THAT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS PROBABLY TRUE.
(_A._) ITS IMPORTANCE.
The third day, the empty tomb.
(_B._) THE NARRATIVES.
The various accounts, table of Christ's appearances, the
three groups, the double farewell.
(_C._) THEIR DIFFICULTIES.
(1.) Discrepancies; often due to the appearances being
placed together; the disciples going to Galilee.
(2.) Omissions; the Gospels only record selected instances,
and St. Paul refers to them in groups.
(_D._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS.
(1.) Agreements; very important.
(2.) Mutual explanations; very numerous.
(3.) Signs of early date; very interesting.
Conclusion, the narratives appear to be thoroughly trustworthy.
We decided in the previous chapters that the Four Gospels, and also
the Acts of the Apostles, were _genuine_; that is to say, they were
written by the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed. And to
these may be added the four great Epistles of St. Paul, and the
Revelation of St. John, which, as before said, are admitted to be
genuine by critics of all schools. We have thus direct testimony
as to the life of Christ, that is to say, the testimony of
contemporaries, some of whom must have known Him well. St. Matthew
and St. John were two of His Apostles; St. Mark and St. Luke had
exceptionally good means of knowing the truth, and may perhaps have
had some slight knowledge of Christ themselves, as had also St.
Paul.[268] We have now to examine the value of this testimony, more
especially as to the _Resurrection of Christ_. So in the present
chapter we will consider the _importance_ of the Resurrection, and
the _narratives_ we have of it; both as to their _difficulties_, and
their _truthfulness_; and in the next the various alternative
theories.
[Footnote 268: 2 Cor. 5. 16.]
(_A._) ITS IMPORTANCE.
In the first place, we cannot overestimate the importance of the
Resurrection, for this fact, either real or supposed, was the
foundation of Christianity. This is plain not only from the Gospels,
but still more from the Acts, where we have numerous short speeches
by the Apostles, given under various circumstances, and to various
audiences, including Jewish Councillors, Greek philosophers, and
Roman governors. And in nearly all of them the Resurrection of
Christ is not only positively asserted, but is emphasised as a fact
established by indisputable evidence and as being the foundation of
Christianity.[269] It is even said that it was the special duty of
an apostle to bear witness to it; and St. Paul seems to have been
aware of this, since, when claiming to be an apostle, he is careful
to show that he was thus qualified. And for himself he makes it the
basis of all his teaching, _if Christ hath not been raised, then is
our preaching vain_.[270] It is certain, then, that the first
preachers of Christianity preached the Resurrection of Christ.
[Footnote 269: Acts 2. 24; 4. 10; 5. 30; 10. 40; 13. 30; 17. 31; 26.
23.]
[Footnote 270: Acts 1. 22; 1 Cor. 9. 1; 15. 14-17.]
It is equally certain that they preached that it occurred on the
_third day_, counting from the Crucifixion.[271] This also is stated
not only in the Gospels, but by St. Paul; who in one place bases his
whole argument on the fact that the Body of Christ (unlike that of
David) _saw no corruption_, a point also alluded to by St. Peter,
and implying a Resurrection in a few days.[272] While if further
evidence is required, the fact that this third day (the first day of
the week) became _the Lord's Day_--the Christian Sunday--seems to
put the matter beyond dispute.
[Footnote 271: Sometimes described as _after three days_, but that
the two expressions are intended to mean the same is clear from
Matt. 27. 63-64, where Christ's saying that He would rise again
_after three days_ is given as the reason for guarding the sepulchre
_until the third day_. In the same way _after eight days_ evidently
means _on the eighth day_ (John 20. 26).]
[Footnote 272: 1 Cor. 15. 4; Acts 13. 35-37; 2. 31.]
Once more it is certain that the Christians believed that this
Resurrection was one of Christ's _Body_, not His _Spirit_. This
again is clear not only from the Gospels, which all speak of the
_empty tomb_; but also from St. Paul's Epistles. For when he says
that Christ _died_, and was _buried_, and was _raised on the third
day_, and _appeared_ to Cephas, etc., he must mean Christ's _Body_
(for a Spirit cannot be _buried_); and he must mean that it was the
_same_ Body that died and was buried, that was afterwards raised,
and appeared to them, including himself.[273] Christ's being
_raised_, it will be noticed, was distinct from, and previous to,
His _appearing_ to anyone, just as in the Gospels the empty tomb is
always mentioned _before_ any of the appearances.
[Footnote 273: 1 Cor. 15. 3-5.]
And even in the one case, where St. Paul alludes to what he saw as a
_heavenly vision_, he refers to it in order to prove that it is not
incredible that God should _raise the dead_;[274] which again shows
that he thought it was a _Body_, for a _Spirit_ cannot be raised
from the _dead_. And his specifying _the third day_ makes this (if
possible) still plainer, for the life of the spirit after death does
not commence on the third day; nor would it have prevented Christ's
Body from seeing corruption.
[Footnote 274: Acts 26. 19, 8.]
From all this it is abundantly clear that St. Paul, like the Four
Evangelists, and the other Apostles, believed in what is called the
_physical_ Resurrection, in the sense that Christ's Body was
restored to life, and left the tomb. Though like them, he also
believed that it was no longer a _natural_ body, bound by the
ordinary laws of nature, but that it had been partly changed as
well, so that it shared to some extent the properties of spirits.
Nor is his statement that _flesh and blood_ cannot inherit the
Kingdom of God, opposed to this.[275] For when he uses the same
expression elsewhere (_e.g._, _I conferred not with flesh and
blood_)[276] it is evidently not used in a literal sense. It does
_not_ mean flesh and blood, in the same way in which we might speak
of bones and muscles. It means _men_. So his meaning here is
probably that mere men--human beings as such--cannot inherit the
future life of glory. Their bodies will first have to be changed,
and made incorruptible; but they will still be _bodies_. And as just
said, St. Paul is quite definite as to its being the Body of Christ
that was _buried_, that was afterwards raised on the third day.
[Footnote 275: Cor. 15. 50.]
[Footnote 276: Gal. 1. 16; Eph. 6. 12; comp. Matt. 16. 17.]
We may say, then, with confidence, that wherever the Resurrection
was believed, the fact that it occurred on the third day, and the
fact that it was a physical Resurrection, involving the empty tomb,
was believed also. The three invariably went together. But was this
belief justified? This is the question we have to discuss.
(_B._) THE NARRATIVES.
Now we have five different accounts of the Resurrection; and these
are so thoroughly independent that not one of them can be regarded
as the source of any of the others. Little stress, however, can be
laid on the latter part of St. Mark's account, as the genuineness of
the last twelve verses is doubtful; but it anyhow represents a very
early Christian belief, Aristion being sometimes named as the
author. And even the earlier part is conclusive as to the empty
tomb, and the promised appearance in Galilee. On the other hand, St.
Paul's account, which is perhaps the strongest, is universally
allowed to have been written within thirty years of the event; the
most probable date for which is A.D. 29 or 30, and for the Epistle
A.D. 55. And it should be noticed that St. Paul reminds the
Corinthians that what he here says about the Resurrection is what he
preached to them on his first visit (about A.D. 50), and that as
they had _received_ it from him, so he had himself _received_ it
from others at a still earlier date.[277]
[Footnote 277: 1 Cor. 15. 1-3.]
And we can even fix this date approximately, for two of the
appearances he records were to St. Peter and St. James; and he
happens to mention elsewhere[278] that these were the two Apostles
he met at Jerusalem, three years after his conversion (A.D. 35, or
earlier); so he doubtless heard the whole account then, even if he
had not heard it before. And this was certainly within _ten
years_--probably within _seven_ years--of the Crucifixion. More
ancient testimony than this can scarcely be desired. And if anything
could add to its importance it would be St. Paul's own statement
that in this respect his teaching was the same as that of the
original Apostles: _Whether then it be I or they, so we preach and
so ye believed_.[279]
[Footnote 278: Gal. 1. 19.]
[Footnote 279: 1 Cor. 15. 11.]
We need not quote the various accounts here, but the accompanying
table gives them in a convenient form for reference. Altogether
Christ seems to have been seen on thirteen different occasions; and
there may have been others, which are not recorded, though they are
perhaps hinted at.[280]
[Footnote 280: Acts 1. 3; 13. 31; John 20. 30.]
It is doubtful however if the eighth appearance was separate from
the ninth, for St. Matthew says that when the Eleven saw Him, on the
mountain in Galilee, as He had appointed, _they_ worshipped Him,
but _some_ doubted. This _some_ can scarcely mean some of the
Eleven, who had just worshipped. It probably refers to some others
who were present (_i.e._, some of the five hundred) who doubted at
first if it was really He, as He was some way off, and it was before
He _came_ to them. And since the command to preach the Gospel to all
the world, which St. Matthew records, was probably addressed to the
Eleven only, it will account for his not mentioning that others were
present. In the same way St. Luke relates the Ascension, as if only
the Eleven were there, though it is clear _from his own narrative_
that he knew there were others with them; since he afterwards
records St. Peter as saying so.[281]
[Footnote 281: Acts 1. 1-13; 22-23.]
On the other hand, the appearance to the five hundred must have
been on a _mountain_, or some other open space, as a room would not
have been large enough. It must have been in _Galilee_, as there
were not so many disciples in Jerusalem.[282] It must have been _by
appointment_, as they could hardly have come together by accident;
and they are not likely to have come together at all unless the
_Eleven_ had collected them. And all this is an additional reason for
identifying it with that recorded by St. Matthew.
[Footnote 282: Acts 1. 15.]
It must next be noticed that the appearances form _three groups_.
First a group in or near Jerusalem, which was chiefly to the Twelve
Apostles, and extended over eight days. Secondly a group in Galilee,
the most important being that to the five hundred, which was a sort of
_farewell_ to His Galilean disciples. And thirdly to a group back again
at Jerusalem, chiefly to the Twelve, but including others, and ending
with the Ascension, or _farewell_ to His Judæan disciples.
TABLE OF CHRIST'S APPEARANCES.
+-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+
| |_1 Cor._|_Matt._| _Mark._| _Luke._ | _John._ |
+-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+
| | | | | | |
|Empty tomb visited }| | | {|24. 1-11,|} |
| by women }| .. |28. 1-8|16. 1-8{| 22-23 |}20. 1-2 |
| | | | | | |
| And by Apostles | .. | .. | .. | 12, 24 | 3-10|
| | | | | | |
|An appearance in }| | | | | |
| Galilee foretold }| .. | 7| 16. 7 | .. | .. |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|Then Christ was seen | | | | | |
| _In or near | | | | | |
| Jerusalem, by_ | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (i.) Mary Magdalene | .. | .. | 9-11 | .. | 11-18|
| | | | | | |
| (ii.) The two Marys | .. | 9-10| .. | .. | .. |
| | | | | | |
| (iii.) St. Peter | 15. 5 | .. | .. | 34 | .. |
| | | | | | |
| ( iv.) Cleopas and }| | | | | |
| another, }| | | | | |
| perhaps St. }| | | | | |
| Luke, at }| | | | | |
| Emmaus }| .. | .. | 12-13 | 13-35 | .. |
| | | | | | |
| (v.) The Apostles }| | | | | |
| and others }| | | | | |
| (without }| | | | | |
| St. Thomas) }| 5 | .. | 14 | 36-43 | 19-25|
| | | | | | |
| (vi.) The Apostles }| | | | | |
| (with St. }| | | | | |
| Thomas) }| .. | .. | .. | .. | 26-29|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|_In Galilee, by_ | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (vii.) Seven Apostles}| | | | | |
| on the Lake }| .. | .. | .. | .. | 21. 1-23|
| | | | | | |
|(viii.) The Apostles }| | | | | |
| on the }| | | | | |
| mountain }| .. | 16-20| 15-18 | .. | .. |
| | | | | | |
| (ix.) Over 500 }| | | | | |
| persons }| 6 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| | | | | | |
| (x.) St. James | 7 | .. | .. | .. | .. |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
|_Back at Jerusalem, by_| | | | | |
| | | | | | _Acts._ |
| (xi.) The Apostles }| | | | | |
| at Jerusalem}| .. | .. | .. | 44-49 | 1. 4-5|
| | | | | | |
| (xii.) The Apostles }| | | | | |
| and others }| | | | | |
| at Bethany }| 7 | .. | 19-20 | 50-53 | 6-11, 22|
| | | | | | |
|(xiii.) St. Paul | 8 | .. | .. | .. | 9. 3-9|
| | | | | | |
+-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+
And though this _double_ farewell is sometimes thought to be a
difficulty, yet as Christ's Resurrection was meant to be the proof
of His mission, it seems only natural that He should have appeared
again to _all_ His disciples, and have taken leave of them; both
those in Galilee, and those at Jerusalem, the Apostles themselves
being of course present on each occasion. And as the words _when
they were come together_ imply that the meeting in Jerusalem, like
that in Galilee, had been previously announced, all the Judæan
disciples may well have been there; and this we know was the case
with Matthias, Justus, and others.[283]
[Footnote 283: Acts 1. 6, 22.]
(_C._) THEIR DIFFICULTIES.
Passing on now to the difficulties in the narratives; they may be
conveniently placed under the two heads of _discrepancies_ and
_omissions_.
(1.) _Discrepancies._
These seem to be chiefly due to two of the Evangelists, St. Mark and
St. Luke, recording separate appearances as if they were continuous.
But it so happens that they do much the same in the rest of their
Gospels, often recording separate sayings of Christ as if they were
one discourse; and even in closely-connected passages a break has
sometimes to be assumed.[284] While in these very narratives, St.
Luke describes an appearance at Jerusalem in Acts 1. 4, and
continues without any change of place till v. 12, when he says
_they returned to Jerusalem_. Plainly he is here grouping together
words spoken on different occasions.
[Footnote 284: _E.g._, in Luke 14. 21-22.]
Therefore he may have done the same at the end of his Gospel.
Indeed, it is almost certain that he did, otherwise we should have
to place the Ascension in the middle of the night, which is scarcely
probable. Moreover, in the Acts he expressly says that the
appearances lasted _forty days_; and he quotes St. Paul, as saying
that they lasted _many days_.[285] He seems to have thought it
unnecessary in his Gospel to explain that they were at different
times; and if St. Mark did the same, it would account for most,
though not all, of the discrepancies between them.
[Footnote 285: Acts 1. 3; 13. 31.]
These discrepancies, however, are often much exaggerated. Take for
instance the fifth appearance in the previous list. St. Luke and St.
John evidently refer to the same occasion, as it was on the evening
of Easter Day; yet one says the Apostles were _terrified_, and
thought they saw a spirit; while the other says they were _glad_.
Can both be true? Certainly they can, if we assume (as is most
natural) that the Apostles were _at first_ terrified, and thought
they saw a spirit; but were afterwards glad, when on Christ's
showing them His hands and side, they were convinced that it was
really Himself. And He may then have reproached them for their
unbelief as recorded by St. Mark.
Or take the case of the Angels at the Tomb. These are referred to by
every Evangelist, though some call them men (in white or dazzling
apparel) and others angels. But as St. Luke uses both words,[286]
and as angels are not likely to have appeared in any but a human
form, there is no real difficulty here. While if the second angel
was not always visible, it would account for some of the Evangelists
speaking of only one. And it may be mentioned in passing, that one
of the angels is said to have been seen by the Roman soldiers as
well, who went and told the Jews about it.[287] And this is not
likely to have been asserted within twenty years unless it had been
the case, as the Jews would have contradicted it. Yet if it was the
case, it affords an additional argument for the Resurrection, and
one derived from Christ's enemies, not His friends.
[Footnote 286: Luke 24. 4, 23. Similarly Gabriel is called a _man_
in Dan. 9. 21, and an _angel_ in Luke 1. 25.]
[Footnote 287: Matt. 28. 4, 11.]
A more important difficulty is caused by Christ's command to the
women, that they and the Apostles were to proceed to Galilee to meet
Him, when, as He knew, He was going to appear to them in Jerusalem
the same day. The most probable explanation is that the meeting in
Galilee was the one _intended_ all along, in fact we are definitely
told so.[288] But when the women, in consequence of the Angel's
message, and after they had recovered from their fright (which at
first made them run away and say nothing to anyone),[289] went and
told the Apostles to go there, they were _disbelieved_.[290] This
naturally made the women doubt too, so they returned to the grave to
make further inquiries, none of them having the slightest intention
of going to Galilee.
[Footnote 288: Mark 14. 28.]
[Footnote 289: Mark 16. 8.]
[Footnote 290: Luke 24. 11.]
Under these circumstances, something more was necessary, so Christ
appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and then to her with the other
Mary, when He told them Himself to warn the Apostles to proceed to
Galilee, which they again did, and were again _disbelieved_.[291]
Then He appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, and when
they came back, and told the rest, they were also at first
_disbelieved_; the Apostles, though now admitting that Christ had
been seen by St. Peter, still denying such a bodily resurrection
(able to eat food, etc.) as they described.[292]
[Footnote 291: Mark 16. 11.]
[Footnote 292: Mark 16. 13; Luke 24. 34.]
After this there was nothing for it, but for Christ to appear to the
Apostles Himself, and convince them personally by eating food in
their presence, which He did, when most of them were assembled
together the same evening. And He may then have told them to remain
in Jerusalem till they were _all_ convinced, as they could scarcely
have been expected to collect the five hundred for the meeting in
Galilee, so long as they kept disputing among themselves as to
whether He had really risen. And it was thus another week before the
last sceptic (St. Thomas) was convinced, and they finally started
for Galilee. These discrepancies then are not nearly so serious as
is commonly supposed.
(2.) _Omissions._
With regard to the _omissions_, none of our lists are at all
complete, and this is often thought to be a difficulty. But as far
as the _Gospels_ are concerned, the writers nowhere profess to give
a complete list of Christ's appearances, any more than of His
parables, or His miracles; they only record (as one of them tells
us)[293] _selected instances_. And in the present case their choice
is quite intelligible. Thus St. Matthew closes his Gospel, which is
concerned chiefly with the Galilean ministry, with the farewell
meeting in Galilee; St. John, whose Gospel is concerned chiefly with
the Judæan ministry, ended his (before the last chapter was added,
which seems a sort of appendix) with some of the appearances in
Jerusalem. While St. Luke, who was more of an historian, and wrote
everything _in order_,[294] though he describes most in detail the
appearance to the two disciples at Emmaus (which is only natural if
he was one of them), is yet careful to carry his narrative right on
to the Ascension. Therefore, though they only record certain
appearances, they may well have known of the others; and there can
be little doubt that they did.
[Footnote 293: John 20. 30.]
[Footnote 294: Luke 1. 3.]
Thus, St. Matthew speaks of the Eleven meeting Christ by
_appointment_, so he must have known of some interview when this
appointment was made, (perhaps the one on the Lake), as the messages
to the women did not fix either the time or place.[295] In the same
way St. Mark must have known of a meeting in Galilee, as he refers
to it himself, and St. Luke of an appearance to St. Peter.[296]
While St. John, though he does not record the Ascension, must
certainly have known of it, as he refers to it twice in the words,
_if ye should behold the Son of Man ascending_, and _I ascend unto
My Father_, the former passage clearly showing that it was to be a
visible ascent, and that the Apostles were to see it.[297] Plainly,
then, the Evangelists did not relate every appearance they knew of,
and the objection as far as they are concerned, may be dismissed at
once.
[Footnote 295: Matt. 28. 16, 7, 10.]
[Footnote 296: Mark 16. 7; Luke 24. 34.]
[Footnote 297: John 6. 62; 20. 17.]
On the other hand, _St. Paul's list_ certainly looks as if it were
meant to be complete; and this is no doubt a real difficulty.
Surely, it is said, if the other appearances had occurred, or were
even supposed to have occurred, when St. Paul wrote, he would have
heard of them; and if he had heard of them, he would have mentioned
them, as he was evidently trying to make out as strong a case as he
could. He might perhaps have omitted the appearances to _women_, as
their testimony was not considered of much value at the time; and
they were not witnesses of the Resurrection, in the sense he alludes
to--_i.e._, persons who went about preaching it;[298] but why should
he have omitted the rest?
[Footnote 298: 1 Cor. 15. 11.]
There is however a fairly good explanation. The appearances it will
be remembered form _three groups_. Now St. Paul mentions two
appearances to individual Apostles--St. Peter and St. James; and
this was doubtless because he had had such vivid accounts of them
from the men themselves, when he met them at Jerusalem. For we may
be sure that if they had not told him, he would not have accepted it
from anyone else. But he seems to refer to the others _in these
groups_, first to the Twelve (at Jerusalem), then to the five
hundred (in Galilee), and then to all the Apostles, evidently
meaning more than the Twelve (back again at Jerusalem). But by so
doing, he does not limit it to only one appearance in each group. In
the same way a man might say that on returning to England he saw
first his parents, then his brothers, then his cousins; though he
had seen his parents on two days a week apart, his brothers for only
a few hours, and his cousins for several successive days.
And the fact that St. Paul, in one of his speeches in the Acts,[299]
expressly says that Christ was seen for _many days_ at Jerusalem,
strongly confirms this view. We conclude, then, that in his Epistle
he is mentioning the appearances by groups, rather than every single
one; wishing to emphasise the number of men who had seen Christ,
rather than the number of times they had seen Him; and if so it does
away with the difficulty. None of these objections, then, are of
much importance.
[Footnote 299: Acts 13. 31.]
(_D._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS.
Turning now to the other side, the narratives bear abundant marks of
truthfulness. These we will consider under the three heads of
_agreements_, _mutual explanations_, and _signs of early date_.
(1.) _Agreements._
In the first place it is important to notice that in spite of the
discrepancies and omissions just alluded to, there is an
extraordinary amount of _agreement_ in the narratives. For all the
more important points--the third day, the empty tomb, the visit of
the women, the angelic message, the first appearance being in
Jerusalem, the incredulity of some of the disciples, and Christ's
not only appearing, but speaking as well, and this in the presence
of all the Apostles--are _all_ vouched for by _every_ Evangelist.
They also agree in saying that the Apostles _remained in Jerusalem_
after Christ's arrest, and did not as we might have expected return
at once to Galilee? For the last two Gospels expressly state that
they were in Jerusalem on Easter Day; and the first two imply it, or
how could the women have been told to take them a message to _go_ to
Galilee?
Further they all agree in _not_ giving (what imaginary accounts
might well have contained) any description of the Resurrection
itself, any appearance of Christ to His enemies; or any information
as to the other world, though this last would have been so eagerly
welcomed, and could have been so easily invented.
Moreover the _order_ in which the appearances are placed is also the
same in every account, that to Mary Magdalene for instance (wherever
it occurs) being, always placed first, that to St. Peter next, that
to Cleopas next, then that to the Twelve, etc. And this is the more
remarkable because the narratives are so obviously independent, and
the order is not at all a likely one. Writers of fiction, for
instance, would never have made Christ first appear to so little
known a person as Mary Magdalene, rather than to His Mother or His
Apostles.
Once more the narratives all agree in the extreme _calmness_ with
which they are written. One would have thought it almost impossible
for anyone after relating the story of the Cross, to have avoided
some word of triumph, or exultation, in regard to the Resurrection
and Ascension. But nothing of the kind is found. The writers record
them, like the rest of the history, as simple matters of fact,
apparently regarding them as the natural close for such a Life, and
calling for no comment. How unlikely this would be in legendary
accounts scarcely needs pointing out.
It may also be added (though it does not concern these actual
narratives) that the Evangelists all agree in saying that Christ had
_prophesied_ His own Resurrection.[300] And while this does not of
course prove it to have been true, it yet forms a difficulty on any
other theory.
[Footnote 300: _E.g._, Matt. 16. 21; Mark 9. 31; Luke 18. 33; John
2. 19-21.]
(2.) _Mutual explanations._
In the next place it is surprising to find how often a slight remark
in one of the narratives will help to explain some apparent
improbability, or difficulty in another. And since, as just said,
the narratives are quite independent, and were certainly not written
to explain one another; such indications of truthfulness are of
great value. We will therefore consider several examples.[301]
[Footnote 301: These and some others are discussed in a paper in the
_Expositor_, May, 1909, by the present writer.]
To begin with, St. John records Mary Magdalene as visiting the empty
Tomb, and then telling the disciples _we know not where they have
laid Him_. But to whom does the _we_ refer, as she was apparently
alone all the time? St. John does not explain matters; but the other
Evangelists do. For they say that though Mary Magdalene was the
leader of the party, and is always named first, yet as a matter of
fact there were other women with her; and this accounts for the
_we_. Later on no doubt she was alone; but then she uses the words
_I know not_.[302]
[Footnote 302: John 20. 2, 13.]
Secondly, St. Luke says that _Peter_ was the disciple who ran to the
tomb on hearing of the Angel's message, without however giving any
reason why he should have been the one to go. But St. Mark, though
he does not mention the visit of Peter, records that the message had
been specially addressed to him; and St. John says that Mary
Magdalene had specially informed him; and this of course explains
his going. St. Luke, it may be added, in the subsequent words,
_certain of them that were with us_,[303] implies that at least one
other disciple went with him, which agrees with St. John.
[Footnote 303: Luke 24. 24.]
St. Luke then says that when Peter arrived at the tomb, he saw the
linen cloths _by themselves_, and went home _wondering_. This seems
only a trifle, but what does it mean? St. Luke does not explain
matters, but St. John does; for he describes how the cloths were
arranged. This was in a way which showed that the Body could not
have been hurriedly stolen, but had apparently vanished without
disturbing them. It convinced St. John that the disappearance was
supernatural, and would quite account for St. Peter's wondering.[304]
[Footnote 304: Luke 24. 12; John 20. 6-8.]
Again, St. Matthew narrates that when Christ appeared to Mary
Magdalene, and the other Mary, He was at once recognised, held by
the feet, and worshipped. And they do not seem to have been at all
surprised at meeting Him near the tomb, in spite of the Angel's
message that they should go to Galilee to see Him. Evidently
something must have occurred between, making a break in the
narrative after v. 8, which is quite possible, for the words, _And
behold_ (Rev. Vers.) do not always imply a close connection.[305]
And from the other Evangelists we learn what this was. For St. John
describes an appearance to Mary Magdalene _alone_, when she was
rebuked for wishing to touch Him, apparently in the old familiar
way, and without any act of reverence; and St. Mark says this was
the _first_ appearance. If then a few minutes later, she, in company
with the other Mary, saw Christ again, it would quite account for
their not being surprised at meeting Him, and also for their altered
behaviour in prostrating themselves to the ground, and being in
consequence permitted to hold Him by the _feet_, and worship Him.
[Footnote 305: _E.g._, Matt. 2. 1.]
Once more St. Luke says that when Christ appeared to the Apostles in
the evening, He was mistaken for a _spirit_; but he gives no reason
for this, and it was apparently the only occasion on which it
occurred. St. John however, though he does not mention the incident,
fully explains it; for he says that _the doors were shut_ for fear
of the Jews; and obviously if Christ suddenly appeared within closed
doors, it would account for their thinking that He must be a
spirit. On the other hand, St. John speaks of Christ's showing them
His hands (and also His side) though without giving any reason for
this. But St. Luke's statement that they at first took Him for a
spirit, and that He did this to convince them of His identity, quite
accounts for it; so each of the narratives helps to explain the
other.
But this is not all, for St. Luke then adds that as they still
disbelieved, Christ asked if they had anything to eat (_i.e._, if
they would give _Him_ something to eat) and they at once offered Him
a piece of broiled fish. But he gives no hint as to why they
happened to have any fish ready. St. Mark however, though he does
not mention either the request, nor its response, fully explains
both; for he says they were _sitting at meat_ at the time, probably
just concluding their evening meal. And all this still further
explains St. John's narrative, that Christ said to them _again_, the
second time, _Peace be unto you_; which would be much more natural
if something had occurred between, than if (as St. John implies) it
was just after the first time.
Again, St. Mark records Christ as saying, after His command to
preach the Gospel to all the world, 'He that believeth _and is
baptised_ shall be saved,' though without any previous reference to
baptism. But St. Matthew says the command was not only to make
disciples of all nations, but to _baptise_ them as well, and this of
course explains the other passage, though curiously enough St.
Matthew himself does not refer to it.
And then as to the appearance to the five hundred recorded by St.
Paul. None of the Evangelists mention this, but it explains a good
deal that they do mention. Thus St. John alludes to the Apostles
being in _Galilee_, (instead of staying in Jerusalem) after the
Resurrection, but he gives no hint as to why they went there. Nor do
St. Matthew and St. Mark, who say Christ told them to go there, give
any hint as to why He told them; but this appearance to the five
hundred, who had to be collected in Galilee, explains everything. It
also accounts for St. Matthew's curious remark (before noticed) that
when the Eleven saw Christ in Galilee, _they worshipped Him, but
some doubted_. And it probably explains St. Luke's omission of
Galilee among the places where the Apostles themselves had to preach
the Resurrection; as there were so many witnesses there
already.[306]
[Footnote 306: Acts 1. 8.]
Now of course too much stress must not be laid on small details like
these, but still the fact that such short and independent accounts
should explain one another in so many ways is a distinct evidence of
truthfulness. Legendary accounts of fictitious events would not be
likely to do so.
(3.) _Signs of early date._
In conclusion, it is interesting to note that these accounts,
especially those in the first three Gospels, show signs of an
extremely early, if not a _contemporary_ date. Thus St. Peter is
still called by his old name of _Simon_,[307] and it is the last
occasion when that name is used, without explaining to whom it
refers; St. Paul, some years later, though alluding to this same
appearance, calling him by what was then his usual name of Cephas or
Peter. Whilst St. John, writing many years afterwards, though he is
equally accurate as to Simon being the name in use at the time,
thinks it necessary to explain who was meant by it ('Jesus saith to
Simon _Peter_, Simon son of John, lovest thou Me?').[308]
[Footnote 307: Luke 24. 34.]
[Footnote 308: John 21. 15; comp. Acts. 15. 7, 14.]
Similarly the Apostles are still spoken of as _the Eleven_, though
they could only have had this title for _just these few weeks_.[309]
And the fact of their having had it seems to have been soon
forgotten. For St. Paul even when alluding to this very time prefers
to call them by the familiar title of _the Twelve_, which was
equally correct, as we are specially told that St. Matthias, who was
afterwards chosen as the twelfth, had been with them all along.[310]
[Footnote 309: Mark 16. 14; Luke 24. 9, 33.]
[Footnote 310: Acts 1. 22; 1 Cor. 15. 5.]
There are also some incidental remarks in the narratives, which seem
so natural, and yet so unlikely to have been invented. Thus we read
that on one occasion after Christ appeared to the Apostles, they
still disbelieved _for joy_; and on another, that though they knew
it was the Lord, they yet wanted to ask Him _Who art Thou?_[311]
Such bewildered feelings are quite intelligible at the time, but are
not likely to have been thought of afterwards.
[Footnote 311: Luke 24. 41; John 21. 12.]
Moreover the _kind_ of Resurrection asserted (though no doubt
presenting great difficulties) is strongly in favour of a
contemporary date. For it was not (as said in Chapter XIII.) a mere
resuscitation of Christ's natural body, but His rising again in a
body which combined material and spiritual properties in a
remarkable manner. And there was nothing in the Old Testament, or
anywhere else, to suggest such a Resurrection as this; it was quite
unique. Indeed the _combination_ of these properties--and they occur
in the same Gospel--is so extremely puzzling, that it is hard to see
how anything but actual experience (or what they believed to be
such) could ever have induced men to record it. And much the same
may be said of their ascribing an _altered appearance_ to Christ's
Body, so that He was often not recognised at first. Late writers are
not likely to have imagined this.
Lastly, the utter absence of any attempt at harmonising the
narratives, or avoiding the apparent discrepancies between them,
also points to their extreme antiquity. The writers in fact seem to
narrate just what they believed to have happened, often mentioning
the most trivial circumstances, and without ever attempting to meet
difficulties or objections. And while such disconnected accounts
might well have been written by the actual witnesses of a wonderful
miracle, they are not such as would have been deliberately invented;
nor are they like subsequent legends and myths.
These narratives then appear throughout to be thoroughly
trustworthy; and we therefore decide that the _Resurrection of
Christ is probably true_. In the next chapter we will consider the
various alternative theories.