The Preceding Chapter Continued
“LET us now turn to Luke. His account runs as follows:—
“‘Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they
came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices which they had prepared, and
certain others with them. _And they found the stone rolled away from the
sepulchre_. _And they entered in_, _and found not the body of the Lord
Jesus_. And it came to pass as they were much perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in shining garments, _and as they were
afraid_, _and bowed their faces to the earth_, they said unto them, “_Why
seek ye the living among the dead_? He is not here, but is risen:
_remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee_, saying,
‘_The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be
crucified_, _and the third day rise again_.” _And they remembered his
words_, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto
the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and
Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them which told
these things unto the Apostles. _And their words seemed unto them as
idle tales_, _and they believed them not_. Then arose Peter, and went
unto the sepulchre: and, stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid
by themselves, and departed wondering in himself at that which was come
to pass.’
“When we compare this account with John’s we are at once struck with the
resemblances and the discrepancies. Luke and John indeed are both agreed
that Christ was seen alive after the Crucifixion. Both agree that the
tomb was found empty very early on the Sunday morning (_i.e._, within
thirty-six hours of the deposition from the Cross), and neither writer
affords us any clue whatever as to the time and manner of the removal of
the body; but here the resemblances end; the angelic vision of Mary, seen
_after_ Peter and John had departed from the tomb, and seen apparently by
Mary alone, in Luke finds its way into the van of the narrative, and
Peter is represented as having gone to the tomb, _not in consequence of
having been simply told that the body of Christ was missing_, _but
because he refused to believe the miraculous story which was told him by
the women_. In the fourth Gospel we heard of no miraculous story being
carried by Mary to Peter and John. The angels instead of being seen by
one person only, as would have appeared from the fourth Gospel, are now
seen _by many_; and the women instead of being almost stolidly
indifferent to the presence of supernatural beings, are afraid, and bow
down their faces to the earth; instead of merely wanting to be informed
why Mary was weeping, the angels speak with definite point, and as angels
might be expected to speak; they allude, also, to past prophecy, which
the women at once remember.
“Strange, that they should want reminding! And stranger still that a few
verses lower down we should find the Apostles remembering no prophetic
saying, but regarding the story of the women as mere idle tales. What
shall we say? Are not these differences precisely similar to those which
we are continually meeting with, when a case of exaggeration comes before
us? Can we accept _both_ the stories? Is this one of those cases in
which all would be made clear if we did but know _all_ the facts, or is
it rather one in which we can understand how easily the story given by
the one writer might become distorted into the version of the other?
Does it seem in any way improbable that within the forty years or so
between the occurrences recorded by John and the writing of Luke’s
Gospel, the apparently trifling, yet truly most important, differences
between the two writers should have been developed?
“No one will venture to say that the facts, upon the face of them, do not
strongly suggest such an inference, and that, too, with no conscious
fraud on the part of any of those through whose mouths the story must
have passed. If the fourth Gospel be assigned to John (and if it is
_not_ assigned to John the difficulties on the Christian side become so
great that the cause may be declared lost), his story is that of a
principal actor and eye-witness; it bears every impress of truth and none
of exaggeration upon any point which came under his own observation.
Even when he tells of what Mary Magdalene said she saw, we see the myth
in its earliest and crudest form; there is no attempt at circumstance in
connection with it, and abundant reason for suspecting its supernatural
character is given along with it; reason which to our minds is at any
rate sufficient to make us doubt it, but which would naturally have no
weight whatever with John after he had once seen Christ alive, or indeed
with us if we had been in his place. It is not to be wondered at that in
such times many a fresh bud should be grafted on to the original story;
indeed it was simply inevitable that this should have been the case. No
one would mean to deceive, but we know how, among uneducated and
enthusiastic persons, the marvellous has an irresistible tendency to
become more marvellous still; and, as far as we can gather, all the
causes which bring this about were more actively at work shortly after
the time of Christ’s first reappearance than at any other time which can
be readily called to mind. The main facts, as we derive them from the
consent of _both_ writers, were simply these:—That the tomb of Christ was
found unexpectedly empty on the Sunday morning; that this fact was
reported to the Apostles; that Peter went into the tomb and saw the linen
clothes laid by themselves; that Mary Magdalene said that she had seen
angels; and that eventually Christ shewed himself undoubtedly alive.
Both writers agree so far, but it is impossible to say that they agree
farther.
“Some may say that it is of little moment whether the angels appeared
first or last; whether they were seen by many or by one; whether, if seen
only by one, that one had previously been insane; whether they spoke as
angels might be expected to speak, _i.e._, to the point, and are shewn to
have been recognised as angels by the fear which their appearance caused;
or whether they caused no alarm, and said nothing which was in the least
equal to the occasion. But most men will feel that the whole complexion
of the story changes according to the answers which can be made to these
very questions. Surely they will also begin to feel a strong suspicion
that the story told by Luke is one which has not lost in the telling.
How natural was it that the angelic vision should find its way into the
foreground of the picture, and receive those little circumstantial
details of which it appeared most to stand in need; how desirable also
that the testimony of Mary should be corroborated by that of others who
were with her, and out of whom no devils had been cast. The first
Christians would not have been men and women at all unless they had felt
thus; but they _were_ men and women, and hence they acted after the
fashion of their age and unconsciously exaggerated; the only wonder is
that they did not exaggerate more, for we must remember that even though
the Apostles themselves be supposed to have been more judicially
unimpassioned and less liable to inaccuracy than we have reason to
believe they were, yet that from the very earliest ages of the Church
there would be some converts of an inferior stamp. No matter how small a
society is, there will be bad in it as well as good—there was a Judas
even in the twelve.
“But to speak less harshly, there must from the first have been some
converts who would be capable of reporting incautiously; visions and
dreams were vouchsafed to many, and not a few marvels may be referable to
this source; there is no trusting an age in which men are liable to give
a supernatural interpretation to an extraordinary dream, nor is there any
end to what may come of it, if people begin seriously confounding their
sleeping and waking impressions. In such times, then, Luke may have said
with a clear conscience that he had carefully sifted the truth of what he
wrote; but the world has not passed through the last two thousand years
in vain, and we are bound to insist upon a higher standard of
credibility. Luke would believe at once, and as a matter of course,
things which we should as a matter of course reject; yet it is probable
that he too had heard much that he rejected; he seems to have been
dissatisfied with all the records with the existence of which he was
aware; the account which he gives is possibly derived from some very
early report; even if this report arose at Jerusalem, and within a week
after the Crucifixion, it might well be very inaccurate, though
apparently supported by excellent authority, so that there is no
necessity for charging Luke with unusual credulity. No one can be
expected to be greatly in advance of his surroundings; it is well for
every one except himself if he should happen to be so, but no man is to
be blamed if he is not; it is enough to save him if he is fairly up to
the standard of his own times. ‘Morality’ is rather of the custom which
_is_, than of the custom which ought to be.
“Turning now to the account of Mark, we find the following:—
“‘And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James, and Salome had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint
him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came
unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among
themselves,
“Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” And
when they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away; for it was very
great. And entering into the sepulchre they saw _a young man_ sitting on
the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were
affrighted. And he saith unto them, “Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of
Nazareth which was crucified; he is risen; he is not here; behold the
place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter
that he goeth before you into Galilee: there ye shall see him, as he said
unto you.” And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; _for
they trembled and were amazed_, _neither said they any thing to any man_,
_for they were afraid_. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of
the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast
seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him as they
mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had
been seen of her, _believed not_.’
“Here we have substantially the same version as that given by Luke; there
is only one angel mentioned, but it may be said that it is possible that
there may have been another who is not mentioned, inasmuch as he remained
silent; the angelic vision, however, is again brought into the foreground
of the story and the fear of the women is even more strongly insisted on
than it was in Luke. The angel reminds the women that Christ had said
that he should be seen by his Apostles in Galilee, of which saying we
again find that the Apostles seem to have had no recollection. The linen
clothes have quite dropped out of the story, and we can detect no trace
of Peter and John’s visit to the tomb, but it is remarkable that the
women are represented as not having said anything about the presence of
the angel immediately on their having seen him; and this fact, which
might be in itself suspicious, is apologised for on the score of fear,
notwithstanding that their silence was a direct violation of the command
of the being whom they so greatly feared. We should have expected that
if they had feared him so much they would have done as he told them, but
here again everybody seems to act as in a dream or drama, in defiance of
all the ordinary principles of human action.
“Throughout the preceding paragraph we have assumed that Mark intended
his readers to understand that the young man seen in the tomb was an
angel; but, after all, this is rather a bold assumption. On what grounds
is it supported? Because Luke tells us that when the women reached the
tomb they found _two_ white angels within it, are we therefore to
conclude that Mark, who wrote many years earlier, and as far as we can
gather with much greater historical accuracy, must have meant an angel
when he spoke of a ‘young man’? Yet this can be the only reason, unless
the young man’s having worn a long white robe is considered as sufficient
cause for believing him to have been an angel; and this, again, is rather
a bold assumption. But if St. Mark meant no more than he said, and when
he wrote of a ‘young man’ intended to convey the idea of a young man and
of nothing more, what becomes of the angelic visions at the tomb of
Christ? For St. Matthew’s account is wholly untenable; St. Luke is a
much later writer, who must have got all his materials second or third
hand; and although we granted, and are inclined to believe, that the
accounts of the visits of Mary Magdalene, and subsequently of Peter and
John to the tomb, which are given in the fourth Gospel, are from a
Johannean source, if we were asked our reasons for this belief, we should
be very hard put to it to give them. Nevertheless we think it probable.
“But take it either way; if the account in the fourth Gospel is supposed
to have been derived from the Apostle John, we have already seen that
there is nothing miraculous about it, so far as it deals with what came
under John’s own observation; if, on the other hand, it is _not_
authentic we are thrown back upon St. Mark as incomparably our best
authority for the facts that occurred on the Sunday after the
Crucifixion, and he tells us of nothing but a tomb found empty, with the
exception that there was a young man in it who wore a long white dress
and told the women to tell the Apostles to go to Galilee, where they
should see Christ. On the strength of this we are asked to believe that
the reappearance of Christ alive, after a hurried crucifixion, must have
been due to supernatural causes, and supernatural causes only! It will
be easily seen what a number of threads might be taken up at this point,
and followed with not uninteresting results. For the sake, however, of
brevity, we grant it as most probable that St. Mark meant the young man
said to have been seen in the tomb, to be considered as an angel; but we
must also express our conviction that this supposed angelic vision is a
misplaced offshoot of the report that Mary Magdalene had seen angels in
the tomb after Peter and John had left it.
“It is possible that Mark’s account may be the most historic of all those
that we have; but we incline to think otherwise, inasmuch as the angelic
vision placed in the foreground by Mark and Luke, would not be likely to
find its way into the background again, as it does in the fourth Gospel,
unless in consequence of really authentic information; no unnecessary
detraction from the miraculous element is conceivable as coming from the
writer who has handed down to us the story of the raising of Lazarus,
where we have, indeed, _a real account of a resurrection_, the continuity
of the evidence being unbroken, and every link in the chain forged fast
and strong, even to the unwrapping of the grave clothes from the body as
it emerged from the sepulchre. Is it possible that the writer may have
given the story of the raising of Lazarus (of which we find no trace
except in the fourth Gospel), because he felt that in giving the
Apostolic version with absolute or substantial accuracy, he was so
weakening the miraculous element in connection with the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ himself, that it became necessary to introduce an
incontrovertible account of the resurrection of some other person, which
should do, as it were, vicarious duty?
“Nevertheless there are some points on which all the three writers are
agreed: we have the same substratum of facts, namely, _the tomb found
already empty when the women reached it_, a confused and contradictory
report of an angel or angels seen within it, and the subsequent
reappearance of Christ. Not one of the three writers affords us the
slightest clue as to the time and manner of the removal of the body from
the tomb; there is nothing in any of the narratives which is incompatible
with its having been taken away on the very night of the Crucifixion
itself.
“Is this a case in which the defenders of Christianity would clamour for
_all_ the facts, unless they exceedingly well knew that there was no
chance of their getting them? _All_ the facts, indeed—what tricks does
our imagination play us! One would have thought that there were quite
enough facts given as the matter stands to make the defenders of
Christianity wish that there were not so many; and then for them to say
that if we had more, those that we have would become less contradictory!
What right have they to assume that if they had all the facts, the
accounts of the Resurrection would cease to puzzle us, more than we have
to say that if we had all the facts, we should find these accounts even
more inexplicable than we do at present? Had _we_ argued thus we should
have been accused of shameless impudence; of a desire to maintain any
position in which we happened to find ourselves, and by which we made
money, regardless of every common principle of truth or honour, or
whatever else makes the difference between upright men and
self-deceivers.
“It may be said by some that the discrepancies between the three accounts
given above are discrepancies concerning details only, but that all three
writers agree about the ‘main fact.’ We are continually hearing about
this ‘main fact,’ but nobody is good enough to tell us precisely what
fact is meant. Is the main fact the fact that Jesus Christ was
crucified? Then no one denies it. We all admit that Jesus Christ was
crucified. Or, is it that he was seen alive several times after the
Crucifixion? This also we are not disposed to deny. We believe that
there is a considerable preponderance of evidence in its favour. But if
the ‘main fact’ turns out to be that Christ was crucified, _died_, and
then came to life again, we admit that here too all the writers are
agreed, but we cannot find with any certainty that one of them was
present when Christ died or when his body was taken down from the Cross,
or that there was any such examination of the body as would be absolutely
necessary in order to prove that a man had been dead who was afterwards
seen alive. If Christ reappeared alive, there is not only no tittle of
evidence in support of his death which would be allowed for a moment in
an English court of justice, but there is an overwhelming amount of
evidence which points inexorably in the direction of his never having
died. If he reappeared, there is no evidence of his having died. If he
did not reappear, there is no evidence of his having risen from the dead.
“We are inclined, however, as has been said already, to believe that
Jesus Christ really did reappear shortly after the Crucifixion, and that
his reappearance, though due to natural causes, was conceived to be
miraculous. We believe also that Mary fancied that she had seen angels
in the tomb, and openly said that she had done so; who would doubt her
when so far greater a marvel than this had been made palpably manifest to
all? Who would care to inquire very particularly whether there were two
angels or only one? Whether there were other women with Mary or whether
she was quite alone? Who would compare notes about the exact moment of
their appearing, and what strictly accurate account of their words could
be expected in the ferment of such excitement and such ignorance? Any
speech which sounded tolerably plausible would be accepted under the
circumstances, and none will complain of Mark as having wilfully
attempted to deceive, any more than he will of Luke: the amplification of
the story was inevitable, and the very candour and innocence with which
the writers leave loophole after loophole for escape from the miraculous,
is alone sufficient proof of their sincerity; nevertheless, it is also
proof that they were all more or less inaccurate; we can only say in
their defence, that in the reappearance of Christ himself we find
abundant palliation of their inaccuracy. Given one great miracle, proved
with a sufficiency of evidence for the capacities and proclivities of the
age, and the rest is easy. The groundwork of the after-structure of the
other miracles is to be found in the fact that Christ was crucified, and
was afterwards seen alive.”
There is no occasion for me to examine St. Matthew’s account of the
Resurrection in company with the unhappy men whose views I have been
endeavouring to represent above. For reasons which have already been
sufficiently dwelt upon I freely own that I agree with them in rejecting
it. I shall therefore admit that the story of the sealing of the tomb,
and setting of the guard, the earthquake, the descent of the angel from
Heaven, his rolling away the stone, sitting upon it, and addressing the
women therefrom, is to be treated for all controversial purposes as
though it had never been written. By this admission, I confess to
complete ignorance of the time when the stone was removed from the mouth
of the tomb, or the hour when the Redeemer rose. I should add that I
agree with our opponents in believing that our Lord never foretold His
Resurrection to the Apostles. But how little does it matter whether He
foretold His Resurrection or not, and whether He rose at one hour or
another. It is enough for me that he rose at all; for the rest I care
not.
“Yet, see,” our opponents will exclaim in answer, “what a mighty river
has come from a little spring. We heard first of two men going into an
empty tomb, finding two bundles of grave clothes, and departing. Then
there comes a certain person, concerning whom we are elsewhere told a
fact which leaves us with a very uncomfortable impression, and _she_
sees, not two bundles of grave clothes, but two white angels, who ask a
dreamy pointless question, and receive an appropriate answer. Then we
find the time of this apparition shifted; it is placed in the front, not
in the background, and is seen by many, instead of being vouchsafed to no
one but to a weeping woman looking into the bottom of a tomb. The speech
of the angels, also, becomes effective, and the linen clothes drop out of
sight entirely, unless some faint trace of them is to be found in the
‘long white garment’ which Mark tells us was worn by the young man who
was in the tomb when the women reached it. Finally, we have a guard set
upon the tomb, and the stone which was rolled in front of it is sealed;
the angel _is seen to descend from Heaven_, to roll away the stone, and
sit upon it, and there is a great earthquake. Oh! how things grow, how
things grow! And, oh! how people believe!
“See by what easy stages the story has grown up from the smallest seed,
as the mustard tree in the parable, and how the account given by Matthew
changes the whole complexion of the events. And see how this account has
been dwelt upon to the exclusion of the others by the great painters and
sculptors from whom, consciously or unconsciously, our ideas of the
Christian era are chiefly drawn. Yes. These men have been the most
potent of theologians, for their theology has reached and touched most
widely. We have mistaken their echo of the sound for the sound itself,
and what was to them an aspiration, has, alas! been to us in the place of
science and reality.
“Truly the ease with which the plainest inferences from the Gospel
narratives have been overlooked is the best apology for those who have
attributed unnatural blindness to the Apostles. If we are so blind, why
not they also? A pertinent question, but one which raises more
difficulties than it solves. The seeing of truth is as the finding of
gold in far countries, where the shepherd has drunk of the stream and
used it daily to cleanse the sweat of his brow, and recked little of the
treasure which lay abundantly concealed therein, until one luckier than
his fellows espies it, and the world comes flocking thither. So with
truth; a little care, a little patience, a little sympathy, and the
wonder is that it should have lain hidden even from the merest child, not
that it should now be manifest.
“How early must it have been objected that there was no evidence that the
tomb had not been tampered with (not by the Apostles, for they were
scattered, and of him who laid the body in the tomb—Joseph of
Arimathæa—we hear no more) and that the body had been delivered not to
enemies, but friends; how natural that so desirable an addition to the
completeness of the evidences in favour of a miraculous Resurrection
should have been early and eagerly accepted. Would not twenty years of
oral communication and Spanish or Italian excitability suffice for the
rooting of such a story? Yet, as far as we can gather, the Gospel
according to St. Matthew was even then unwritten. And who was Matthew?
And what was his original Gospel?
“There is one part of his story, and one only, which will stand the test
of criticism, and that is this:—That the saying that the disciples came
by night and stole the body of Jesus away was current among the Jews, at
the time when the Gospel which we now have appeared. Not that they did
so—no one will believe this; but the allegation of the rumour (which
would hardly have been ventured unless it would command assent as true)
points in the direction of search having been made for the body of
Jesus—and made in vain.
“We have now seen that there is no evidence worth the name, for any
miracle in connection with the tomb of Christ. He probably reappeared
alive, but not with any circumstances which we are justified in regarding
as supernatural. We are therefore at length led to a consideration of
the Crucifixion itself. Is there evidence for more than this—that Christ
was crucified, was afterwards seen alive, and that this was regarded by
his first followers as a sufficient proof of his having risen from the
dead? This would account for the rise of Christianity, and for all the
other miracles. Take the following passage from Gibbon:—‘The grave and
learned Augustine, whose understanding scarcely admits the excuse of
credulity, has attested the innumerable prodigies which were worked in
Africa by the relics of St. Stephen, and this marvellous narrative is
inserted in the elaborate work of “The City of God,” which the Bishop
designed as a solid and immortal proof of the truth of Christianity.
Augustine solemnly declares that he had selected those miracles only
which had been publicly certified by persons who were either the objects
or the spectators of the powers of the martyr. Many prodigies were
omitted or forgotten, and Hippo had been less favourably treated than the
other cities of the province, yet the Bishop enumerates above seventy
miracles, of which three were resurrections from the dead, within the
limits of his own diocese. If we enlarge our view to all the dioceses
and all the saints of the Christian world, it will not be easy to
calculate the fables and errors which issued from this inexhaustible
source. But we may surely be allowed to observe that a miracle in that
age of superstition and credulity lost its name and its merits, since it
could hardly be considered as a deviation from the established laws of
Nature.’—(Gibbon’s _Decline and Fall_, chap. xxviii., sec. 2).
“Who believes in the miracles, or who would dare to quote them? Yet on
what better foundation do those of the New Testament rest? For the death
of Christ there is no evidence at all. There is evidence that he was
believed to have been dead (under circumstances where a misapprehension
was singularly likely to arise), by men whose minds were altogether in a
different _clef_ to ours as regards the miraculous, and whom we cannot
therefore fairly judge by any modern standard. We cannot judge _them_,
but we are bound to weigh the facts which they relate, not in their
balance, but in our own. It is not what might have seemed reasonably
believable to them, but what is reasonably believable in our own more
enlightened age which can be alone accepted sinlessly by ourselves.
Men’s modes of thought concerning facts change from age to age; but the
facts change not at all, and it is of them that we are called to judge.
“We turn to the fourth Gospel, as that from which we shall derive the
most accurate knowledge of the facts connected with the Crucifixion.
Here we find that it was about twelve o’clock when Pilate brought out
Christ for the last time; the dialogue that followed, the preparations
for the Crucifixion, and the leading Christ outside the city to the place
where the Crucifixion was to take place, could hardly have occupied less
than an hour. By six o’clock (by consent of all writers) the body was
entombed, so that the actual time during which Christ hung upon the cross
was little more than four hours. Let us be thankful to hope that the
time of suffering may have been so short—but say five hours, say six, say
whatever the reader chooses, the Crucifixion was avowedly too hurried for
death in an ordinary case to have ensued. The thieves had to be killed,
as yet alive. Immediately before being taken down from the cross the
body was delivered to friends. Within thirty-six hours afterwards the
tomb in which it had been laid was discovered to have been opened; for
how long it had been open we do not know, but a few hours later Christ
was seen alive.
“Let it be remembered also that the fact of the body having been
delivered to Joseph _before_ the taking down from the cross, greatly
enhanced the chance of an escape from death, inasmuch as the duties of
the soldiers would have ended with the presentation of the order from
Pilate. If any faint symptom of returning animation shewed itself in
consequence of the mere change of position and the inevitable shock
attendant upon being moved, the soldiers would not know it; their task
was ended, and they would not be likely either to wish, or to be allowed,
to have anything to do with the matter. Joseph appears to have been a
rich man, and would be followed by attendants. Moreover, although we are
told by Mark that Pilate sent for the centurion to inquire whether Christ
was dead, yet the same writer also tells us that this centurion had
already come to the conclusion that Christ was the Son of God, a
statement which is supported by the accounts of Matthew and Luke; Mark is
the only Evangelist who tells us that the centurion _was_ sent for, but
even granting that this was so, would not one who had already recognised
Christ as the Son of God be inclined to give him every assistance in his
power? He would be frightened, and anxious to get the body down from the
cross as fast as possible. So long as Christ appeared to be dead, there
would be no unnecessary obstacle thrown in the way of the delivery of the
body to Joseph, by a centurion who believed that he had been helping to
crucify the Son of God. Besides Joseph was rich, and rich people have
many ways of getting their wishes attended to.
“We know of no one as assisting at the taking down or the removal of the
body, except Joseph of Arimathæa, for the presence of Nicodemus, and
indeed his existence, rests upon the slenderest evidence. None of the
Apostles appear to have had anything to do with the deposition, nor yet
the women who had come from Galilee, who are represented as seeing where
the body was laid (and by Luke as seeing _how_ it was laid), but do not
seem to have come into close contact with the body.
“Would any modern jury of intelligent men believe under similar
circumstances that the death had been actual and complete? Would they
not regard—and ought they not to regard—reappearance as constituting
ample proof that there had been no death? Most assuredly, unless Christ
had had his head cut off, or had been seen to be burnt to ashes. Again,
if unexceptionable medical testimony as to the completeness of the death
had reached us, there would be no help for it; we should have to admit
that something had happened which was at variance with all our experience
of the course of nature; or again if his legs had been broken, or his
feet pierced, we could say nothing; but what irreparable mischief is done
to any vital function of the body by the mere act of crucifixion? The
feet were not always, ‘nor perhaps generally,’ pierced (so Dean Alford
tells us, quoting from Justin Martyr), nor is there a particle of
evidence to shew that any exception was made in the present instance. A
man who is crucified dies from sheer exhaustion, so that it cannot be
deemed improbable that he might swoon away, and that every outward
appearance of death might precede death by several hours.
“Are we to suppose that a handful of ignorant soldiers should be above
error, when we remember that men have been left for dead, been laid out
for burial and buried by their best friends—nay, that they have over and
over again been pronounced dead by skilled physicians, when the
facilities for knowing the truth were far greater, and when a mistake was
much less likely to occur, than at the hurried Crucifixion of Jesus
Christ? The soldiers would apply no polished mirror to the lips, nor
make use of any of those tests which, under the circumstances, would be
absolutely necessary before life could be pronounced to be extinct; they
would see that the body was lifeless, inanimate, to all outward
appearance like the few other dead bodies which they had probably
observed closely; with this they would rest contented.
“It is true, they probably believed Christ to be dead at the time they
handed over the body to his friends, and if we had heard nothing more of
the matter we might assume that they were right; but the reappearance of
Christ alive changes the whole complexion of the story. It is not very
likely that the Roman soldiers would have been mistaken in believing him
to be dead, unless the hurry of the whole affair, and the order from
Pilate, had disposed them to carelessness, and to getting the matter done
as fast as possible; but it is much less likely that a dead man should
come to life again than that a mistake should have been made about his
having being dead. The latter is an event which probably happens every
week in one part of the world or another; the former has never yet been
known.
“It is not probable that a man officially executed should escape death;
but that a _dead man_ should escape from it is more improbable still; in
addition to the enormous preponderance of probability on the side of
Christ’s never having died which arises from this consideration alone, we
are told many facts which greatly lessen the improbability of his having
escaped death, inasmuch as the Crucifixion was hurried, and the body was
immediately delivered to friends without the known destruction of any
organic function, and while still hanging upon the cross.
“Joseph and Nicodemus (supposing that Nicodemus was indeed a party to the
entombment) may be believed to have thought that Christ was dead when
they received the body, but they could not refuse him their assistance
when they found out their mistake, nor, again, could they forfeit their
high position by allowing it to be known that they had restored the life
of one who was so obnoxious to the authorities. They would be in a very
difficult position, and would take the prudent course of backing out of
the matter at the first moment that humanity would allow, of leaving the
rest to chance, and of keeping their own counsel. It is noticeable that
we never hear of them again; for there were no two people in the world
better able to know whether the Resurrection was miraculous or not, and
none who would be more deeply interested in favour of the miracle. They
had been faithful when the Apostles themselves had failed, and if their
faith had been so strong while everything pointed in the direction of the
utter collapse of Christianity, what would it be, according to every
natural impulse of self-approbation, when so transcendent a miracle as a
resurrection had been worked almost upon their own premises, and upon one
whose remains they had generously taken under their protection at a time
when no others had ventured to shew them respect?
“We should have fancied that Mary would have run to Joseph and Nicodemus,
not to the Apostles; that Joseph and Nicodemus would then have sent for
the Apostles, or that, to say the least of it, we should have heard of
these two persons as having been prominent members of the Church at
Jerusalem; but here again the experience of the ordinary course of nature
fails us, and we do not find another word or hint concerning them. This
may be the result of accident, but if so, it is a very unfortunate
accident, and we have already had a great deal too much of unfortunate
accidents, and of truths which _may_ be truths, but which are uncommonly
like exaggeration. Stories are like people, whom we judge of in no small
degree by the dress they wear, the company they keep, and that subtle
indefinable something which we call their expression.
“Nevertheless, there arise the questions how far the spear wound recorded
by the writer of the fourth Gospel must be regarded, firstly, as an
actual occurrence, and, secondly, as having been necessarily fatal, for
unless these things are shewn to be indisputable we have seen that the
balance of probability lies greatly in favour of Christ’s having escaped
with life. If, however, it can be proved that it is a matter of
certainty both that the wound was actually inflicted, and that death must
have inevitably followed, then the death of Christ is proved. The
Resurrection becomes supernatural; the Ascension forthwith ceases to be
marvellous; the Miraculous Conception, the Temptation in the Wilderness,
all the other miracles of Christ and his Apostles, become believable at
once upon so signal a failure of human experience; human experience
ceases to be a guide at all, inasmuch as it is found to fail on the very
point where it has been always considered to be most firmly
established—the remorselessness of the grip of death. But before we can
consent to part with the firm ground on which we tread, in the confidence
of which we live, move, and have our being—the trust in the established
experience of countless ages—we must prove the infliction of the wound
and its necessarily fatal character beyond all possibility of mistake.
We cannot be expected to reject a natural solution of an event however
mysterious, and to adopt a supernatural in its place, so long as there is
any element of doubt upon the supernatural side.
“The natural solution of the origin of belief in the Resurrection lies
very ready to our hands; once admit that Christ was crucified hurriedly,
that there is no proof of the destruction of any organic function of the
body, that the body itself was immediately delivered to friends, and that
thirty-six hours afterwards Christ was seen alive, and it is impossible
to understand how any human being can doubt what he ought to think. We
must own also that once let Joseph have kept his own counsel (and he had
a great stake to lose if he did _not_ keep it), once let the Apostles
believe that Christ’s restoration to life was miraculous (and under the
circumstances they would be sure to think so), and their reason would be
so unsettled that in a very short time all the recognised and all the
apocryphal miracles of Christ would pass current with them without a
shadow of difficulty.”
It will be observed that throughout both this and the preceding chapter I
have been dealing with those of our opponents who, while admitting the
reappearances of our Lord, ascribe them to natural causes only. I
consider this position to be only second in importance to the one taken
by Strauss, and as perhaps in some respects capable of being supported
with an even greater outward appearance of probability. I therefore
resolved to combat it, and as a preliminary to this, have taken care that
it shall be stated in the clearest and most definite manner possible.
But it is plain that those who accept the fact that our Lord reappeared
after the Crucifixion differ hardly less widely from Strauss than they do
from ourselves; it will therefore be expedient to shew how they maintain
their ground against so formidable an antagonist. Let it be remembered
that Strauss and his followers admit that _the Death_ of our Lord is
proved, while those of our opponents who would deny this, nevertheless
admit that we can establish _the reappearances_; it follows therefore
that each of our most important propositions is admitted by one section
or other of the enemy, and each section would probably be heartily glad
to be able to deny what it admits. Can there be any doubt about the
significance of this fact? Would not a little reflection be likely to
suggest to the distracted host of our adversaries that each of its two
halves is right, as _far as it goes_, but that agreement will only be
possible between them when each party has learnt that it is in possession
of only half the truth, and has come to admit both the _Death of our Lord
and His Resurrection_?
Returning, however, to the manner in which the section of our opponents
with whom I am now dealing meet Strauss, they may be supposed to speak as
follows:—
“Strauss believes that Christ died, and says (_New Life of Jesus_, Vol.
I., p. 411) that ‘the account of the Evangelists of the death of Jesus is
clear, unanimous, and connected.’ If this means that the Evangelists
would certainly know whether Christ died or not, we demur to it at once.
Strauss would himself admit that not one of the writers who have recorded
the facts connected with the Crucifixion was an eyewitness of that event,
and he must also be aware that the very utmost which any of these writers
can have _known_, was _that Christ was believed to have been dead_. It
is strange to see Strauss so suddenly struck with the clearness,
unanimity, and connectedness of the Evangelists. In the very next
sentence he goes on to say, ‘Equally fragmentary, full of contradiction
and obscurity, is all that they tell us of the opportunities of observing
him which his adherents are supposed to have had after his resurrection.’
Now, this seems very unfair, for, after all, the gospel writers are quite
as unanimous in asserting the main fact that Christ reappeared, as they
are in asserting that he died; they would seem to be just as ‘clear,
unanimous, and connected,’ about the former event as the latter (for the
accounts of the Crucifixion vary not a little), and they must have had
infinitely better means of knowing whether Christ reappeared than whether
he had actually died. There is not the same scope for variation in the
bare assertion that a man died, as there is in the narration of his
sayings and doings upon the several occasions of his reappearance.
Besides, in support of the reappearances, we have the evidence of Paul,
who, though not an eye-witness, was well acquainted with those who were;
whereas no man can make more out of the facts recorded concerning the
death of Jesus, than that he was believed to be dead under circumstances
in which mistake might easily arise, that there is no reason to think
that any organic function of the body had been destroyed at the time that
it was delivered over to friends, and that none of those who testified to
Christ’s death appear to have verified their statement by personal
inspection of the body. On these points the Evangelists do indeed appear
to be ‘clear, unanimous, and connected.’
“Later on Strauss is even more unsatisfactory, for on the page which
follows the one above quoted from, he writes: ‘Besides which, it is quite
evident that this (the natural) view of the resurrection of Jesus, apart
from the difficulties in which it is involved, does not even solve the
problem which is here under consideration: the origin, that is, of the
Christian Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection of the Messiah.
It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of a
sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who
required bandaging, strengthening, and indulgence, and who still, at
last, yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the
impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince
of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry.
Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had
made upon them in life and in death; at the most could only have given it
an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow
into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.’
“Now, the fallacy in the above is obvious; it assumes that _Christ_ was
in such a state as to be compelled to creep about, weak and ill, &c., and
ultimately to die from the effects of his sufferings; whereas there is
not a word of evidence in support of all this. He may have been weak and
ill when he forbade Mary to touch him, on the first occasion of his being
seen alive; but it would be hard to prove even this, and on no subsequent
occasion does he shew any sign of weakness. The supposition that he died
of the effects of his sufferings is quite gratuitous; one would like to
know where Strauss got it from. He _may_ have done so, or he may have
been assassinated by some one commissioned by the Jewish Sanhedrim, or he
may have felt that his work was done, and that any further interference
upon his part would only mar it, and therefore resolved upon withdrawing
himself from Palestine for ever, or Joseph of Arimathæa may have feared
the revolution which he saw approaching—or twenty things besides might
account for Christ’s final disappearance. The only thing, however, which
we can say with any certainty is that he disappeared, and that there is
no reason to believe that he died of his wounds. All over and above this
is guesswork.
“Again, if Christ on reappearing had continued in daily intercourse with
his disciples, it might have been impossible that they should not find
out that he was in all respects like themselves. But he seems to have
been careful to avoid seeing them much. Paul only mentions five
reappearances, only one of which was to any considerable number of
people. According also to the gospel writers, the reappearances were
few; they were without preparation, and nothing seems to have been known
of where he resided between each visit; this rarity and mysteriousness of
the reappearances of Christ (whether dictated by fear of his enemies or
by policy) would heighten their effect, and prevent the Apostles from
knowing much more about their master than the simple fact that he was
indisputably alive. They saw enough to assure them of this, but they did
not see enough to prevent their being able to regard their master as a
conqueror over death and the grave, even though it could be shewn (which
certainly cannot be done) that he continued in infirm health, and
ultimately died of his wounds.
“If the Apostles had been highly educated English or German Professors,
it might be hard to believe them capable of making any mistake; but they
were nothing of the kind; they were ignorant Eastern peasants, living in
the very thick of every conceivable kind of delusive influence. Strauss
himself supposes their minds to have been so weak and unhinged that they
became easy victims to hallucination. But if this was the case, they
would be liable to other kinds of credulity, and it seems strange that
one who would bring them down so low, should be here so suddenly jealous
for their intelligence. There is no reason to suppose that Christ _was_
weak and ill after the first day or two, any more than there is for
believing that he died of his wounds. This being so, is it not more
simple and natural to believe that the Apostles were really misled by a
solid substratum of strange events—a substratum which seems to be
supported by all the evidence which we can get—than that the whole story
of the appearances of Christ after the Crucifixion should be due to
baseless dreams and fancies? At any rate, if the Apostles could be
misled by hallucination, much more might they be misled by a natural
reappearance, which looked not unlike a supernatural one.
“The belief in the miraculous character of the Resurrection is the
central point of the whole Christian system. Let this be once believed,
and considering the times, which, it must always be remembered, were in
respect of credulity widely different from our own, considering the
previous hopes and expectations of the Apostles, considering their
education, Oriental modes of thought and speech, familiarity with the
ideas of miracle and demonology, and unfamiliarity with the ideas of
accuracy and science, and considering also the unquestionable beauty and
wisdom of much which is recorded as having been taught by Christ, and the
really remarkable circumstances of the case—we say, once let the
Resurrection be believed to be miraculous, and the rest is clear; there
is no further mystery about the origin of the Christian religion.
“So the matter has now come to this pass, that we are to jeopardise our
faith in all human experience, if we are unable to see our way clearly
out of a few words about a spear wound, recorded as having been inflicted
in a distant country nearly two thousand years ago, by a writer
concerning whom we are entirely ignorant, and whose connection with any
eye-witness of the events which he records is a matter of pure
conjecture. We will see about this hereafter; all that is necessary now
is to make sure that we do not jeopardise it, if we _do_ see a way of
escape, and this assuredly exists.”
I will not pain either the reader or myself by a recapitulation of the
arguments which have led our opponents as well as the Dean of Canterbury,
and I may add, with due apology, myself, to conclude that nothing is
known as to the severity or purpose of the spear wound. The case,
therefore, of our adversaries will rest thus:—that there is not only no
sufficient reason for believing that Christ died upon the cross, but that
there are the strongest conceivable reasons for believing that He did not
die; that the shortness of time during which He remained upon the cross,
the immediate delivery of the body to friends, and, above all, the
subsequent reappearance alive, are ample grounds for arriving at such a
conclusion. They add further that it would seem a monstrous supposition
to believe that a good and merciful God should have designed to redeem
the world by the infliction of such awful misery upon His own Son, and
yet determined to condemn every one who did not believe in this design,
in spite of such a deficiency of evidence that disbelief would appear to
be a moral obligation. No good God, they say, would have left a matter
of such unutterable importance in a state of such miserable uncertainty,
when the addition of a very small amount of testimony would have been
sufficient to establish it.
In the two following chapters I shall show the futility and irrelevancy
of the above reasoning—if, indeed, that can be called reasoning which is
from first to last essentially unreasonable. Plausible as, in parts, it
may have appeared, I have little doubt that the reader will have already
detected the greater number of the fallacies which underlie it. But
before I can allow myself to enter upon the welcome task of refutation, a
few more words from our opponents will yet be necessary. However
strongly I disapprove of their views, I trust they will admit that I have
throughout expressed them as one who thoroughly understands them. I am
convinced that the course I have taken is the only one which can lead to
their being brought into the way of truth, and I mean to persevere in it
until I have explained the views which they take concerning our Lord’s
Ascension, with no less clearness than I shewed forth their opinions
concerning the Resurrection.
“In St. Matthew’s Gospel,” they will say, “we find no trace whatever of
any story concerning the Ascension. The writer had either never heard
anything about the matter at all, or did not consider it of sufficient
importance to deserve notice.
“Dean Alford, indeed, maintains otherwise. In his notes on the words,
‘And lo! I am with you always unto the end of the world,’ he says,
‘These words imply and set forth the Ascension’; it is true that he adds,
‘the manner of which is not related by the Evangelist’: but how do the
words quoted, ‘imply and set forth’ the Ascension? They imply a belief
that Christ’s spirit would be present with his disciples to the end of
time; but how do they set forth the fact that his body was seen by a
number of people to rise into the air and actually to mount up far into
the region of the clouds?
“The fact is simply this—and nobody can know it better than Dean
Alford—that Matthew tells us nothing about the Ascension.
“The last verses of Mark’s Gospel are admitted by Dean Alford himself to
be not genuine, but even in these the subject is dismissed in a single
verse, and although it is stated that Christ was received into Heaven,
there is not a single word to imply that any one was supposed to have
seen him actually on his way thither.
“The author of the fourth Gospel is also silent concerning the Ascension.
There is not a word, nor hint, nor faintest trace of any knowledge of the
fact, unless an allusion be detected in the words, ‘What and if ye shall
see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?’ (John vi., 62) in
reference to which passage Dean Alford, in his note on Luke xxiv., 52,
writes as follows:—‘And might not we have concluded from the wording of
John vi., 62, that our Lord must have intended an ascension _insight of
some of those to whom he spoke_, and that the Evangelist _gives that
hint_, _by recording those words without comment_, _that he had seen
it_?’ That is to say, we are to conclude that the writer of the fourth
Gospel actually _saw_ the Ascension, because he tells us that Christ
uttered the words, ‘What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending
where he was before?’
“But who _was_ the author of the fourth Gospel? And what reason is there
for thinking that that work is genuine? Let us make another extract from
Dean Alford. In his prolegomena, chapter v., section 6, on the
genuineness of the fourth Gospel, he writes:—‘Neither Papias, who
carefully sought out all that Apostles and Apostolic men had related
regarding the life of Christ; nor Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of
the Apostle John; nor Barnabas, nor Clement of Rome, in their epistles;
nor, lastly, Ignatius (in his genuine writings), makes any mention of, or
allusion to, this gospel. _So that in the most ancient circle of
ecclesiastical testimony_, _it appears to be unknown or not recognised_.’
We may add that there is no trace of its existence before the latter half
of the second century, and that the internal evidence against its
genuineness appears to be more and more conclusive the more it is
examined.
“St. Paul, when enumerating the last appearances of his master, in a
passage where the absence of any allusion to the Ascension is almost
conclusive as to his never having heard a word about it, is also silent.
In no part of his genuine writings does he give any sign of his having
been aware that any story was in existence as to the manner in which
Christ was received into Heaven.
“Where, then, does the story come from, if neither Matthew, Mark, John,
nor Paul appear to have heard of it?
“It comes from a single verse in St. Luke’s Gospel—written more than half
a century after the supposed event, when few, or more probably none, of
those who were supposed to have seen it were either living or within
reach to contradict it. Luke writes (xxiv., 51), ‘And it came to pass
that while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into
Heaven.’ This is the only account of the Ascension given in any part of
the Gospels which can be considered genuine. It gives Bethany as the
place of the miracle, whereas, if Dean Alford is right in saying that the
words of Matthew ‘set forth’ the Ascension, they set it forth as having
taken place on a mountain in Galilee. But here, as elsewhere, all is
haze and contradiction. Perhaps some Christian writers will maintain
that it happened both at Bethany and in Galilee.
“In his subsequent work, written some sixty or seventy years after the
Ascension, St. Luke gives us that more detailed account which is commonly
present to the imagination of all men (thanks to the Italian painters),
when the Ascension is alluded to. The details, it would seem, came to
his knowledge after he had written his Gospel, and many a long year after
Matthew and Mark and Paul had written. How he came by the additional
details we do not know. Nobody seems to care to know. He must have had
them revealed to him, or been told them by some one, and that some one,
whoever he was, doubtless knew what he was saying, and all Europe at one
time believed the story, and this is sufficient proof that mistake was
impossible.
“It is indisputable that from the very earliest ages of the Church there
existed a belief that Christ was at the right hand of God; but no one who
professes to have seen him on his way thither has left a single word of
record. It is easy to believe that the facts may have been revealed in a
night vision, or communicated in one or other of the many ways in which
extraordinary circumstances _are_ communicated, during the years of oral
communication and enthusiasm which elapsed between the supposed Ascension
of Christ and the writing of Luke’s second work. It is not surprising
that a firm belief in Christ’s having survived death should have arisen
in consequence of the actual circumstances connected with the Crucifixion
and entombment. Was it then strange that this should develop itself into
the belief that he was now in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of God
the Father? And finally was it strange that a circumstantial account of
the manner in which he left this earth should be eagerly accepted?”
* * * * *
[In an appendix at the end of the book I have given the extracts from the
Gospels which are necessary for a full comprehension of the preceding
chapters.—W. B. O.]