire, could two accounts of the same event differ so

fundamentally? It is absolutely certain that both cannot be true. Is it

possible to suppose that the third Synoptist could forget to record the

extraordinary powers supposed to have been on this occasion bestowed

upon the ten Apostles to forgive sins and to retain them? Is it

conceivable that he would not relate the circumstance that Jesus

breathed upon them, and endowed them with the Holy Ghost? Indeed, as

regards the latter point, he seems to exclude it, v. 49, and in the

Acts (ii.) certainly represents the descent of the Holy Spirit as taking

place at Pentecost. On the other hand, can we suppose that the fourth

Evangelist would have ignored the walk to Bethany and the solemn parting

there? or the injunction to remain in Jerusalem?

{464}

not to mention other topics. The two episodes cannot be reconciled.

In the fourth Gospel, instead of showing his hands and feet, Jesus is

represented as exhibiting "his hands and his side," and that this is not

accidental is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that Thomas, who is

not present, refuses to believe (v. 25) unless he see and put his finger

into the print of the nails in his hands and put his hand into his side;

and Jesus, when he appears again, allows him (v. 27) to put his finger

into his hands and his hand into his side. In the Synoptic, the wound

made by that mythical lance is ignored and, in the fourth Gospel,

the wounds in the feet. The omission of the whole episode of the

leg-breaking and lance-thrust by the three Synoptics thus gains fresh

significance. On the other hand, it may be a question whether, in the

opinion of the fourth Evangelist, the feet of Jesus were nailed to the

cross at all, or whether, indeed, they were so in fact. It was at least

as common, not to say more, that the hands alone of those who were

crucified were nailed to the cross, the legs being simply bound to it

by cords. Opinion is divided as to whether Jesus was so bound or whether

the feet were likewise nailed, but the point is not important to our

examination and need not be discussed, although it has considerable

interest in connection with the theory that death did not actually ensue

on the cross, but that, having fainted through weakness, Jesus, being

taken down after so unusually short a time on the cross, subsequently

recovered. There is no final evidence upon the point.

None of the explanations offered by apologists remove the contradiction

between the statement that Jesus bestowed the Holy Spirit upon this

occasion and that of the

{465}

third Synoptic and Acts. There is, however, a curious point to notice

in connection with this: Thomas is said to have been absent upon this

occasion, and the representation, therefore, is that the Holy Spirit was

only bestowed upon ten of the Apostles. Was Thomas excluded? Was he

thus punished for his unbelief? Are we to suppose that an opportunity

to bestow the Holy Spirit was selected when one of the Apostles was not

present?(l) We have, however, somewhat anticipated the narrative (xx. 24

if.), which relates that upon the occasion above discussed Thomas, one

of the Twelve, was not present, and hearing from the rest that they have

seen the Lord, he declares that he will not believe without palpable

proof by touching his wounds. The Evangelist continues: v. 26. "And

after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas was with

them. Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut [------], and stood in

the midst and said: Peace be unto you. 27. Then saith he to Thomas:

Reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand

and put it into my side, and be not unbelieving but believing. 28.

Thomas answered and said unto him: My Lord and my God. 29. Jesus saith

unto him: Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are

they who have not seen, and yet have believed."

The third Synoptic gives evidence that the risen Jesus is not

incorporeal by stating that he not only permitted himself to be handled,

but actually ate food in their presence. The fourth Evangelist attains

the same result in a more artistic manner through the doubts of Thomas,

but in allowing him actually to put his finger into the prints of the

nails in his hands, and his hand into the

{466}

wound in his side, he asserts that Jesus rose with the same body as

that which had hung on the cross. He, too, however, whilst doing this,

actually endows him with the attribute of incorporeality; for, upon both

of the occasions which we are discussing, the statement is markedly made

that, when Jesus came and stood in the midst, the doors were shut where

the disciples were. It can scarcely be doubted that the intention of the

writer is to represent a miraculous entry.(1)

We are asked, however, to believe that when Thomas had convinced himself

that it was indeed Jesus in the flesh who stood before him, he went to

the opposite extreme of belief and said to Jesus: [------] "My Lord

and my God!" In representing that Jesus, even before the Ascension, was

addressed as "God" by one of the Twelve, the Evangelist commits one of

those anachronisms with which we are familiar, in another shape, in the

works of great painters, who depict pious bishops of their own time as

actors in the scenes of the Passion. These touches, however, betray

the hand of the artist, and remove the account from the domain of sober

history. In the message sent by Jesus to his disciples he spoke of

ascending "to your God and my God," but the Evangelist at the close of

his Gospel strikes the same note as that upon which he commenced his

philosophical prelude.

We shall only add one further remark regarding this episode, and it is

the repetition of one already made. It is much to be regretted that

the writer does not inform us how these interviews of Jesus with his

disciples terminated. We are told of his entry, but not

{467}

of his mode of departure. Did he vanish suddenly? Did he depart like

other men? Then, it would be important to know where Jesus abode

during the interval of eight days. Did he ascend to heaven after each

appearance? or did he remain on earth? Why did he not consort as

before with his disciples? These are not jeering questions, but

serious indications of the scantiness of the information given by the

Evangelists, which is not compensated by some trifling detail of no

value occasionally inserted to heighten the reality of a narrative. This

is the last appearance of Jesus related in the fourth Gospel; for the

character of Ch. xxi. is too doubtful to permit it to rank with the

Gospel. The appearance of Jesus therein related is in fact more palpably

legendary than the others. It will be observed that in this Gospel,

as in the third Synoptic, the appearances of Jesus are confined to

Jerusalem and exclude Galilee. These two Gospels are, therefore, clearly

in contradiction with the statement of the first two Synoptics.(2)

It only remains for us to refer to one more appearance of Jesus: that

related in the first Synoptic, xxviii. 16 ff. In obedience to the

command of Jesus, the disciples are represented as having gone away into

Galilee, "unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them." We have not

previously heard anything of this specific appointment. The Synoptist

continues: v. 17. "And when they saw him they worshipped him, but some

doubted. 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying: All authority

was given to me [------] in heaven and on earth. 19. Go ye and make

disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the

Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; 20. teaching them to

observe all things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with

{468}

you all the days, unto the end of the world." This appearance not only

is not mentioned in the other Gospels, but it excludes the appearances

in Judaea, of which the writer seems to be altogether ignorant. If he

knew of them, he practically denies them.

There has been some discussion as to what the doubt mentioned in v. 17

refers, some critics maintaining that "some doubted" as to the propriety

of worshipping Jesus, whilst others more correctly consider that they

doubted as to his identity,(1) but we need not mention the curious

apologetic explanations offered.(2) Are we to regard the mention

of these doubts as an "inestimable proof of the candour of the

Evangelists"? If so, then we may find fault with the omission to tell

us whether, and how, those doubts were set at rest. As the narrative

stands, the doubts were not resolved. Was it possible to doubt

without good reason of the identity of one with whom, until a few days

previously, the disciples had been in daily and hourly contact at least

for a year, if not longer? Doubt in such a case is infinitely more

decisive than belief. We can regard the expression, however, in no other

light than as a mere rhetorical device in a legendary narrative. The

rest of the account ueed have little further discussion here. The

extraordinary statement in v. 18(3) seems as clearly the expression of

later theology as the baptismal formula

{469}

in v. 19, where the doctrine of the Trinity is so definitely expressed.

Some critics suppose that the Eleven were not alone upon this occasion,

but that either all the disciples of Jesus were present, or at least the

500 brethren l to whom Paul refers, 1 Cor. xv. G. This mainly rests on

the statement that "some doubted," for it is argued that, after the

two previous appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem mentioned by

the other Evangelists, it is impossible that the Eleven could have felt

doubt, and consequently that others must have been present who had not

previously been convinced. It is scarcely necessary to point out the

utter weakness of such an argument. It is not permissible, however, to

patch on to this Gospel scraps cut out of the others.

It must be clear to every unprejudiced student that the appearances

of Jesus narrated by the four Gospels in Galilee and Judaea cannot

be harmonised,(2) and we have shown that they actually exclude each

other.(3) The first Synoptist records (v. 10) the order for the

disciples to go into Galilee, and with no further interruption than the

{470}

mention of the return of the discomfited guard from the sepulchre to the

chief priest, he (v. 16) states that they went into Galilee, where

they saw Jesus in the manner just described. No amount of ingenuity can

insert the appearances in Jerusalem here without the grossest violation

of all common sense. This is the only appearance to the Eleven recorded

in Matthew.

We must here again point out the singular omission to relate the manner

in which this interview was ended. The episode and the Gospel, indeed,

are brought to a very artistic close by the expression, "lo, I am with

you all the days unto the end of the world," but we must insist that

it is a very suggestive fact that it does not occur to these writers

to state what became of Jesus. No point could have been more full

of interest than the manner in which Jesus here finally leaves the

disciples, and is dismissed from the history. That such an important

part of the narrative is omitted is in the highest degree remarkable and

significant. Had a formal termination to the interview been recounted,

it would have been subject to criticism, and by no means necessarily

evidence of truth; but it seems to us that the circumstance that it

never occurred to these writers to relate the departure of Jesus is a

very strong indication of the unreality and shadowy nature of the whole

tradition.

We are thus brought to consider the account of the Ascension, which is

at least given by one Evangelist. In the appendix to the second Gospel,

as if the later writer felt the omission and desired to complete the

narrative, it is vaguely stated: xvi. 19. "So then after the Lord spake

unto them he was taken up into heaven and sat on the right hand of

God."(1) The

{471}

writer, however, omits to state how he was taken up into heaven; and

sitting "at the right hand of God" is an act and position which those

who assert the "Personality of God" may possibly understand, but which

we venture to think betrays that the account is a mere theological

figment. The third Synoptist, however, as we have incidentally shown,

gives an account of the Ascension. Jesus having, according to the

narrative in xxiv. 50 ff., led the disciples out to Bethany, lifted up

his hands and blessed them: v. 51. "And it came to pass while blessing

them he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven."(1) The whole

of the appearances narrated in the third Synoptic, therefore, and the

Ascension are thus said to occur on the same day as the Resurrection.(2)

In Matthew, there is a different representation made, for the time

consumed in the journey of the disciples to Galilee obviously throws

back the Ascension to a later date. In Mark, there is no appearance

at all recorded, but the command to the disciples to go into Galilee

confirms the first Synoptic. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus revisits the

eleven a second time after eight days; and, therefore, the Ascension is

here

{472}

necessarily later still. In neither of these Gospels, however, is there

any account of an ascension at all.

We may here point out that there is no mention of the Ascension in any

of the genuine writings of Paul, and it would appear that the theory

of a bodily ascension, in any shape, did not form part of the oldest

Christian tradition.(1) The growth of the legend of the Ascension is

apparent in the circumstance that the author of the third Gospel follows

a second tradition regarding that event, when composing Acts.(2) Whether

he thought a fuller and more detailed account desirable, or it seemed

necessary to prolong the period during which Jesus remained on earth

after his Resurrection and to multiply his appearances, it is impossible

to say, but the fact is that he does so. He states in his second work:

that to the Apostles Jesus "presented himself alive after he suffered by

many proofs, being seen [------] by them during forty days, and speaking

of the things concerning the Kingdom of God." It is scarcely possible to

doubt that the period of forty days is suggested by the Old Testament(3)

and the Hebrew use of that number, of which indeed we already find

examples in the New Testament in the forty days temptation of Jesus in

the wilderness,(4) and his fasting forty days and forty nights.(5) Why

{473}

Jesus remained on earth this typical period we are not told,(1) but

the representation evidently is of much more prolonged and continuous

intercourse with his disciples than any statements in the Gospels have

led us to suppose, or than the declaration of Paul renders in the least

degree probable.

If indeed the account in Acts were true, the numbered appearances

recited by Paul show singular ignorance of the phenomena of the

Resurrection. We need not discuss the particulars of the last interview

with the Apostles, (i. 4 if.) although they are singular enough, and

are indeed elsewhere referred to, but at once proceed to the final

occurrences: v. 9. "And when he had spoken these things, while they are

looking he was lifted up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10. And as they were gazing stedfastly into the heaven as he went,

behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11. which also said: Men

of Galilee [------], why stand ye looking into the heaven? This Jesus,

who was taken up from you into the heaven, shall come in like manner

as ye saw him going into the heaven. 12. Then returned they into

Jerusalem," &c. A definite statement is here made of the mode in

which Jesus finally ascended into heaven, and it presents some of the

incongruities which might have beeu expected. The bodily Ascension

up the sky in a cloud, apart from the miraculous nature of such an

occurrence, seems singularly to localise "Heaven," and to present views

of cosmical and celestial phenomena suitable certainly to the age of the

writer, but which are not endorsed by modern science.

1 The testimony of the Epistle of Barnabas (c. xv.) does not

agree with this.

{474}

The sudden appearance of the "two men in white apparel," the usual

description of angels, is altogether in the style of the author of Acts,

but does it increase the credibility of the story? It is curious that

the angels open their address to the Apostles in the same form as almost

every other speaker in this book. One might ask, indeed, why such an

angelic interposition should have taken place? for its utility is not

apparent, and in the short sentence recorded nothing which is new is

embodied. No surprise is expressed at the appearance of the angels, and

nothing is said of their disappearance. They are introduced, like

the chorus of a Greek play, and are left unceremoniously, with an

indifference which betrays complete familiarity with supernatural

agency. Can there be any doubt that the whole episode is legendary?(1)

It may not seem inappropriate to mention here that the idea of a bodily

Ascension does not originate with the author of the third Synoptic and

Acts, nor is it peculiar to Christianity. The translation of Enoch(2)

had long been chronicled in the sacred books; and the ascent of

Elijah(3) in his whirlwind and chariot of fire before the eyes of Elisha

was another well-known instance. The vision of Daniel (vii. 13), of one

like the "Son of man" coming with the clouds of heaven, might well

have suggested the manner of his departure, but another mode has been

suggested.(4) The author of Acts was, we maintain, well acquainted with

the works of Josephus.(5)

{475}

We know that the prophet like unto Moses was a favourite representation

in Acts of the Christ. Now, in the account which Josephus gives of the

end of Moses, he states that, although he wrote in the holy books that

he died lest they should say that he went to God, this was not really

his end. After reaching the mountain Abarim he dismissed the senate;

and as he was about to embrace Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua,

"a cloud suddenly having stood over him he disappeared in a certain

valley."(1) This, however, we merely mention in passing.

Our earlier examination of the evidence for the origin and authorship of

the historical books of the New Testament very clearly demonstrated

that the testimony of these works for miracles and the reality of Divine

Revelation, whatever that testimony might seem to be, could not be

considered of any real value. We have now examined the accounts which

the four Evangelists actually give of the Passion, Resurrection, and

Ascension, and there can be no hesitation in stating as the result that,

as might have been expected from works of such uncertain character,

these narratives must be pronounced mere legends, embodying vague and

wholly unattested tradition. As

{476}

evidence for such stupendous miracles, they are absolutely of no value.

No reliance can be placed on a single detail of their story. The aim of

the writers has obviously been to make their narrative of the various

appearances of Jesus as convincing as possible,(1) and they have freely

inserted any details which seemed to them calculated to give them

impressiveness, force, and verisimilitude.

A recent apologetic writer has said: "Any one who will attentively read

side by side the narratives of these appearances on the first day of

the resurrection, will see that they have only been preserved for us in

general, interblended and scattered notices (see Matt, xxviii. 16; Luke

xxiv. 34; Acts i. 3), which, in strict exactness, render it impossible,

without many arbitrary suppositions, to produce from them a _certain_

narrative of the order of events. The lacuna, the compressions, the

variations, the actual differences, _the subjectivity of the narrators

as affected by spiritual revelations_, render all harmonies at the best

uncertain."(2) Passing over without comment, the strange phrase in

this passage which we have italicised, and which seems to claim divine

inspiration for the writers, it must be obvious to any one who has

carefully read the preceding pages that this is an exceedingly moderate

description of the wild statements and irreconcilable contradictions of

the different narratives we have examined. But such as it is, with all

the glaring inconsistencies and impossibilities of the accounts even

thus subdued, is it possible for any one who has formed even a faint

idea of the extraordinary nature of the allegations which have to be

attested, to

{477}

consider such documents really evidence for the Resurrection and bodily

Ascension?

The usual pleas which are advanced in mitigation of judgment against

the Gospels for these characteristics are of no avail. It may be easy

to excuse the writers for their mutual contradictions, but the pleas

themselves are an admission of the shortcomings which render their

evidence valueless. "The differences of purpose in the narrative of

the four Evangelists,"(1) may be fancifully set forth, or ingeniously

imagined, but no "purpose" can transform discordant and untrustworthy

narratives into evidence for miracles. Unless the prologue to the third

Gospel be considered a condemnation of any of the other Synoptics which

may have existed before it, none of the Evangelists makes the smallest

reference to any of his brethren or their works. Each Gospel tacitly

professes to be a perfectly independent work, giving the history of

Jesus, or at

{478}

least of the active part of his life, and of his death and Resurrection.

The apologetic theory, derived from the Fathers, that the Evangelists

designed to complete and supplement each other, is totally untenable.

Each work was evidently intended to be complete in itself; but when

we consider that much the greater part of the contents of each of

the Synoptics is common to the three, frequently with almost literal

agreement, and generally without sufficient alteration to conceal

community of source or use of each other, the poverty of Christian

tradition becomes painfully evident. We have already pointed out the

fundamental difference between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics.

In no part of the history does greater contradiction and disagreement

between the three Synoptics themselves and likewise between them and the

fourth Gospel exist, than in the account of the Passion, Resurrection

and Ascension. It is impossible to examine the four narratives carefully

without feeling that here tradition, for natural reasons, has been more

than usually wavering and insecure. Each writer differs essentially from

the rest, and the various narratives not only disagree but exclude

each other. The third Synoptist, in the course of some years, even

contradicts himself. The phenomena which are related, in fact, were too

subjective and unsubstantial for sober and consistent narrative, and

free play was allowed for pious imagination to frame details by the

aid of supposed Messianic utterances of the Prophets and Psalmists of

Israel.

Such a miracle as the Resurrection, startling as it is in our

estimation, was common-place enough in the view of these writers. We

need not go hack to discuss the story of the widow's son restored to

{479}

life by Elijah,(1) nor that of the dead man who revived on touching the

bones of Elisha.(2) The raising from the dead of the son of the widow of

Nain(3) did not apparently produce much effect at the time, and only one

of the Evangelists seems to have thought it worth while to preserve the

narrative. The case of Jairus' daughter,(4) whatever it was, is regarded

as a resurrection of the dead and is related by two of the Synoptists;

but the raising of Lazarus is only recorded by the fourth Evangelist.

The familiarity of the age with the idea of the resurrection of the

dead, however, according to the Synoptists, is illustrated by the

representation which they give of the effect produced by the fame of

Jesus upon Herod and others. We are told by the first Synoptist that

Herod said unto his servants: "This is John the Baptist; he was raised

from the dead; and therefore the powers work in him."(5) The second

Synoptist repeats the same statement, but adds: "But others said that

it is Elijah; and others said that it is a prophet like one of

the prophets."(6) The statement of the third Synoptist is somewhat

different. He says: "Now Herod the tetrarch heard all that was

occurring: and he was perplexed because it was said by some that John

was raised from the dead, and by some that Elijah appeared, and by

others that one of the old prophets rose up. And Herod

{480}

said: John I beheaded, but who is this of whom I hear such things, and

he sought to see him."()1 The three Synoptists substantially report the

same thing; the close verbal agreement of the first two being an example

of the community of matter of which we have just spoken. The variations

are instructive as showing the process by which each writer made the

original form his own. Are we to assume that these things were really

said? Or must we conclude that the sayings are simply the creation of

later tradition? In the latter case, we see how unreal and legendary are

the Gospels. In the former case, we learn how common was the belief in

a bodily resurrection. How could it seem so strange to the Apostles that

Jesus should rise again, when the idea that John the Baptist or one

of the old prophets had risen from the dead was so readily accepted by

Herod and others? How could they so totally misunderstand all that the

chief priests, according to the first Synoptic, so well understood of

the teaching of Jesus on the subject of his Resurrection, since the

world had already become so familiar with the idea and the fact?

Then, the episode of the Transfiguration must have occurred to every

one, when Jesus took with him Peter and James and John into a high

mountain apart, "and he was transfigured before them; and his face did

shine as the sun, and his raiment became white as the light. And behold,

there was seen [------] by them Moses and Elijah

{481}

talking with him;" and then "a bright cloud overshadowed them" and "a

voice came out of the cloud: This is my beloved son," &c. "And when the

disciples heard they fell on their face and were sore afraid."(1) The

third Synoptist even knows the subject of their conversation: "They were

speaking of his decease which he was about to fulfil in Jerusalem."(2)

This is related by all as an objective occurrence.(3) Are we to accept

it as such? Then how is it possible that the disciples could be so

obtuse and incredulous as they subsequently showed themselves to be

regarding the person of Jesus, and his resurrection? How could the

announcement of that event by the angels to the women seem to them as

an idle tale, which they did not believe?(4) Here were Moses and Elijah

before them, and in Jesus, we are told, they recognized one greater

than Moses and Elijah. The miracle of the Resurrection was here

again anticipated and made palpable to them. Are we to regard the

Transfiguration as a subjective vision? Then why not equally so

the appearances of Jesus after his passion? We can regard the

Transfiguration, however, as nothing more than an allegory without

either objective or subjective reality. Into this at present we cannot

further go. It is sufficient to repeat that our examination has shown

the Gospels to possess no value as evidence for the Resurrection and

Ascension.

CHAPTER III. THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL

We may now proceed to examine the evidence of Paul. "On one occasion,"

it is affirmed in a passage already quoted, "he gives a very

circumstantial account of the testimony upon which the belief in the

Resurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4--8)."(1) This account is as follows:

1 Cor. xv. 3. "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also

received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4.

and that he was buried, and that he has been raised [------] the third

day according to the Scriptures, 5. and that he was seen by Cephas, then

by the Twelve. 6. After that, he was seen by above five hundred brethren

at once [------], of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but

some are fallen asleep. 7. After that, he was seen by James; then by all

the Apostles. 8. And last of all he was seen by me also as the one

born out of due time."(2) Can this be considered a "very circumstantial

account"? It may be exceedingly unreasonable, but we must at once

acknowledge that we are not satisfied. The testimony

{483}

upon which the belief in the Resurrection rests comprised in a dozen

lines! for we may so far anticipate as to say that this can scarcely be

regarded as a _resume_ of evidence which we can find elsewhere. We shall

presently point out a few circumstances which it might be useful to

know.

The Apostle states, in this passage, that the doctrines which he had

delivered to the Corinthians he had himself "received." He does not

pretend to teach them from his own knowledge, and the question naturally

arises: From whom did he "receive" them? Formerly, divines generally

taught that Paul received these doctrines by revelation, and up to

recent times apologists have continued to hold this view, even when

admitting the subsidiary use of tradition.(1) If this claim were

seriously made, the statements of the Apostle, so far as our inquiry

is concerned, would certainly not gain in value, for it is obvious that

Revelation could not be admitted to prove Revelation. It is quite true

that Paul himself professed to have received his Gospel not from men,

but from God by direct revelation, and we shall hereafter have

to consider this point and the inferences to be drawn from such

pretensions. At present, the argument need not be complicated by any

such supposition, for certainly Paul does not here advance any such

claim himself, and apologetic and other critics agree in declaring the

source of his statements to be natural historical tradition.(2) The

points which he

{484}

delivered and which he had also received are three in number: (1) that

Christ died for our sins; (2) that he was buried; and (3) that he has

been raised the third day. In strictness the [------] might oblige us

to include, "and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve," after

which the construction of the sentence is changed. It is not necessary

to press this, however, and it is better for the present to separate the

dogmatic statements from those which are more properly evidential.

It will be observed that, although the death, burial, and resurrection

are here taught as "received," evidence only of one point is offered:

that Jesus "was seen by" certain persons. We have already pointed out

that the Gospels do not pretend that any one was an eye-witness of

the Resurrection itself, and it is important to notice that Paul, the

earliest and most trustworthy witness produced, entirely passes over the

event itself, and relies solely on the fact that Jesus was supposed to

have been seen by certain persons to prove that he died, was buried, and

had actually risen the third day. The only inference which we here wish

to draw from this is, that the alleged appearances are thus obviously

separated from the death and burial by a distinct gulf. A dead body, it

is stated, or one believed to be dead, is laid in a sepulchre: after a

certain time, it is alleged that the dead person has been seen alive.

Supposing the first statement to be correct, the second, being in

itself, according to all our experience, utterly incredible, leaves

further a serious gap in the continuity of evidence. What occurred in

the interval between the burial and the supposed apparition? If it be

asserted--as in the Gospels it is--that, before the

{485}

apparition, the sepulchre was found empty and the body gone, not only

may it be replied that this very circumstance may have assisted in

producing a subjective vision, but that, in so far as the disappearance

of the body is connected with the appearance of the person apparently

alive, the fact has no evidential value. The person supposed to be dead,

for instance, may actually not have been so, but have revived; for,

although we have no intention ourselves of adopting this explanation

of the Resurrection, it is, as an alternative, certainly preferable

to belief in the miracle. Or, in the interval, the body may have been

removed from a temporary to a permanent resting place unknown to

those who are surprised to find the body gone;--and in the Gospels the

conflicting accounts of the embalming and hasty burial, as we have seen,

would fully permit of such an argument if we relied at all on those

narratives. Many other means of accounting for the absence of the body

might be advanced, any one of which, in the actual default of testimony

to the contrary, would be irrefutable. The mere surprise of finding a

grave empty which was supposed to contain a body betrays a blank in the

knowledge of the persons, which can only be naturally filled up. This

gap, at least, would not have existed had the supposed resurrection

occurred in the presence of those by whom it is asserted Jesus "was

seen." As it is, no evidence whatever is offered that Jesus really died;

no evidence that the sepulchre was even found empty; no evidence that

the dead body actually arose and became alive again; but skipping over

the intermediate steps, the only evidence produced is the statement

that, being supposed to be dead, he is said to have been seen by certain

persons.(1)

{486}

There is a peculiarity in the statement to which we must now refer. The

words, "according to the Scriptures" [------] are twice introduced into

the brief recapitulation of the teaching which Paul had received

and delivered: (1) "That Christ died for our sins according to the

Scriptures," and (3) "that he has been raised the third day according to

the Scriptures." It is evident that mere historical tradition has only

to do with the fact "that Christ died," and that the object: "for our

sins," is a dogmatic addition. The Scriptures supply the dogma. In the

second point, the appeal to Scripture is curious, and so far important

as indicating that the resurrection on the third day was supposed to

be a fulfilment of prophecy; and we have thus an indication, regarding

which we must hereafter speak, of the manner in which the belief

probably originated. The double reference to the Scriptures is

peculiarly marked, and we have already more than once had occasion to

point out that the narratives of the Gospels betray the very strong and

constant influence of parts of the Old Testament supposed to relate to

the Messiah. It cannot, we think, be doubted by any independent critic,

that the details of these narratives were to a large extent traced from

those prophecies. It is in the highest degree natural to suppose that

the early Christians, once accepting the idea of a suffering Messiah,

should, in the absence of positive or minute knowledge, assume that

prophecies which they believed to have reference to him should actually

have been fulfilled, and that in fact the occurrences corresponded

minutely with the prophecies. Too little is known of what really took

place, and it is

{487}

probable that Christian tradition generally was moulded from foregone

conclusions.

What were the "Scriptures," according to which "Christ died for our

sins," and "has been raised the third day?" The passages which are

generally referred to, and which Paul most probably had in view, are

well known: as regards the death for our sins,--Isaiah liii., Ps. xxii.

and lxix,; and for the resurrection,--Ps. xvi. 10, and Hosea vi. 2. We

have already pointed out that historical criticism has shown that the

first four passages just indicated are not Messianic prophecies at

all,(1) and we may repeat that the idea of a suffering Messiah

was wholly foreign to the Jewish prophets and people. The Messiah

"crucified," as Paul himself bears witness, was "to Jews a stumbling

block,"(2) and modern criticism has clearly established that the parts

of Scripture by which the early Christians endeavoured to show that such

a Messiah had been foretold can only be applied by a perversion of the

original signification. In the case of the passages supposed to foretell

the Resurrection, the misapplication is particularly flagrant. We have

already discussed the use of Ps. xvi. 10, which in Acts(3) is put into

the mouth of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and shown that the

proof passage rests upon a mistranslation of the original in the

Septuagint.(4) Any reader who will refer to Hosea vi. 2 will see that

the passage in no way applies to the Messiah,(5) although undoubtedly it

has influenced the formation of the doctrine

{488}

of the Resurrection. The "sign of the prophet Jonah," which in Mt. xii.

40 is put into the mouth of Jesus is another passage used with equal

incorrectness, and a glimpse of the manner in which Christian tradition

took shape, and the Gospels were composed, may be obtained by comparing

with the passage in the first Synoptic the parallel in the third

(xi. 29--31).(1) We shall have more to say presently regarding the

resurrection" on the third day."

We may now proceed to examine the so-called "very circumstantial account

of the testimony on which the belief in the Resurrection rested." "And

that he was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. After that he was seen

by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain

unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen

by James, then by all the Apostles, and last of all he was seen by me

also."(2) There can be no doubt, we think, from the terms in which

this statement is made, that Paul intended to give the appearances in

chronological order.(3) It would likewise be a fair inference that he

intended to mention all the appearances of which he was aware. So far,

the account may possibly merit the epithet "circumstantial," but in all

other respects it is scarcely possible to conceive any statement less

circumstantial. As to where the risen Jesus was seen by these persons,

in what manner, and under what circumstances, and at what time, we are

not vouchsafed a single particular. Moreover, the Apostle was not

{489}

present on any of these occasions, excepting of course his own vision,

and consequently merely reports appearances of which he has been

informed by others, but he omits to mention the authority upon which

he makes these statements, or what steps he took to ascertain their

accuracy and reality. For instance, when Jesus is said to have been

seen by five hundred brethren at once, it would have been of the highest

importance for us to know the exact details of the scene, the proportion

of inference to fact, the character of the Apostle's informant, the

extent of the investigation into the various impressions made upon the

individuals composing the five hundred, as opposed to the collective

affirmation. We confess that we do not attach much value to such appeals

to the experience of 500 persons at once. It is difficult to find out

what the actual experience of the individuals was, and each individual

is so apt to catch the infection of his neighbour, and join in

excitement, believing that, though he does not himself see or feel

anything, his neighbour does, that probably, when inquiry is pressed

home, the aggregate affirmation of a large number may resolve itself

into the actual experience of very few. The fact is, however, that in

this "very circumstantial account" we have nothing whatever except a

mere catalogue by Paul of certain appearances which he did not himself

see--always excepting his own vision, which we reserve--but merely had

"received" from others, without a detail or information of any kind.

If we compare these appearances with the instances recorded in the

Gospels, the result is by no means satisfactory. The first appearance is

said to be to Cephas. It is argued that Paul passes in silence over the

appearances to women, both because the testimony of women was

{490}

not received in Jewish courts, and because his own opinions regarding

the active participation of women in matters connected with the Church

were of a somewhat exclusive character.(1) The appearance to Cephas

is generally identified with that mentioned, Luke xxiv. 34.(2) Nothing

could be more cursory than the manner in which this appearance is

related in the Synoptic. The disciples from Emmaus, returning at once

to Jerusalem, found the Eleven and those who were with them saying: "The

Lord was raised indeed, and was seen by Simon." Not another syllable

is said regarding an appearance which, according to Paul, was the first

which had occurred. The other Gospels say still less, for they ignore

the incident altogether. It is difficult to find room for such an

appearance in the Gospel narratives. If we take the report of Paul to

be true, that Jesus was first seen by Cephas, the silence of three

Evangelists and their contradictory representations, on the one hand,

and the remarkable way in which the third Gospel avoids all but the mere

indirect reference to the occurrence, on the other, are phenomena which

we leave apologists to explain.(3)

He is next seen "by the Twelve." This vision is identified with that

narrated in John xx. 19 flf. and Luke xxiv. 36 ff,,(4) to which, as

Thomas was absent on the first occasion, some critics understand the

episode in John xx. 2C if. to be added. On reference to our discussion

of

{491}

these accounts, it will be seen that they have few or no elements

of credibility. If the appearance to the Twelve mentioned by Paul be

identified with these episodes, and their details be declared authentic,

the second item in Paul's list becomes discredited.

The appearance to 500 brethren at once is not mentioned in any of the

Gospels, but critics, and especially apologetic critics, assert with

more or less of certainty the identity of the occasion with the scene

described in Matth. xxviii. 16 ff.(1) We remarked whilst discussing the

passage that this is based chiefly on the statement that "some doubted,"

which would have been inconsistent, it is thought, had Jesus already

appeared to the Eleven.(2) The identity is, however, denied by others.3

The narrative in the first Synoptic would scarcely add force to the

report in the Epistle. Is it possible to suppose, however, that, had

there been so large a number of persons collected upon that occasion,

the Evangelist would not have mentioned the fact? On the other hand,

does it not somewhat discredit the statement that Jesus was seen by so

large a number at once, that no record of such a remarkable occurrence

exists elsewhere?(4) How could the tradition of such an event, witnessed

by so many, have so completely perished that neither in the Gospels nor

Acts,

{492}

nor in any other writing, is there any reference to it, and our only

knowledge of it is this bare statement, without a single detail? There

is only one explanation: that the assembly could not have recognized

in the phenomenon, whatever it was, the risen Jesus,(1) or that

subsequently an explanation was given which dispelled some temporary

illusion. In any case, we must insist that the total absence of all

confirmation of an appearance to 500 persons at once alone renders

such an occurrence more than suspicious. The statement that the greater

number were still living when Paul wrote does not materially affect the

question. Paul doubtless believed the report that such an appearance had

taken place, and that the majority of witnesses still survived, but

does it necessarily follow that the report was true? The survivors were

certainly not within reach of the Corinthians, and could not easily be

questioned. The whole of the argument of Paul which we are considering,

as well as that which follows, was drawn from him by the fact that, in

Corinth, Christians actually denied a resurrection, and it is far from

clear that this denial did not extend to denying the Resurection of

Jesus himself.(2) That they did deny this we think certain, from the

care with which Paul gives what he considers evidence for the fact.

Another point may be mentioned. Where could so many as 500 disciples

have been collected at one time? The author of Acts states (i. 15) the

number of the Christian community gathered together to elect a successor

to Judas as "about 120." Apologists, therefore, either suppose the

appearance to 500 to have taken place in Jerusalem, when numbers of

pilgrims

{493}

from Galilee and other parts were in the Holy City, or that it occurred

in Galilee itself, where they suppose believers to have been more

numerous.(1) This is the merest conjecture; and there is not even ground

for asserting that there were so many as 500 brethren in any one place,

by whom Jesus could have been seen.

The appearance to James is not mentioned in any of our Gospels. Jerome

preserves a legend from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which states that

James, after having drunk the cup of the Lord, swore that he would not

eat bread until he should see him risen from the dead. When Jesus rose,

therefore, he appeared to James; and, ordering a table and bread to be

brought, blessed and broke the bread, and gave it to James.(2) Beyond

this legendary story there is no other record of the report given

by Paul. The occasion on which he was seen by "all the Apostles" is

indefinite, and cannot be identified with any account in the Gospels.

It is asserted, however, that, although Paul does not state from whom he

"received" the report of these appearances of the risen Jesus, he must

have heard them from the Apostles themselves. At any rate, it is added,

Paul professes that his preaching on the death, burial, and Resurrection

is the same as that of the other Apostles.(3) That the other Apostles

preached the resurrection of Jesus may be a fact, but we have no

information as to the precise statements they made. We shall presently

discuss the doctrine from this point of view, but here we must confine

ourselves to Paul. It is undeniable that Paul

{494}

neither enters into details nor cites authority for the particular

appearances which he mentions. As for the inference that, associating

with the Apostles, he must have been informed by them of the appearances

of Jesus, we may say that this by no means follows so clearly as is

supposed. Paul was singularly independent, and in his writings he

directly disclaims all indebtedness to the elder Apostles. He claims

that his Gospel is not after man, nor was it taught to him by man, but

through revelation of Jesus Christ(1) Now Paul himself informs us of

his action after it pleased God to reveal his Son in him that he might

preach him among the Gentiles. It might, indeed, have been reasonably

expected that Paul should then have sought out those who could have

informed him of all the extraordinary occurrences supposed to have taken

place after the death of Jesus. Paul does nothing of the kind. He is

apparently quite satisfied with his own convictions. "Immediately,"

he says, in his wondrously human and characteristic letter to the

Galatians, "I communicated not with flesh and blood; neither went I away

to Jerusalem to them who were Apostles before me, but I went away to

Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went

up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and abode with him fifteen days; but

other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the brother of the Lord.

Now the things which I write, behold before God I lie not.... Then after

fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem,"(2)--upon which occasion,

we know, his business was not of a nature to allow us to suppose he

obtained much information regarding the Resurrection. We may ask: Is

there that thirst for information

{495}

regarding the facts and doctrines of Christianity displayed here, which

entitles us to suppose that Paul eagerly and minutely investigated the

evidence for them? We think not. Paul made up his own mind in his own

way and, having waited three years without asking a question, it is not

probable that the questions which he then asked were of any searching

nature. The protest that he saw none of the other Apostles may prove

his independence, but it certainly does not prove his anxiety for

information. When Paul went up to make the acquaintance of Cephas his

object clearly was not to be taught by him, but to place himself in

communication with the man whom he believed to be the chief of the

Apostles and, we may assume, largely with a view to establish a friendly

feeling, and secure his recognition of his future ministry. We should

not, of course, be justified in affirming that the conversation

between the two great Apostles never turned upon the subject of the

Resurrection, but we think that it is obvious that Paul's visit was not

in the least one of investigation. He believed; he believed that certain

events had occurred "according to the Scriptures;" and the legitimate

inference from Paul's own statements must be that, in this visit after

three years, his purpose was in no way connected with a search for

evidential information. The author of Acts, it will be remembered,

represents him as, before any visit to Jerusalem, publicly and boldly

preaching in Damascus that Jesus is the Son of God, and "confounding the

Jews.... proving that this is the Christ."(1) This representation,

it will be admitted, shows an advanced condition of belief little

supporting the idea of subsequent investigation. When all conjectures

are exhausted, however, we have the one distinct fact

{496}

remaining, that Paul gives no authority for his report that Jesus was

seen by the various persons mentioned, nor does he furnish any means by

which we can judge of the nature and reality of the alleged phenomena.

We continue here to speak of the appearances to others, reserving the

appearance to himself, as standing upon a different basis, for separate

examination.

What is the value of this evidence? The fact to be proved is that, after

a man had been crucified, dead, and buried, he actually rose from the

dead, and appeared alive to many persons. The evidence is that Paul,

writing some twenty years after the supposed miraculous occurrences,

states, without detailed information of any kind, and without pretending

to have himself been an eyewitness of the phenomena, that he has been

told that Jesus was, after his death and burial, seen alive on the

occasions mentioned! As to the Apostle Paul himself, let it be said in

the strongest and most emphatic manner possible that we do not suggest

the most distant suspicion of the sincerity of any historical

statement he makes. We implicitly accept the historical statements, as

distinguished from inferences, which proceed from his pen. It cannot be

doubted that Paul was told that such appearances had taken place. We do

not question the fact that he believed them to have taken place; and we

shall hereafter discuss the weight to be attached to this circumstance.

Does this, however, guarantee the truth of the reports or inferences of

those who informed the Apostle? Does the mere passage of any story

or tradition through Paul necessarily transmute error into

truth--self-deception or hallucination into objective fact? Are

we--without any information as to what was really stated to Paul, as to

the personality and character of his

{497}

informants, as to the details of what was believed, to have occurred, as

to the means taken or which it might have been possible to take to test

the reality of the alleged phenomena, without an opportunity of judging

for ourselves on a single point--to believe in the reality of these

appearances simply because Paul states that he has been informed that

they occurred, and himself believes the report?

So far as the belief of Paul is concerned, we may here remark that his

views as to the miraculous Charismata in the Church do not prepare us to

feel any confidence in the sobriety of his judgment in connection

with alleged supernatural occurrences. We have no reliance upon his

instinctive mistrust of such statements, or his imperative requirement

of evidence, but every reason to doubt them. On the other hand, without

in any way imputing wilful incorrectness or untruth to the reporters of

such phenomena, let it be remembered how important a part inference has

to play in the narrative of every incident, and how easy it is to draw

erroneous inferences from bare facts.(1) In proportion as persons are

ignorant, on the one hand, and have their minds disturbed, on the other,

by religious depression or excitement, hope, fear, or any other powerful

emotion, they are liable to confound facts and inferences, and both to

see and analyse wrongly. In the case of a supposed appearance

1 We may merely in passing refer to the case of Mary

Magdalene in the fourth Gospel. She sees a figure standing

beside her, and infers that it is the gardener:--presently

something else occurs which leads her to infer that she was

mistaken in her first inference, and to infer next, that it

is Jesus. It is a narrative upon which no serious argument

can be based, but had she at first turned away, her first

inference would have remained, and, according to the

narrative, have been erroneous. We might also argue that, if

further examination had taken place, her second inference

might have proved as erroneous as the first is declared to

have been.

{498}

alive of a person believed to be dead, it will scarcely be disputed,

there are many disturbing elements, especially when that person has just

died by a cruel and shameful death, and is believed to be the Messiah.

The occurrence which we at any time see is, strictly speaking, merely

a series of appearances, and the actual nature of the thing seen is

determined in our minds by inferences. How often are these inferences

correct? We venture to say that the greater part of the proverbial

incorrectness and inaccuracy which prevails arises from the circumstance

that inferences are not distinguished from facts, and are constantly

erroneous. Now in that age, under such circumstances, and with Oriental

temperaments, it is absolutely certain that there was exceptional

liability to error; and the fact that Paul repeats the statements of

unknown persons, dependent so materially upon inference, cannot possibly

warrant us in believing them when they contradict known laws which

express the results of universal experience. It is infinitely more

probable that these persons were mistaken, than that a dead man returned

to life again, and appeared to them. We shall presently consider how

much importance is to be attached to the mere belief in the occurrence

of such phenomena, but with regard to the appearances referred to by

Paul, except in so far as they attest the fact that certain persons may

have believed that Jesus appeared to them, such evidence has not the

slightest value, and is indeed almost ludicrously insufficient to

establish the reality of so stupendous a miracle as the Resurrection.

It will have been observed that of the Ascension there is not a

word--obviously, for Paul the Resurrection and Ascension were one act.

Having so far discussed Paul's report that Jesus rose

{499}

from the dead and was seen by others, we turn to his statement that,

last of all, he was seen also by himself. In the former cases, we have

had to complain of the total absence of detailed information as to the

circumstances under which he was supposed to have been seen; but it

may be expected that, at least in his own case, we shall have full and

minute particulars of so interesting and extraordinary a phenomenon.

Here again we are disappointed. Paul does not give us a single detail.

He neither tells us when, where, nor how he saw Jesus. It was all the

more important that he should have entered into the particulars of this

apparition, because there is one peculiarity in his case which requires

notice. Whereas it may be supposed that in the other instances Jesus is

represented as being seen immediately after the Resurrection and before

his Ascension, the appearance to Paul must be placed years after that

occurrence is alleged to have taken place. The question, therefore,

arises: Was the appearance to Paul of the same character as the former?

Paul evidently considers that it was. He uses the very same word when he

says "he was seen [------] by me," that he employs in stating that

"he was seen [------] by Cephas" and the rest, and he classes all the

appearances together in precisely the same way. If, therefore, Paul

knew anything of the nature of the appearances to the others, and yet

considers them to have been of the same nature as his own, an accurate

account of his own vision might have enabled us in some degree to

estimate that of the others. Even without this account, it is something

to know that Paul believed that there was no difference between the

earlier and later appearances. And yet, if we reflect that in the

appearances immediately after the Resurrection the representation is

that Jesus possessed the very same body that had

{500}

hung on the cross and been laid in the sepulchre, and that, according

to the Gospels, he exhibited his wounds, allowed them to be touched,

assured the disciples of his corporeality by permitting himself to be

handled, and even by eating food in their presence, and that in the

case of Paul the appearance took place years after Jesus is said to have

ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God, the identity

of the apparitions becomes a suggestive feature.

The testimony of Paul must at least override that of the Gospels, and

whatever may have been the vision of Paul, we may fairly assume that

the vision of Peter and the rest was like it. Beyond this inference,

however, Paul gives us no light with regard to the appearance of Jesus

to himself. He merely affirms that Jesus did appear to him. "Have I not

seen Jesus our Lord?" he says in one place.(1) Elsewhere he relates:

"But when he was pleased, who set me apart from my mother's womb, and

called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might

preach him among the Gentiles; immediately, I communicated not with

flesh and blood.... but I went away into Arabia and returned again

unto Damascus."(2) Various opinions have been expressed regarding the

rendering of [------].

The great majority of critics agree that the direct and natural sense

must be adopted: "to reveal his son in me," that is to say, "within me,"

"in my spirit."(3) Others maintain that [------] must be

{501}

rendered "through me,"(1) giving [------] the sense of [------]; but

in that case the following context would be quite unnecessary.

Hilgenfeld(2) thinks that the meaning is "in his person;" and

Ruckert(3) and a few others read "to me." The liberties taken by

interpreters of the New Testament with the preposition [------], too

frequently from preconceived dogmatic reasons, are remarkable. The

importance of this passage chiefly lies in the question whether the

revelation here referred to is the same as the appearance to him of

Jesus of the Corinthian letter. Some critics incline to the view that

it is so,(4) whilst others consider that Paul does not thus speak of

his vision, but rather of the doctrine concerning Jesus which formed his

Gospel, and which Paul claimed to have received, not from man, but by

revelation from God.(5) Upon this point we have only a few remarks to

make. If it be understood that Paul refers to the appearance to him of

Jesus, it is clear that he represents it in these words as a subjective

vision, within his own consciousness. If, on the other hand, he do not

refer to the appearance, then the passage loses all distinct reference

to that occurrence. We do not intend to lay any further stress upon the

expression than this, and it is fair to add that we do not think there

is any special reference to the apparition of Jesus in the

{502}

passage, but simply an allusion to his conversion to Christianity, which

the Apostle considered a revelation in his mind of the true character

and work of the Christ which had previously been so completely

misunderstood by him. We may as well say at once that we desire to take

the argument in its broadest form, without wasting time by showing that

Paul himself uses language which seems to indicate that he recognised

the appearance of Jesus to have been merely subjective. The only other

passage which we need now mention is the account which Paul gives,

2 Cor. xii. 2 ff, of his being caught up to the third heaven. A few

critics consider that this may be the occasion on which Jesus appeared

to him, to which he refers in the passage of the former letter which

we are considering,(1) but the great majority are opposed to the

supposition. In any case there is no evidence that the occasions are

identical, and we therefore are not entitled to assume that they are so.

It will have been observed that we have hitherto confined our attention

wholly to the undoubted writings of Paul. Were there no other reason

than the simple fact that we are examining the evidence of Paul himself,

and have, therefore, to do with that evidence alone, we should be

thoroughly justified in this course. It is difficult to clear the mind

of statements regarding Paul and his conversion which are made in the

Acts of the Apostles, but it is absolutely essential that we should

understand clearly what Paul himself tells us and what he does not, for

the present totally excluding Acts. What then does Paul himself tell us

of the circumstances under which he saw Jesus?

{503}

Absolutely nothing. The whole of his evidence for the Resurrection

consists in the bare statement that he did see Jesus. Now can the fact

that any man merely affirms, without even stating the circumstances,

that a person once dead and buried has risen from the dead and been seen

by him, be seriously considered satisfactory evidence for so astounding

a miracle? Is it possible for any one of sober mind, acquainted with

the nature of the proposition, on the one hand, and with the innumerable

possibilities of error, on the other, to regard such an affirmation even

as evidence of much importance in such a matter? We venture to say that,

in such a case, an affirmation of this nature, even made by a man of

high character and ability, would possess little weight. If the person

making it, although of the highest honour, were known to suppose himself

the subject of constant revelations and visions, and if, perhaps, he had

a constitutional tendency to nervous excitement and ecstatic trance, his

evidence would have no weight at all. We shall presently have to speak

of this more in detail in connection with Paul. Such an allegation even

supported by the fullest information and most circumstantial statement

could not establish the reality of the miracle; without them, it has no

claim to belief. What is the value of a person's testimony who simply

makes an affirmation of some important matter, unaccompanied by

particulars, and the truth of which cannot be subjected to the test of

even the slightest cross-examination? It is worth nothing. It would not

be received at all in a Court of Justice. If we knew the whole of the

circumstances of the apparition to Paul, from which he inferred that

he had seen the risen Jesus, the natural explanation of the supposed

miracle might be

{504}

easy. There were no other witnesses of it. This is clear; for, had there

been, Paul must have mentioned them as he mentioned the five hundred.

We have only the report of a man who states that he had seen.Jesus,

unconfirmed by any witnesses. Under no circumstances could isolated

evidence like this be ol much value. Facts and inferences are alike

uncorroborated, but on the other hand are contradicted by universal

experience.

When we analyse the evidence, it is reduced to this: Paul believed that

he had seen Jesus. This belief constitutes the whole evidence of Paul

himself for the Resurrection. It is usual to argue that the powerful

effect which this belief produced upon Paul's life and teaching renders

this belief of extraordinary force as evidence. This we are not prepared

to admit. If the assertion that Jesus appeared to him had not been

believed by Paul, it would not have secured a moment's attention. That

this belief affected his life was the inevitable consequence of such

belief. Paul eminently combined works with faith in his own life. When

he believed Jesus to be an impostor, he did not content himself with

sneering at human credulity, but vigorously persecuted his followers.

When he came to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, he was not more

inactive, but became the irrepressible Apostle of the Gentiles. He

acted upon his convictions in both cases; but his mere persecution

of Christianity no more proved Jesus to be an impostor than his mere

preaching of Christianity proved Jesus to be the Messiah. It only proved

that he believed so. He was as earnest in the one case as in the other.

We repeat, therefore, that the evidence of Paul for the Resurrection

amounts to

{505}

nothing more than the unfeigned belief that Jesus had been seen by him.

We shall presently further examine the value of this belief as evidence

for so astounding a miracle.

We must not form exaggerated conceptions of the effect upon Paul of

the appearance to him of Jesus. That his convictions and views of

Christianity were based upon the reality of the Resurrection is

undeniable, and that they received powerful confirmation and impulse

through his vision of Jesus is also not to be doubted, but let us clear

our minds of representations derived from other sources and clearly

understand what Paul himself does and does not say of this vision, and

for this purpose we must confine ourselves to the undoubted writings of

the Apostle. Does Paul himself ascribe his conversion to Christianity to

the fact of his having seen Jesus? Most certainly not. That is a notion

derived solely from the statements in Acts. The sudden and miraculous

conversion of Paul is a product of the same pen which produced the story

of the sudden conversion of the thief on the cross, an episode equally

unknown to other writers. Paul neither savs when nor where he saw Jesus.

The revelation of God's Son in him not being an allusion to this vision

of Jesus, but merely a reference to the light which dawned upon Paul's

mind as to the character and mission of Jesus, there is no ground

whatever, from the writings of the Apostle himself, to connect the

appearance of Jesus with the conversion of Paul. The statement in the

Epistle to the Galatians simply amounts to this: When it pleased him

who elected him from his mother's womb, and called him by his grace, to

reveal to his mind the truth concerning his Son, that he might preach

{506}

him among the Gentiles, he communicated not with flesh and blood,

neither did he go up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before him,

but immediately went away to Arabia, and after that returned again to

Damascus. It can scarcely be doubted that Paul here refers to his change

of views--to his conversion--but as little can it be doubted that he

does not ascribe that conversion to the appearance to him of Jesus

spoken of in the Corinthian letter.

Let any reader who honestly desires to ascertain the exact position of

the case ask himself the simple question whether, supposing the Acts of

the Apostles never to have existed, it is possible to deduce from this,

or any other statement of Paul, that he actually ascribes his conversion

to the fact that Jesus appeared to him in a supernatural manner. He may

possibly in some degree base his apostolic claims upon that appearance,

although it may be doubted how far he does even this; if he did so, it

would only prove the reality of his belief, but not the reality of the

vision; but there is no evidence whatever in the writings of Paul that

he connected his conversion with the appearance of Jesus. All that

we can legitimately infer seems to be that, before his adoption of

Christianity, he had persecuted the Church;(1) and further it may be

gathered from the passage in the Galatian letter, that at the time when

this change occurred he. was at Damascus. At least he says that from

Arabia he "returned again to Damascus," which seems to imply that he

first went from that city to Arabia. When we consider the expressions

in the two letters, it becomes apparent that Paul does not set forth any

instantaneous conversion of the

{507}

character related elsewhere. To the Galatians he describes his election

from his mother's womb and call by the grace of God as antecedent to the

revelation of his Son in him: "When he who separated me from my mother's

womb and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me,

that I might preach him among the Gentiles," &c. And if the reading

"through me" be adopted, the sense we are pointing out becomes still

more apparent. In the Corinthian letter again, the expressions should be

remarked: v. 8. "And last of all he was seen by me also, as the one born

out of due time. 9. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not fit

to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God: 10. but

by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was (bestowed)

upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all,

yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11. Whether, therefore, it were

I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed."(1) Peter sees Jesus first,

Paul sees him last; and as the thought uppermost in his mind in

writing this epistle was the parties in the Corinthian Church, and the

opposition to himself and denial even of his apostleship, the mention

of his having seen Jesus immediately leads him to speak of his apostolic

claims. "Am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" he had

just before exclaimed, and proceeded to defend himself against his

opponents: here again he reverts to the same

508}{

subject, with proud humility calling himself, on the one hand, "the

least of the Apostles," but, on the other, asserting that he had

"laboured more than they all." He is led to contrast his past life with

his present; the time when he persecuted the Church with that in

which he built it up. There is, however, no allusion to any miraculous

conversion when he says: "by the grace of God I am what I am." He

may consider his having seen the Lord and become a witness of his

resurrection one part of his qualification for the Apostolate, but

assuredly he does not represent this as the means of his conversion.

We shall not pause to discuss at length how far being a witness for the

resurrection really was made a necessary qualification for the apostolic

office. The passages, Luke xxiv. 48, Acts i. 22, ii. 32, upon which the

theory mainly rests, are not evidence of the fact which can for a moment

be accepted. It is obvious that the Twelve were apostles from having

been chosen disciples of the Master from the commencement of his active

career, and not from any fortuitous circumstance at its close. If

Paul says: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" he

continues: "Are ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle unto

others, yet I am at least to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are

ye in the Lord. My defence to them that examine me is this."(1) There

can be no doubt that the claims of Paul to the Apostolate were, during

his life, constantly denied, and his authority rejected. As we have

elsewhere pointed out, there is no evidence that his apostleship was

ever recognised by the elder Apostles, nor that his claim was ever

submitted to them. Even in the

{509}

second century, the Clementine Homilies deny him the honour, and make

light of his visions and revelations. All the evidence we possess shows

that Paul's vision of Jesus did not secure for him much consideration in

his own time, a circumstance which certainly does not tend to establish

its reality.

What weight can we, then, attach to the representation in the Acts of

the Apostles of the conversion of Paul? Our examination of that work

has sufficiently shown that none of its statements can be received as

historical. Where we have been able to compare them with the epistles

of Paul, they have not been in agreement. Nothing could be more obvious

than the contradiction between the narrative of Paul's conduct after his

conversion, according to Acts, and the account which Paul gives in the

Galatian letter. We need not repeat the demonstration here. Where we

possess the means of comparison, we discover the inaccuracy of Acts. Why

should we suppose that which we cannot compare more accurate? So far as

our argument is concerned, it matters very little whether we exclude the

narrative of the conversion of Acts or not. We point out, however,

that there is no confirmation whatever in the writings of Paul of the

representation of his conversion by means of a vision of Jesus, which,

upon all considerations, may much more reasonably be assigned to a

somewhat later period. If we ventured to conjecture, we should say that

the author of Acts has expanded the scattered sayings of Paul into this

narrative, making the miraculous conversion by a personal interposition

of Jesus, which he therefore relates no less than three times,

counterbalance the disadvantage of his not having followed Jesus in the

{510}

flesh.(1) It is curious that he has introduced the bare statement into

the third Synoptic, that Jesus "was seen by Simon" [------],(2) which

none of the other evangelists mentions, but which he may have found,

without farther particulars, [------], in the Epistle whence he derived,

perhaps, materials for the other story. In no case can the narrative in

Acts be received as evidence of the slightest value; but in order not to

pass over even such statements in silence, we shall very briefly examine

it.

The narrative is repeated thrice: in the first instance (ix. 1 ff.) as

a historical account of the transaction; next (xxii. 4 if.) introduced

into a speech supposed to be delivered by Paul to the Jews when taken

prisoner in consequence of their uproar on finding him in the Temple

purifying himself with the four men who had a vow,--a position which

cannot historically be reconciled with the character and views of Paul;

and, thirdly, again put into the mouth of the Apostle (xxvi. 9 ff.)

when he pleads his cause before King Agrippa. Paul is represented in the

headlong career of persecuting the Church, and going with letters from

the high priest empowering him to bring Christian men and women bound

unto Jerusalem. "And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh

to Damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of the

heaven, and he fell upon the earth and heard a voice saying unto him:

Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord?

And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise and go into the

city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."(3) In the second

account, there is so far

{511}

no very wide discrepancy, but there, as in the third, the time is said

to be about noon. There is a very considerable difference in the third

account, however, more especially in the report of what is said by

the voice: xxvi. 13. "At midday, O King, I saw in the way a light from

heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and

those journeying with me; 14. And when we all fell to the earth, I

heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew tongue: Saul, Saul, why

persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against pricks. 15.

And I said: Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said: I am Jesus whom thou

persecutest. 16. But rise and stand upon thy feet; for I was seen by

thee for this purpose, to choose thee a minister and a witness both of

these things which thou sawest, and of the things in which I will appear

unto thee; 17. delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles,

unto whom I send thee; 18. to open their eyes, that they may turn them

from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that

they may receive forgiveness of sins, and a lot among them which are

sanctified by faith that is in me."(1)

{512}

It will be admitted that this address is widely different from that

reported in the two earlier accounts. Apologists argue that, in this

third narrative, Paul has simply transferred from Ananias to Jesus the

message delivered to him by the former, according to the second account.

Let us first see what Ananias is there represented as saying. Acts xxii.

14: "And he said: The God of our fathers chose thee, to know his will

and to see the Righteous One'(1) 15. for thou shalt be a witness to him

unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." (2) Now Paul clearly

professes in the speech which he is represented as delivering before

Agrippa to state what the voice said to him: "And he said," "and I

said," "and he said," distinctly convey the meaning that the report is

to be what actually was said. If the sense of what Ananias said to

him is embodied in part of the address ascribed to the voice, it is

strangely altered and put into the first person; but, beyond this,

there is much added which neither appears in the speech of Ananias

nor anywhere else in any of the narratives. If we further compare the

instructions given to Ananias in the vision of the first narrative with

his words in the second and those ascribed to the voice in the third, we

shall see that these again differ very materially. Acts ix. 15. "But the

Lord said unto him: Go; for this man is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear

my name before Gentiles and kings, and the sons of Israel: 16. For I

will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."(3)

1 It will be remembered that this epithet occurs in Acts

iii. 14, vii. 52, and nowhere else in the New Testament.

{513}

What must we think of a writer who deals so freely with his materials,

and takes such liberties even with so serious a matter as this heavenly

vision and the words of the glorified Jesus?

In the third account, Jesus is represented as saying: "It is hard for

thee to kick against pricks."(1) This is a well-known proverbial

saying, frequently used by classical Greek and Latin authors,(2) and

not altogether strange to Hebrew. It is a singularly anthropomorphic

representation to put such a saying into the mouth of the divine

apparition, and it assists in betraying the mundane origin of the whole

scene. Another point deserving consideration is, that Paul is not told

what he is to do by the voice of Jesus, but is desired to go into the

city to be there instructed by Ananias. This is clearly opposed to

Paul's own repeated asseverations. "For neither did I receive it from

man nor was taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ,"(3)

is his statement. The details of the incident itself, moreover, are

differently stated in the various accounts and cannot be reconciled.

According to the first account, the companions of Paul "stood

speechless" (ix. 7); in the third, they "all fell to the earth" (xxvi.

14). The explanation, that they first fell to the ground and then rose

up, fails

{514}

satisfactorily to harmonise the two statements; as does likewise the

suggestion that the first expression is simply an idiomatic mole of

saying that they were speechless, independent of position. Then again,

in the first account, it is said that the men stood speechless, "hearing

the voice [------] but seeing no one."' In the second we are told: "And

they that were with me saw indeed the light; but they heard not the

voice [------] of him speaking to me."(2) No two statements could be

more contradictory. The attempt to reconcile them by explaining the verb

[------] in the one place "to hear" and in the other "to understand"

is inadmissible, because wholly arbitrary. It is quite obvious that the

word is used in the same sense in both passages, the difference being

merely the negative. In the third account, the voice is described as

speaking "in the Hebrew tongue,"(3) which was probably the native

tongue of the companions of Paul from Jerusalem. If they heard the voice

speaking Hebrew, they must have understood it The effort to make the

vision clearly objective, and, at the same time, to confine it to Paul,

leads to these complications. The voice is heard, though the speaker is

not seen, by the men, in the one story, whilst the light is seen, and

the voice not heard, in the other, and yet it speaks in Hebrew according

to the third, and even makes use of classical proverbs, and uses

language wondrously similar to that of the author of Acts.

We may remark here that Paul's Gospel was certainly not revealed to him

upon this occasion; and, therefore, the expressions in his epistles upon

this subject must be referred to other revelations. There is, however,

{515}

another curious point to be observed. Paul is not described as having

actually seen Jesus in the vision. According to the first two accounts,

a light shines round about him and he falls to the ground and hears a

voice; when he rises he is blind.(1) If in the third account, he sees

the light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining round

about him and his companions,(2) they equally see it, according to the

second account.(3) The blindness, therefore, is miraculous and symbolic,

for the men are not blinded by the light.(4) It is singular that Paul

nowhere refers to this blindness in his letters. It cannot be doubted

that the writer's purpose is to symbolise the very change from darkness

to light, in the case of Paul, which, after Old Testament prophecies,

is referred to in the words ascribed, in the third account,(5) to the

voice. Paul, thus, only sees the light which surrounds the glorified

Jesus, but not his own person, and the identification proceeds only from

the statement: "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." It is true that

the expression is strangely put into the mouth of Jesus, in the third

account: "for I was seen by thee [------] for this purpose," &c,(6)

but the narrative excludes the actual sight of the speaker, and it is

scarcely possible to read the words just quoted, and their context,

without being struck by their incongruity. We need not indicate the

sources of this representation of light shrouding the heavenly vision,

so common in the Old Testament. Before proceeding to the rest of the

account, we may point out in passing the similarity of the details of

this scene to the vision of Daniel x. 7-9.

{516}

Returning, however, to the first narrative, we are told that, about

the same time as this miracle was occurring to Paul, a supernatural

communication was being made to Ananias in Damascus: ix. 10. "And to him

said the Lord in a vision: Ananias. And he said, Behold I am here,

Lord. 11. And the Lord said unto him: Rise and go to the street which is

called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul,

of Tarsus; for, behold he prayeth; 12. and he saw a man named Ananias

who came in and put his hand on him that he might receive sight. 13. But

Ananias answered, Lord, I heard from many concerning this man, how much

evil he did to thy saints in Jerusalem: 14. And here he hath authority

from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15. But

the Lord said, Go, &c. (quoted above). 17. And Ananias went away, and

entered into the house; and having put his hands on him said: Brother

Saul, the Lord hath sent me, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in

the way by which thou earnest, that thou mightest receive sight and be

filled with the Holy Spirit. 18. And immediately there fell from

his eyes as it were scales; and he received sight, rose up, and was

baptized, and having taken food was strengthened." We have already had

occasion to point out, in connection with the parallelism kept up

in Acts between the Apostle of the Gentiles and the Apostle of the

Circumcision, that a similar double vision is narrated by the author as

occurring to Peter and Cornelius. Some further vision is referred to in

v. 12; for in no form of the narrative of Paul's vision on the way to

Damascus is he represented as seeing a man named Ananias coming to him

for the purpose described. Many questions are

{517}

suggested by the story just quoted. How did Ananias know that Paul had

authority from the chief priests to arrest any one? How could he

argue in such a way with the Lord? Did he not then know that Jesus had

appeared to Paul on the way? How did he get that information? Is it not

an extraordinary thing that Paul never mentions Ananias in any of

his letters, nor in any way refers to these miracles? We have already

referred to the symbolic nature of the blindness, and recovery of sight

on receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized, and this is rendered

still more apparent by the statement: v. 9. "And he was three days

without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." We may further point out

that in immediate connection with this episode Paul is represented,

in the second account, as stating that, on going to Jerusalem, he has

another vision of Jesus:xxii. 17. "And it came to pass that, when I

returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the Temple, I was in a trance,

18. and saw him saying unto me: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of

Jerusalem; for they will not receive thy witness concerning me. 19. And

I said: Lord, they themselves know that I was wont to imprison and beat

in every synagogue them that believe on thee. 20. And when the blood of

Stephen, thy witness, was shed, I also was standing by and consenting,

and keeping the garments of them that slew him. 21. And he said unto

me: Go, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." It seems

impossible, considering the utter silence of Paul, that the apparition

to which he refers can have spoken to him at length as described upon

these occasions.(1) We have elsewhere remarked

{518}

that there is not the slightest evidence in his own or other writings

connecting Stephen with Paul, and it may be appropriate to add here

that, supposing him to have been present when the martyr exclaimed: "Lo,

I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right

hand of God,"(1) it is singular that he does not name him as one of

those by whom Jesus "was seen."

To resume this discussion, however: we have already shown that the

statements of the Acts regarding Paul's conduct after this alleged

vision are distinctly in contradiction with the statements of Paul.

The explanation here given of the cause of Paul's leaving Jerusalem,

moreover, is not in agreement with Acts ix. 29 f., and much less

with Gal. i. 20 ff. The three narratives themselves are full of

irreconcilable differences and incongruities, which destroy all

reasonable confidence in any substantial basis for the story. It is

evident that the three narratives are from the same pen, and betray the

composition of the author of Acts.(2) They cannot be regarded as true

history.(3) The hand of the composer is very apparent in the lavish use

of the miraculous, so characteristic of the whole work.

{519}

It is worth while to catalogue the supernatural incidents of this

episode. 1 The vision; 2 Companions hearing the voice but seeing no man,

or not hearing the voice but seeing the light; 3 Paul's blindness; 4

Vision of Ananias; 5 Restoration of sight to Paul; 6 Trance of Paul in

Jerusalem. Such a narrative cannot be received in evidence.

The whole of the testimony before us, then, simply amounts to this: Paul

believed that he had seen Jesus some years after his death: there is no

evidence that he ever saw him during his life.(1) He states that he had

"received" that he was seen by various other persons, but he does not

give the slightest information as to who told him, or what reasons he

had for believing the statements to be correct. And still less does he

narrate the particulars of the alleged appearances or even of his own

vision. Although we have no detailed statements of these extraordinary

phenomena, we may assume that, as Paul himself believed that he had

seen Jesus, certain other people of the circle of his disciples likewise

believed that they had seen the risen Master. The whole of the evidence

for the Resurrection reduces itself to an undefined belief on the part

of a few persons, in a notoriously superstitious age, that after Jesus

had died and been buried they had seen him alive. These visions, it is

admitted, occurred at a time of the most intense religious excitement,

and under circumstances of wholly exceptional mental agitation and

distress. The wildest alternations of fear, doubt, hope and

{520}

indefinite expectation added their effects to oriental imaginations

already excited by indignation at the fate of their Master, and sorrow

or despair at such a dissipation of their Messianic dreams. There was

present every element of intellectual and moral disturbance. Now must we

seriously ask again whether this bare and wholly unjustified belief can

be accepted as satisfactory evidence for so astounding a miracle as the

Resurrection? Can the belief of such men, in such an age, establish the

reality of a phenomenon which contradicts universal experience? It comes

to us in the form of bare belief from the Age of Miracles, unsupported

by facts, uncorroborated by evidence, unaccompanied by proof of

investigation, and unprovided with material for examination. What is

such belief worth? We have no.hesitation in saying that it is absolutely

worth nothing.

We might here well bring our inquiry to a close, for we have no further

evidence to deal with. The problem, however, is so full of interest that

we cannot yet lay it down, and although we must restrain our argument

within certain rigid limits, and wholly refrain from entering into

regions of mere speculation, we may further discuss the origin and

nature of the belief in the Resurrection. Recognizing the fact that,

although its nature and extent are very indefinite, there existed

an undoubted belief that, after his death, Jesus was seen alive; the

argument is advanced that there must have been a real basis for this

belief.

{521}

"The existence of a Christian society," says an apologetic writer, "is

the first and (if rightly viewed) the final proof of the historic truth

of the miracle on which it was founded. It may indeed be said that the

Church was founded upon the belief in the Resurrection, and not upon the

Resurrection itself: and that the testimony must therefore be limited

to the attestation of the belief, and cannot reach to the attestation

of the fact. But belief expressed in action is for the most part the

strongest evidence which we can have of any historic event. Unless,

therefore, it can be shown that the origin of the apostolic belief in

the Resurrection, with due regard to the fulness of its characteristic

form, and the breadth and rapidity of its propagation can be

satisfactorily explained on other grounds, the belief itself is a

sufficient proof of the fact."(1) This is obviously Paley's argument

of the Twelve men(2) in a condensed form. Belief in action may be the

strongest evidence which we can have of any historic event; but when

the historic event happens to be an event in religious history, and an

astounding miracle like the Resurrection, such bare evidence, emanating

from such an age, is not very strong evidence, after all. The breadth

and rapidity of its propagation absolutely prove nothing but belief in

the report of those who believed; although it is very far from evident

that people embraced Christianity from a rational belief in the

Resurrection. No one pretends that the Gentiles who believed made a

preliminary examination of the truth of the Resurrection. If breadth

{522}

and rapidity of propagation be taken as sufficient proof of the truth

of facts, we might consider Buddhism and Mahomedanism as satisfactorily

attested creeds. There could not be a greater fallacy than the

supposition that the origin of a belief must be explained upon other

grounds, or that belief itself accepted as a sufficient proof of the

fact asserted. The truth or falsehood of any allegation is determined

by a balance of evidence, and the critic is no more bound to account for

the formation of erroneous belief than he is bound to believe because he

may not, after a great lapse of time, be able so clearly to demonstrate

the particular manner in which that erroneous belief originated, that

any other mode is definitely excluded. The belief that a dead man rose

from the dead and appeared to several persons alive is at once disposed

of upon abstract grounds. The alleged occurrence is contrary to

universal experience; but on the other hand the prevalence of defective

observation, mistaken inference, self-deception and credulity, any of

which might lead to such belief, are only too well known to it. Is it

necessary to define which peculiar form of error is present in every

false belief, before, with this immense preponderance of evidence

against it, we finally reject it? We think not. Any explanation

consistent with universal experience must be adopted, rather than a

belief which is contradictory to it.

There are two theories which have been advanced to explain the origin

of the apostolic belief in the Resurrection, to which we may now briefly

refer; but it must be clearly understood that the suggestion of an

explanation is quite apart from our examination of the actual evidence

for the Resurrection. Fifty

{523}

explanations might be offered and be considered unsatisfactory without

in the least degree altering the fact, that the testimony for the final

miracle of Christianity is totally insufficient, and that the allegation

that it actually occurred cannot be maintained. The first explanation,

adopted by some able critics, is that Jesus did not really die on the

cross, but being taken down alive, and his body being delivered to

friends, he subsequently revived. In support of this theory, it is

argued that Jesus is represented by the Gospels as expiring after having

been but three to six hours upon the cross, which would have been an

un-precedentedly rapid death. It is affirmed that only the hands and

not the feet were nailed to the cross. The crurifragium, not usually

accompanying crucifixion, is dismissed as unknown to the three

Synoptists, and only inserted by the fourth Evangelist for dogmatic

reasons, and of course the lance-thrust disappears with the

leg-breaking. Thus the apparent death was that profound faintness which

might well fall upon such an organization after some hours of physical

and mental agony on the cross, following the continued strain and

fatigue of the previous night. As soon as he had sufficiently recovered,

it is supposed that Jesus visited his disciples a few times to re-assure

them, but with precaution on account of the Jews, and was by them

believed to have risen from the dead, as indeed he himself may likewise

have supposed, reviving as he had done from the faintness of death.(1)

{524}

Seeing, however, that his death had set the crown upon his work, the

Master withdrew into impenetrable obscurity and was heard of no more.

We have given but the baldest outline of this theory; for it would

occupy too much space to represent it adequately and show the ingenuity

with which it is worked out, and the very considerable support which it

receives from statements in the Gospels, and from inferences deducible

from them. We do not ourselves adopt this explanation, although it must

be clearly repeated that, were the only alternative to do so, or to fall

back upon the hypothesis of a miracle, we should consider it preferable.

A serious objection brought against the theory seems to be, that it is

not natural to suppose that, after such intense and protracted fatigue

and anxiety followed by the most cruel agony on the cross, agony both of

soul and body,(1) ending in unconsciousness only short of death, Jesus

could within a short period have presented himself to his disciples with

such an aspect as could have conveyed to them the impression of

{525}

victory over death by the Prince of Life. He must still, it is urged,

have presented the fresh traces of suffering and weakness little

calculated to inspire them with the idea of divine power and glory. This

is partly, but not altogether, true. There is no evidence, as we shall

presently show, that the appearances of Jesus occurred so soon as is

generally represented; and, in their astonishment at again seeing the

Master whom they supposed to be dead, the disciples could not have been

in a state minutely to remark the signs of suffering,(1) then probably,

with the power of a mind like that of Jesus over physical weakness,

little apparent. Time and imagination would doubtless soon have effaced

from their minds any such impressions, and left only the belief that he

had risen from the dead to develop and form the Christian doctrine.

A more powerful objection seems to us the disappearance of Jesus.

We cannot easily persuade ourselves that such a teacher could have

renounced his work and left no subsequent trace of his existence. Still,

it must be admitted that many explanations might be offered on this

head, the most obvious being that death, whether as the result of the

terrible crisis through which he had passed, or from some other cause,

may soon after have ensued. We repeat, however, that we neither advance

this explanation nor think it worth while to discuss it seriously, not

because we think it untenable, although we do not adopt it, but because

we consider that there is another explanation of the origin of belief in

the Resurrection which

1 The repeated statement in the Gospels that the women and

his disciples did not at first recognize the risen Jesus,

are quoted in connection with this point.

{528}

is better, and which is in our opinion the true one. We mean that which

is usually called the "vision-hypothesis."