SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS (FALSE ASSUMPTIONS).
Evidence which ought to convince a reasonable man should be deemed
sufficient.
The standing objection from the days of Celsus, that Jesus should have
shown himself after his resurrection to his enemies, is unreasonable. It
is as if one should refuse to believe the transfiguration, the raising of
the daughter of Jairus, or the agony in the garden, because not witnessed
by the multitude, and by only Peter, James, and John of the Apostles.
His humiliation and sufferings were ended. Not again was he to be mocked,
and scourged, and crucified. Those who had wilfully rejected him, would
have been no more convinced than before. They had said he cast out
devils through the prince of devils. They had plotted to put Lazarus
also to death, whom he had raised up before their eyes. They had bribed
the soldiers to report that his body had been stolen. They would have
proclaimed that he was not dead, or else that his return to life was by
the agency of Satan. To return to those who had put every insult upon
him, and were ready to renew the attack, could only have been to their
swift destruction, and the time for this had not come.
And even if some of them had believed, it would have added nothing to the
proof. Any one who now refuses to accept the genuineness of the Gospel,
or the credibility of the writers, or, accepting both, refuses to believe
upon the testimony of his disciples, would not be convinced by any amount
of evidence. There would remain every question of credibility, and, in
addition, that of personal identity, as to which only those intimately
acquainted with him were fully qualified to judge.
The proofs will be found sufficient by those who are disposed to lay
aside preconceived adverse opinions, and believe the fact when it is
proved.
PROOF IS POSSIBLE.
The event _may_ have occurred. By this is meant that it cannot be said
that its occurrence is, in the nature of things, an impossibility.
The existence of the Lord God Almighty, the Jehovah of the Scriptures,
may be real, as accepted by the reason and conscience of most men in
civilized nations. It may have been within his power to raise his Son,
Jesus Christ, from the dead; and there may have been sufficient reasons
for the exercise of this power. He may have been able to do this, without
violating, or suspending, any law of his universe. The resurrection may
have been as conformable to law as the death of the body. The law of
gravitation is neither violated nor suspended, but merely overcome, in
numberless instances every day, by the introduction of what is, under the
circumstances, a greater force; and it may be a universal _law_ that the
greater force (other things being equal) shall overcome the less. If it
were true that the like had never occurred, it cannot be maintained that
God has not in any instance done something which he had not done before,
and of which consequently there had been no previous experience. “Men,”
says Dr. Taylor,[1] “are continually reaching results which the forces of
nature, left to themselves, never could have caused; and if this be so
with men, why should we deny to God the possibility of intervening in a
similar way, and so producing effects that are not merely supernatural,
but superhuman?” And why, we ask, should we deny to him the possibility
of doing something which he has not done before; “My Father _worketh_
hitherto,” said Jesus, “and I work.”
“The[2] affirmation of the impossibility of a miracle carries with
it the elimination of God out of the universe.” There is no escape
from this conclusion; and consequently there are those who admit the
possibility[3] of miracles, even while denying that they can be proved.
The event, then, _may_ have occurred. _It is a question of evidence_.
Again, if Christ did rise from the dead, he would give his disciples
sufficient evidence of it. He could give to the bodily senses and
perceptive powers which they had as other men have (and which
“experience” tells us, may be trusted when they have a fair chance), such
proofs of his resurrection that they could believe it, and rationally
believe it. This may be said to be almost a truism. To concede that
God could, and did, raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and deny that he
could, or would, afford evidence of it, if not an utter absurdity, is in
the highest degree unreasonable, and we are not trying to convince any
but reasonable men. To what end should he perform this miracle, and yet
afford no evidence of it? The question right here is not whether _we_
have sufficient evidence for our assurance, but whether his _disciples_
could reasonably be convinced of his resurrection, assuming that it
really took place.
Then if _they_ might rationally believe what actually occurred, upon
evidence furnished _them_, those to whom they declared it, and we to
whom their testimony has come, may _also_ believe it. If they were not
bound to reject the evidence of their own senses, because of previous
experience or the want of it, neither were those to whom they preached,
nor we ourselves, bound to reject it.
In other words, assuming that Christ did rise from the dead, and assuming
that satisfactory proofs of his resurrection were given to his disciples,
it is not _impossible_ that sufficient evidence of both of these facts
may be accessible to us. To deny this, is to say that Christ must die and
rise again, in every age, and in every place, where there are nations or
persons, whether few or many, who have not before witnessed such events.
Yet to this absurdity must Hume’s famous argument from experience come.
If Jesus rose from the dead, the fact was susceptible of proof to his
disciples. It was susceptible of proof to those who believed it on the
testimony of his disciples. It is susceptible of proof to one to whom
that testimony is transmitted. Assuming his resurrection to be true, it
would be more wonderful than a miracle, if all means of a rational belief
in the fact were the exclusive property of his immediate disciples; and
their contemporaries and all after them, to the end of time, be compelled
in the exercise of right reason to reject it, notwithstanding it is true.
Hence we say as the basis of further argument that the resurrection _may_
have occurred; and if it did occur, we undoubtedly have such evidence of
it as may be accepted by a reasonable man. Leaving, then, the possible
for the probable, in a matter that is but a question of evidence.
WHAT ARE THE PROOFS?
The fact of Christ’s resurrection was proclaimed by his Apostles and
disciples from the beginning of their ministry, commencing on the Day of
Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion. This fact was, as expressed
by Paul, that Christ “died,” and was “buried,” and was “raised on the
third day;” and by Luke that “he showed himself alive after his passion,
by many proofs,” appearing unto the Apostles whom he had chosen[4], for
forty days, “and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God;” and
by Peter, “whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death because
it was not possible that he should be holden of it:” and “Ye killed the
Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”
The evidence being conclusive that such was the proclamation, how is it
to be accounted for? The obvious explanation is, that the Apostles so
preached because they so believed, and because such was the fact, and
they had sufficient evidence of it: and this has been accepted by the
church these eighteen hundred years.
How do infidels account for the preaching of the Resurrection within
fifty days after the crucifixion? _Some_ have claimed that his death
was not real, and that he recovered from a swoon. This is disproved by
the evidence to which we have referred[4], and, although once held by
Paulus and others, has by later skeptical writers been “treated with
contempt.”[5] “The whole country-side,” says Strauss,[6] “knew that he
was dead.” Roman executioners made sure work. Pilate refused his consent
to any removal until he had instituted an inquiry, and knew that Jesus
was dead; nor is it possible to accept the hypothesis of a return from
mere lethargy or trance, without destroying his moral character. This
hypothesis may be put aside.
_Others_ have claimed that the Apostles did not believe what they
preached. To accept this view we must conclude that, without motive and
against every motive, and “amidst sufferings the most grievous to flesh
and blood, they persevered in a conspiracy to cheat the world into piety,
honesty and benevolence.” Conscience and common sense revolt against such
a theory, and it shares the fate of the other. It has, says Professor
Milligan,[7] “been abandoned by every inquirer to whom a moment’s
attention is due.”
The _final_ refuge of most infidel writers, is the theory of visions.
By this they mean that the appearances of our Lord were either optical
illusions, or mere hallucinations.
Some, like Dr. Hooykaas[8] in Holland, and Judge Waite[8] in this
country, claim that the doctrine preached was _not_ that Christ’s _body_
was raised up, but that his _spirit_ came back from Hades, or the place
of departed spirits. We have before[9] shown that such a conception
is an entire perversion of the language of Paul, as well as of the
Evangelists. And Mr. Hooykaas’ argument that we are never told that Jesus
rose “from death,” far less “from the grave,” but always “from the dead,”
does not agree with the record; and if it did, the inference would be
unwarrantable. When the angel said to the woman, “Why seek ye the living
among the dead? he is not here but is risen,” they were not looking
for him in Hades! Peter, in the passage from which we have quoted,
distinguishes between Hades and the grave, for he says, that David,
“foreseeing, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that neither was his
soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God
raise up.”
Now, by what evidence is the theory of visions or optical illusions to
be tested? By the _whole_ evidence? By suppressing a part, and changing
the rest? Judicial fairness requires that the whole be considered, just
as it comes to us, reconciling such parts as may be reconciled, and
adopting the more probable view in case of any seeming contradictions, if
there _are_ any. Yet those who deny the resurrection adopt a course that
could not be tolerated in any judge or jury, or secular historian. They
_suppress_, or _supply_, as best suits their theory.
Thus some of them assume that there were no appearances at Jerusalem,
although the contrary is plain in all the Evangelists. Even Mark, whom
Strauss treats as giving the oldest tradition, represents the women as
going to the sepulchre. This implies that they were at Jerusalem, if the
sepulchre was at Jerusalem. Were they there alone? Mark, in saying that
“the disciples left Jesus when he was arrested, and fled,” does _not_
say that they fled from Jerusalem. On the contrary, he, in the same
chapter, speaks of Peter as following Jesus afar off, and then denying
him. And so in the Fourth Gospel, “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is
said to have been so near to the cross, that Jesus could say unto him
“Behold thy mother!” They would not leave Jerusalem till the end of the
Feast. This continued one week, the first day and the last being “an holy
convocation.” Although they fled at first, they rallied; and they did not
leave Jerusalem till they had conformed to the requirements of the law.
Mark also, in giving the direction, “Go tell his disciples and Peter,”
“He goeth _before_ you into Galilee,” implies that they had not yet gone
into Galilee.
They also assume that the Apostles believed because of Mary Magdalene’s
faith. _This is pure fiction._ Peter and John knew that the tomb was
empty, before the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Matthew does not mention
her statement that she had seen the Lord, nor John the reception which
she had. Mark[10] says that they, when they heard that he was alive,
and had been seen of her, “disbelieved;” and Luke[11] (referring to all
the women) says that their words “appeared in their sight as idle talk,
and they disbelieved them.” There is not the slightest allusion to Mary
Magdalene, or to the company of women, in the Acts of the Apostles,
or either of the Epistles. How idle, then, is Renan’s boast,[12] that
“the glory of the Resurrection belongs to Mary of Magdala.” Indeed it
might appear to us that there should have been some reference to her.
The explanation, probably, is twofold: Among the Greeks,[13] women were
not competent witnesses; and Paul and the Apostles rested their faith
upon appearances to Apostles, either alone or in company with others,
they being the constituted witnesses. When one was to be substituted for
Judas, Peter[14] said that the choice must be made from those “which
have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out
among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was
received up from us; of these must one become a witness with us of his
resurrection.” And Paul makes no reference to the journey to Emmaus.
They also assume that the Apostles were in a state of mind conducive to
misleading fancies. The reverse of this is true. It must, however, be
conceded that the idea of a restoration to life of one who had been dead
was not strange to them; for three[15] such instances were recorded in
their Scriptures, and they had witnessed three miracles of the kind. But
these were in respect to persons who, after they were raised up, lived
and died as other men; and they were brought to life by some visible
agency, as by a prophet in the name of the Lord, or Jesus by his own
word. The resurrection which the disciples came to believe was, on the
contrary, to a temporary sojourning with them, and then an ascension
before their eyes; and it was accomplished by no visible hand.
And although Jesus had predicted his death and resurrection, they could
not understand the one, any more than the other, because they could
not conceive how that their Messiah could suffer death at the hands
of his enemies. The evidence upon this point is most conclusive; and
its scope was admirably put by Gilbert West,[16] four generations ago.
“This, therefore, being their settled notion of the Messiah, can we
wonder their former faith in him should be extinguished, when they saw
him suffering, crucified, and dying, and, instead of saving others, not
able to save himself? To prepare them for these events he had indeed
most circumstantially foretold[17] his own sufferings, death, and
resurrection; but the Apostles themselves assure us that they did not
understand those predictions till some time after their accomplishment;
and they made this confession at a time when they were as sensible of
their former dullness, and undoubtedly as much amazed at it as they now
pretend to be who object to it against them; so that their veracity
upon this point is not to be questioned.... They had conceived great
expectations from the persuasion that he was the Christ of God; but these
were all vanished; their promised deliverer, their expected king, was
dead and buried, and no one left to call him from the grave as he did
Lazarus. With his life, they might presume, ended his power of working
miracles; and death, perhaps, was an enemy he could not subdue, since it
was apparent he could not escape it, and hence their despair.”
And hence we say, when the third day was ushered in there was no one of
all his disciples at the sepulchre to welcome him. Those who loved him
most, came but to embalm his body. Mary Magdalene beheld _not_ her risen
Saviour, but an empty tomb; and her hurried tidings were _not_ that he
is risen, but, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we
know not where they have laid him.” When Jesus even speaks to her, she
at first supposes him to be the gardener, and says, “If thou hast borne
him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.”
Peter and John beheld no vision, but only “the linen clothes lying, and
the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but
rolled up in a place by itself.” The other women do not see Jesus until
after they have found that the sepulchre is empty, and have been told by
the angels, “He is risen, even as he said: COME SEE THE PLACE WHERE[18]
THE LORD LAY.” The two disciples, some hours after, had heard, not that
he had been _seen_, but that certain women who were early at the tomb
found not his body, and were told by angels that he was alive; and that
the absence of the body had been confirmed by those of their company who
visited the tomb. And finally, the Apostles, instead of _expecting_ to
see him, refused to believe upon the testimony of the women, and were
only convinced by the evidence of their own senses.
[1] Taylor on the Gospel Miracles (1881), p. 17.
[2] Id., p. 25.
[3] “We do not say a miracle is impossible; we say there has been no
instance, up to this time, of a proved miracle.”—Renan’s Life of Jesus,
etc., p. 57.
“What I insist on is, that a miracle cannot be established by human
testimony.”—Ingersoll, _North American Review_ for November, 1881, p.
514. The skeptical author of _Supernatural Religion_ in defending himself
against the criticism that upon his theory his historical argument is
unnecessary, in his preface to the sixth edition, says: “The preliminary
affirmation is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are
antecedently incredible. The counter allegation is that although miracles
may be antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place.
It is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent
incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain
miracles occurred, and this involves the historical inquiry into the
evidence for the Gospels. Indeed many will not acknowledge the case
to be complete until other witnesses are questioned. This would leave
the question of Christ’s Resurrection to be determined as a matter of
evidence; and of course evidence enough to induce a reasonable conviction
would be sufficient to overcome the antecedent improbability.” But he
dare not trust himself or his readers to an examination of the evidence
upon this basis. For when he is pressed with the testimony of the
Apostles to the Resurrection, and is compelled to concede their honesty,
he says (p. 1050), “The belief that a dead man rose from the dead and
appeared to several persons alive is at once disposed of upon abstract
grounds.” That is, his pretended examination of the evidence is a sham,
and when he cannot meet it, it is at once disposed of “upon abstract
grounds!”
[4] See chap. xvii. pp. 101-2, _ante_, pp. 101, 102.
[5] Milligan on the Resurrection of Our Lord, p. 76; Strauss, Vol. II.,
pp. 846-866.
[6] The Old Faith and the New (1875), p. 80.
[7] On the Resurrection, etc., p. 80.
[8] The Bible for Learners, Vol. III., p. 464; Waite’s History, etc., p.
26.
[9] See chap. xv, p. 85, _ante_, p. 85.
[10] Mark xvi. 11.
[11] Luke xxiv. 11.
[12] The Apostles, by Ernest Renan (1866), p. 61.
[13] Adams’ Roman Antiquities, p. 284; Condition of Women, by L. Maria
Child, Vol. II., p. 3.
[14] Acts i. 15, 21, 22.
[15] 1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv.; 2 Kings xiii. 21; Matthew ix.; Luke
vii.; John xi.; Hebrews xi. 35.
[16] Gilbert West on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of
Jesus Christ. Boston, 1834 (first published in England in 1747), p. 67.
[17] See chap. xvi, p. 89, _ante_, p. 89.
[18] “The cerements were there, but the body was gone. Whither? Had it
been stolen and hidden? Who would have been the thieves? Friends or
foes? Not friends; for how could their faith be made heroic for their
crusade against the world’s unbelief by a theft and a carcase? Not
foes; for it was their interest to prevent the disappearance of the
body, that there might be ocular demonstration of the falsity of the
predicted resurrection. The fact of the actual resurrection of our Lord
is a rock-of-ages that never can be moved.”—Commentary on Mark, by James
Morrison, D.D. (1882), p. 445.