THAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS PROBABILITY.
The first witnesses of the Resurrection. The value of all testimony
depends on four questions about the witnesses, and here the denial
of each corresponds to the four chief alternative theories.
(_A._) THE FALSEHOOD THEORY.
This would be to deny their _veracity_, and say that they
did not speak the truth, as far as they knew it. But
it is disproved by their motives, their conduct, and their
sufferings.
(_B._) THE LEGEND THEORY.
This would be to deny their _knowledge_, and say that they
had not the means of knowing the truth. But amply
sufficient means were within their reach, and they were
quite competent to use them.
(_C._) THE VISION THEORY.
This would be to deny their _investigation_, and say that
they were too excited to avail themselves of these
means. But this theory has immense difficulties.
(1.) Arguments in its favour.
(2.) Arguments against it.
(3.) Its failure to account for the facts.
(4.) The theory of real visions.
(_D._) THE SWOON THEORY.
This would be to deny their _reasoning_, and say that they
did not draw the right conclusion, since Christ's appearances
were due to His not having died. But this theory
also has immense difficulties.
(_E._) CONCLUSION.
The alleged difficulties of the Christian Theory, extremely
strong argument in favour of the Resurrection.
We decided in the last chapter that the Resurrection of Christ was
_probably true_; that is to say, we carefully examined the various
narratives, and came to the conclusion that they had every
appearance of being candidly and truthfully written. We have now to
consider, more in detail, _the testimony of its first witnesses_.
And, as we shall see, this affords strong additional evidence in its
favour; since all attempts to account for this testimony, without
admitting its truth, fail hopelessly.
By the _first witnesses_, we mean those persons who saw, or said
they saw, Christ alive after His Crucifixion. This will include the
twelve Apostles, and over 500 other Christians, most of whom St.
Paul says were still alive when he wrote. It will also include two
persons, who at the time were _not_ Christians,--St. Paul himself,
an avowed enemy, and St. James who, though he was Christ's brother,
does not seem to have believed in Him.[312]
[Footnote 312: John 7. 5.]
And before discussing the value of their testimony, it may be well
to glance at some general rules in regard to all testimony. If,
then, a person plainly asserts that a certain event took place,
before we believe that it did take place, we must inquire first as
to his _Veracity_: did he speak the truth as far as he knew it? Next
as to his _Knowledge_: had he the means of knowing the truth? Next
as to his _Investigation_: did he avail himself of those means? And
lastly, as to his _Reasoning_: did he draw the right conclusion? And
all possible ways of denying the truth of a man's statement can be
brought under one or other of these heads. For if it is not true, it
must be either:--
Intentionally false = want of Veracity.
{ had not the }
{ means of }
or { knowing the } = want of Knowledge.
{ truth }
{
Unintentionally {
false, in which { or { did not } = want of Investigation.
case he either { { use them }
{ had the means,{ or
{ and either { used them }
{ { wrongly } = want of Reasoning.
From this it is clear that for anyone to deny a man's statement,
without disputing either his veracity, knowledge, investigation, or
reasoning, is very like denying that one angle is greater than
another, without disputing that it is neither equal to it, nor less
than it. We have now to apply these general rules to the testimony
in favour of the Resurrection of Christ. And, as we shall see, the
denial of these four points corresponds to the four chief
alternative theories, which, may be called the _Falsehood_, the
_Legend_, the _Vision_, and the _Swoon_ Theory.
(_A._) THE FALSEHOOD THEORY.
We will begin with the Falsehood Theory. This would be to deny the
_veracity_ of the witnesses, and say that though they asserted that
Christ rose from the dead, and appeared to them, they did not really
believe it. In other words they were deliberate impostors, who,
knowing that their Master did not rise from the dead, yet spent
their whole lives in trying to persuade people that He did. And, as
we shall see, their _motives_, their _conduct_, and their
_sufferings_, are all strongly opposed to such a theory.
And first as to their _motives_, had they any interest in asserting
that Christ rose from the dead unless they really believed it?
Clearly they had _not_, for they were so few or so faint-hearted
that they could not prevent their Master being crucified. What
chance was there then of persuading the world that He had risen from
the dead, and why should they have embarked on such a hopeless
scheme? Nothing indeed but the most firm conviction of their Lord's
Resurrection, and therefore of supernatural assistance, would ever
have induced men to have ventured on it. If they believed the
Resurrection to be true, then, and only then, would they have had
any motive whatever for preaching it.
Next as to their _conduct_, did this show that they really believed
what they preached? And here also the evidence is overwhelming. When
their Master was crucified His followers were naturally filled with
gloom and despair; but in a few days this was changed to intense joy
and confidence. They preached the Resurrection in the very place
where He was crucified, and boldly went forth to convert the world
in His name. It is clear that before such a marvellous change could
take place they must at least have thought they had, what St. Luke
asserts they actually did have, _many proofs_ of the Resurrection.[313]
To them, at all events, the evidence must haveseemed conclusive, or
Christianity would have perished on Calvary.
[Footnote 313: Acts 1. 3.]
Lastly as to their _sufferings_. This is the most important point,
since voluntary suffering in any form, but especially in its extreme
form of martyrdom, seems conclusive as to a man's veracity. Persons
do not suffer for what they believe to be false; they must have
believed it to be true, though this does not of course prove that it
actually was true. And here is the answer to the common objection,
that since all religions have had their martyrs, this kind of
evidence proves nothing. On the contrary, it does prove something,
though it does not prove everything. It does not prove that what the
man died for was true, but it does prove that he believed it to be
true. It is therefore a conclusive test as to his _veracity_.
What evidence have we, then, that the first witnesses suffered for
the truth of what they preached? And once more the evidence is
complete and overwhelming, both from the Acts and St. Paul's
Epistles. We need only refer to these latter, as their genuineness
is undisputed. St. Paul then, in one place, gives a list of the
actual sufferings he had undergone; he alludes to them in numerous
other places, and often as if they were the common experience of all
Christians at the time; and in one passage he expressly includes the
other Apostles with himself in the long list of sufferings he
describes. While he elsewhere declares that at a still earlier time,
before his conversion, he himself persecuted the Christians _beyond
measure_.[314]
[Footnote 314: 2 Cor. 11. 24-27; Rom. 8. 35; 1 Cor. 4. 9-13; Gal. 1.
13.]
There can thus be no doubt as to the continual sufferings of the
first witnesses, and, as just said, it is a decisive proof of their
veracity. We conclude therefore that when they asserted that Christ
rose from the dead, they were asserting what they honestly believed
whether rightly or wrongly, to be true. And as this belief was due,
simply to the witnesses believing that they saw Christ alive after
His death; we must further conclude that they honestly believed in
the appearances of Christ as recorded by themselves, and their
friends, in the New Testament. In other words, these accounts are
not _intentionally_ false.
So much for the _veracity_ of the witnesses. It is not, as a rule,
denied by modern opponents of the Resurrection; but in early times,
when men ought to have known best, it was evidently thought to be
the only alternative. St. Paul declares emphatically that unless
Christ had risen, he and the other Apostles were _false witnesses_,
in plain words _liars_.[315] That was the only choice. They were
either saying what they knew to be true, or what they knew to be
false. And the idea of there being some _mistake_ about it, due to
visions, or swoons, or anything else, never seems to have occurred
to anyone.
[Footnote 315: 1 Cor. 15. 15.]
(_B._) THE LEGEND THEORY.
We pass on now to the Legend Theory. This would be to deny the
_knowledge_ of the witnesses: and say that our Gospels are not
genuine, but merely record subsequent legends; so we cannot tell
whether the first witnesses had, or had not, the means of knowing
the truth. But if we admit the genuineness of our Gospels, and the
veracity of their writers (both of which have been admitted), the
Legend Theory is out of the question.
They asserted, it will be remembered, that Christ's _Body_, not His
Spirit, appeared to them, after the crucifixion; and from their own
accounts it is clear that they had ample means of finding out if
this was true. Whether they used these means, and actually did find
out, is, of course, another question; but as to sufficient means
being available, and their being quite competent to use them if they
liked, there can be no doubt whatever. As has been well said, it was
not one person who saw Him, but many; they saw Him not only
separately, but together; not only for a moment, but for a long
time; not only by night, but by day; not only at a distance, but
near; not only once, but several times. And they not only saw Him,
but they touched Him, walked with Him, conversed with Him, ate with
Him, and examined His Body to satisfy their doubts. In fact,
according to their own accounts, Christ seems to have convinced them
in every way in which conviction was possible that He had really
risen from the dead.
And even apart from our Gospels, the Legend Theory is still
untenable. For St. Paul mentions several of the appearances, and as
this was within a few years of the events, there was no time for the
growth of legends. Moreover he heard of them direct from those who
saw them, St. Peter, St. James, etc., so he must have known the
circumstances under which they occurred, and, being an educated man,
is not likely to have been taken in by any imposture. While his
saying that some of the five hundred had died, though most of them
were still alive when he wrote, implies that he had also made some
enquiries about that appearance. His testimony is thus very valuable
from every point of view, and absolutely fatal to the Legend
Theory.
(_C._) THE VISION THEORY.
We now come to the Vision Theory. This would be to deny the
_investigation_ of the witnesses; and say that they were so excited,
or so enthusiastic, or perhaps so stupid, that they did not avail
themselves of the ample means they had of finding out the truth. In
other words they so expected their Lord to appear to them after His
death, and kept so dwelling on the thought of Him, as though unseen,
yet perhaps very near to them, that after a time they fancied they
actually saw Him, and that He had risen from the dead. The wish was,
in fact, father to the thought; so that when a supposed appearance
took place, they were so filled with joy at their Master's presence,
that they neglected to ascertain whether the appearance they saw was
real, or only due to their own fancy.
Such is the theory; though it is often modified in regard to
particular appearances, by ascribing them to dreams, or to someone
being mistaken for Christ. And as it is at present the favourite one
with those who reject the Resurrection, we must examine it
carefully; first considering the arguments in its favour, then those
against it, then its failure to account for the facts recorded, and
lastly what is known as the theory of real visions.
(1.) _Arguments in its favour._
Now we must at once admit that it is possible for an honest man to
mistake a phantom of his own brain, arising from some diseased state
of the mind or body, for a reality in the outer world. Such
_subjective_ visions, as they are called, are by no means unheard
of, though they are not common. And of course the great, if not the
only argument in its favour is that it professes to account for the
alleged Resurrection, without on the one hand admitting its truth,
or on the other that the witnesses were deliberate impostors. Here,
it is urged, is a way of avoiding both difficulties, by allowing
that the witnesses honestly believed all they said, only they were
_mistaken_ in supposing the appearances to be real, when they were
merely due to their own imagination. And undoubtedly the fact that
men have often thought they saw ghosts, visions, etc., when there
was really nothing to see, gives it some support.
(2.) _Arguments against it._
Let us now consider how this Vision Theory would suit the accounts
of the Resurrection written by the witnesses themselves, and their
friends. As will be seen, we might almost imagine that they had been
written on purpose to contradict it.
To begin with, the writers were not unacquainted with visions, and
occasionally record them as happening to themselves or others. But
then they always use suitable expressions, such as falling into a
trance.[316] No such language is used in the Gospels to describe
the appearances of Christ, which are always recorded as if they were
actual matters of fact. While as to St. Paul, he never confuses the
revelations and visions, which he sometimes had, with the one great
appearance of Christ to him near Damascus, which qualified him to be
an Apostle.[317]
[Footnote 316: _E.g._, Acts 10. 10; 9. 10; 16. 9.]
[Footnote 317: 1 Cor. 9. 1; 15. 8; Gal. 1. 16-17.]
Secondly, the appearances did not take place (as visions might have
been expected to do, and generally did)[318] when the disciples were
engaged in prayer, or in worship. But it was during their ordinary
everyday occupations; when for instance they were going for a walk,
or sitting at supper, or out fishing. And they were often simple,
plain, and almost trivial in their character, very different from
what enthusiasts would have imagined.
[Footnote 318: _E.g._, Acts 10. 30; 11. 5; 22. 17.]
Thirdly, subjective visions due to enthusiasm, would not have
started so soon after the Crucifixion as the _third_ day. It would
have required a much longer time for the disciples to have got over
their utter confusion, and to have realised (perhaps by studying the
old prophecies) that this humiliation was, after all, part of God's
scheme, and was to be followed by a Resurrection. Nor again would
such visions have only lasted for a short time; yet with the single
exception of that to St. Paul, they were all over in a few weeks,
though the enthusiasm of the witnesses lasted through life.
Fourthly, it is plain from all the accounts that the Apostles did
not _expect_ the Resurrection, and were much surprised at it,
though they afterwards remembered that Christ had foretold it. This
is shown, not only by the Christians bringing spices, to embalm the
Body, and persons do not embalm a body unless they expect it to
remain in the grave; but also by the account of the appearances
themselves. For with the exception of the two farewell meetings (and
possibly that to the two Marys), Christ's appearance was wholly
unexpected. No one was looking for it, no one was anticipating it.
When for instance Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty, it never even
occurred to her that He had come to life again, she merely thought
the Body had been removed.
Fifthly, and this is very remarkable, when Christ did appear, He was
often _not recognised_. This was the case with Mary Magdalene, with
Cleopas and his companion, and with the disciples at Tiberias. But
it is plain that, if they so hoped to see their risen Master, that
they eventually fancied they did see Him, they would at once have
recognised Him; and their not doing so is quite inconsistent with
the Vision Theory.
Sixthly, we are repeatedly told that at first some of the disciples
_disbelieved_ or _doubted_ the Resurrection.[319] This is an
important point, since it shows that opinions were divided on the
subject, and therefore makes it almost certain that they would have
used what means they had of finding out the truth. And a visit to
the grave would have shown them at once whether the Body was there,
or not: and they are not likely to have preached the Resurrection,
without first ascertaining the point. Moreover, some of them
remained doubtful even after the others were persuaded, St. Thomas
in particular requiring the most convincing proof. His state of mind
was certainly not that of an enthusiast, since, instead of being so
convinced of the Resurrection as to have imagined it, he could with
great difficulty be got to believe it. Indeed, according to these
accounts, scarcely one of the witnesses believed the Resurrection
till the belief was almost forced on him.
[Footnote 319: Matt. 28. 17; Mark 16. 11-14; Luke 24. 11, 37; John
20. 25.]
Seventhly, subjective visions do not occur to different persons
_simultaneously_. A man's private illusions (like his dreams) are
his own. A number of men do not simultaneously dream the same dream,
still less do they simultaneously see the same subjective vision--at
least a vision like that here referred to, of a person moving about
among them, and speaking to them. This is quite different from
Constantine's army thinking that they saw a luminous cross in the
sky, or a body of Spanish troops that they saw their patron (St.
James) riding at their head, or anything of that kind; several
instances of which are known. But a subjective vision, at all
resembling what is described in the Gospels, is extremely rare. It
may perhaps happen to one person in ten thousand once in his life.
It is difficult to believe that even two persons should have such an
experience at the same time, while the idea that a dozen or more men
should simultaneously see such a subjective vision is out of the
question. And the Gospels, it may be added, always imply that
Christ was visible _to all present_ (though some of them doubted as
to His identity), which was not, as a rule, the case in other
alleged visions.
Eighthly, how are we to account for visionary _conversations_? Yet
these occurred on _every_ occasion. Christ never merely appeared,
and then vanished. He always spoke, and often for a considerable
time, giving detailed instructions; and can we imagine anyone
believing a mere vision to have done all this? Is it possible, for
instance, for St. Thomas to have believed that Christ conversed with
him, and for the other Apostles, _who were all present_, to have
believed it too, if the whole affair was only a vision? Indeed,
conversations _in the presence of others_ seem peculiarly hard to
explain as visions, yet they are mentioned more than once.
For all these reasons then--because the appearances are not
described in suitable language, did not occur on suitable occasions,
began and ended too soon, were not expected, were not recognised,
were not believed, occurred simultaneously, and always included
conversations as well--the Vision Theory is to say the least
extremely improbable.
(3.) _Its failure to account for the facts._
But this is not all; the Theory is not only improbable, it does not
account for the actual _facts_ recorded--facts concerning which,
unless the writings are intentionally false, there could be no doubt
whatever. A vision, for instance, could not have rolled away the
stone from the door of the tomb, yet this is vouched for by _every_
Evangelist. Again, persons could not have honestly believed that
they went to the tomb, and found it empty, if the Body was there all
the time. And this also is vouched for by _every_ Evangelist. Nor
could they have thought that they _touched_ their Master, _i.e._,
took hold of His feet, if He existed only in their imagination; for
the attempt to touch Him would at once have shown them their
mistake.[320] Nor could they have seen Him _eat food_, for a vision,
like a dream, would not explain the disappearance of the food. Nor
again could a mere vision take bread, and on another occasion bread
and fish, and give it them to eat.[321] In regard to all these
particulars, then, the Vision Theory is hopelessly untenable.
[Footnote 320: Matt. 28. 9.]
[Footnote 321: Luke 24. 30, 43; John 21. 13; Acts 10. 41.]
There is also the great difficulty as to what became of the _dead
Body_ of Christ. For if it was still in the grave, the Jews would
have produced it, rather than invent the story about its being
stolen; and if it was not in the grave, its removal could not have
been due to visions. With regard to this story it may be noticed
that St. Matthew says it was _spread abroad_ among the Jews; and
Justin Martyr, himself a native of Palestine, also alludes to it.
For he says that the Jews sent men all over the world to proclaim
that the disciples _stole_ the Body at _night_;[322] so there can be
no doubt that some such story existed.
[Footnote 322: Matt. 28. 15; Justin, Dial., 108.]
But its weakness is self-evident. For if the soldiers (who were
probably posted on the Saturday evening, and thus not known to the
women) were, as they said, _asleep_ at the time, how could they
tell whether the disciples had stolen the Body, or whether Christ
had come forth of His own accord? Moreover that Roman soldiers, with
their strict discipline, who were put there on purpose to keep the
Body, should really have gone to sleep, and allowed it to be stolen,
is _most improbable_. And though it seems unlikely that they could
have been bribed to say they were asleep, if they were not, as it
was a capital offence; we must remember that they were _already_
liable to death; since they had left the tomb, and the Body was
gone. So whether they were asleep, or awake, at the time mattered
little. And in any case, the fact of their having left it (which is
plain from all the accounts) shows that something very extraordinary
must have happened.
All, then, that the story proves is this (but this it does prove
unquestionably), that though the Body was guarded, yet when it was
wanted it was gone, and could not be found. And this is a strong
argument not only against the Vision Theory, but against every
theory except the Christian one. For when the Resurrection was first
announced, the most obvious and decisive answer would have been for
the Jews to have produced the dead Body; and their not doing this
strongly supports the Christian account. Indeed, the _empty tomb_,
together with the failure of all attempts to account for it, was
doubtless one of the reasons why the Apostles gained so many
converts the first day they preached the Resurrection.[323]
[Footnote 323: Acts 2. 41.]
Lastly, we must remember that this gaining of converts, _i.e._, the
_founding of Christianity_, is, after all, the great fact that has
to be explained. And even if the Vision Theory could account for the
Apostles themselves believing that they had seen Christ, it would
not account for their being able to convince others of this belief,
especially if the Body was still in the tomb. For a mere vision,
like a ghost story, would begin and end in nothing; and if the
Resurrection also began in nothing, how are we to account for its
ending in so much?
Summing up these arguments, then, we conclude that the Vision Theory
is most improbable in any case; and can only be accepted at all by
admitting that nearly the whole of our accounts are not only untrue,
but intentionally so. But then it is quite needless. Its object was
to explain the alleged Resurrection without disputing the _veracity_
of the writers, and this it is quite unable to do. In short, if the
writers honestly believed the accounts as we have them, or indeed
any other accounts at all resembling them, the Vision Theory is out
of the question.
It does not even account satisfactorily for the one appearance, that
to St. Paul, which it might be thought capable of explaining. For
his _companions_ as well as himself saw the Light and (apparently)
heard the Voice, though not the actual words.[324] And how could a
subjective vision of St. Paul have thus affected all his companions?
Moreover physical blindness does not result from such a vision, and
to say that in his case the wish was father to the thought, and
that his expectation and hope of seeing Christ eventually made him
think that he did see Him, is absurd. For even when he did see Him,
he did not recognise Him; but had to ask _Who art Thou, Lord?_ Here
then was the case of an avowed enemy, and a man of great
intellectual power, who was converted, and that against his will,
solely by the appearance of Christ. And as he had access to all
existing evidence on both sides, and had everything to lose and
nothing to gain from the change, his conversion alone is a strong
argument in favour of the Resurrection, more especially as the fact
itself is beyond dispute.
[Footnote 324: Acts 9. 7; 22. 9; 26. 13, 14.]
(4.) _The Theory of real visions._
Before passing on, we must just glance at a modification of the
Vision Theory, that has been suggested in recent years; which is
that the Apostles saw _real_ visions, miraculously sent by God, to
persuade them to go on preaching the Gospel. And no doubt this
theory avoids many of the difficulties of the ordinary Vision
Theory, especially in regard to the appearances beginning so soon as
the third day, their not being expected, and their occurring
simultaneously. But it has even greater difficulties of its own. For
it admits the supernatural, and yet these divinely sent visions were
such as to _mislead_ the Apostles, and to make them think that
Christ's Body had risen from the grave, and saw no corruption, when
in reality it was still decaying in the tomb.
And this alone is fatal to the theory. For if God gave a
supernatural vision, it would certainly be to convince men of what
was true, not of what was false. And even a real miracle is easier
to believe, than that God should found His Church on a false one.
Moreover supernatural visions are just as unable as natural ones to
account for the facts recorded, such as the rolling away of the
stone, the empty tomb, the holding of Christ by His feet, or the
disappearance of the food. While the great difficulty as to what
became of the dead Body, applies to this as much as to the ordinary
Vision Theory.
(_D._) THE SWOON THEORY.
Lastly we come to the Swoon Theory. This would be to deny the
_reasoning_ of the witnesses; and say that though they saw Christ
alive after His Crucifixion, they did not draw the right conclusion
in thinking that He had risen from the dead, since as a matter of
fact He had never died, but had only fainted on the Cross.
And in support of this, it is urged that death after crucifixion did
not generally occur so quickly, since Pilate _marvelled if He were
already dead_; and that He might easily have been mistaken for dead,
as no accurate tests were known in those days. While the blood
coming out of His side is also appealed to, because blood does not
flow from a dead body. Moreover, as He was then placed in a cool
rock cave, with aromatic spices, He would probably recover
consciousness; when He would come forth and visit His friends, and
ask for something to _eat_: which is what He did according to St.
Luke. And they, superstitious men, looking upon their Master as in
some sense Divine, and perhaps half expecting the Resurrection,
would at once conclude that He had risen from the dead; especially
if they had already heard that the tomb was empty.
And the chief argument in favour of the theory is, of course, the
same as that in favour of the Vision Theory. It professes to account
for the recorded appearances, without admitting either the truth of
the Resurrection, or deliberate falsehood on the part of the
witnesses; who, according to this theory, were themselves mistaken
in thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, when in reality He
had never died. They could not therefore have helped in restoring
Him; He must have recovered by Himself. This is essential to the
theory; so it is quite unlike a case recorded by Josephus, where a
man who had been crucified, and taken down alive, was gradually
restored by a doctor.[325]
[Footnote 325: Josephus, Life, 75.]
How then would this theory suit the facts of the case? While
admitting its possibility, it is hard to find words to express its
great _improbability_. It has immense difficulties, many of them
peculiarly its own. And first as to Christ Himself. He must have
been extremely exhausted after all the ill-treatment He had
received, yet He is supposed not only to have recovered
consciousness, but to have come out of the tomb by Himself, rolling
away the large stone. And then, instead of creeping about weak and
ill, and requiring nursing and medical treatment, He must have
walked over twelve miles--and this with pierced feet[326]--to
Emmaus and back. And the same evening He must have appeared to His
disciples so completely recovered that they, instead of looking upon
Him as still half-dead, thought that He had conquered death, and was
indeed the Prince of Life. All this implies such a rapid recovery as
is quite incredible.
[Footnote 326: The feet being pierced is often disputed, but St.
Luke (who probably knew more about crucifixion than we do) evidently
thought they were; for he records Christ as saying, _See my hands
and my feet that it is I myself_, which implies that His hands and
feet would identify Him.]
Next as to the piercing of His side with a spear.[327] This is
recorded by an eye-witness, and would doubtless of itself have
caused death, though St. John's statement that He was dead already
seems the more probable. Nor did the blood coming out, in any way,
disprove this. For blood (as long as it remains liquid) will of
course flow out _downwards_ from any body, just as other liquids
would do. Only when a person is alive, the action of the heart will
make it flow out upwards as well.
[Footnote 327: John 19. 34.]
Again, it is most unlikely that so many persons, both friends and
foes, should have mistaken Christ for dead. Yet according to this
theory the _soldiers_ entrusted with the execution, who must have
had a good deal of experience in such matters; the _centurion_, who
was sent for by Pilate on purpose to ascertain this very point; the
_Christians_, who took down the Body and wrapped it in linen cloths;
and the _Jews_, who are not likely to have left their Victim without
making sure of the fact, must all have honestly believed that
Christ was dead when He was not. Moreover, the tomb was carefully
guarded by His enemies for the express purpose of securing the Body.
How then did they let it escape? If they were not asleep at the
time, they must either have done this _willingly_, because they were
bribed; or _unwillingly_, because they could not help it, being
overcome by some supernatural Power; and either alternative is fatal
to the Swoon Theory.
This theory also requires not only that the Apostles should have
been mistaken in thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, but
that Christ Himself should have countenanced the mistake; or He
would have explained the truth to His disciples. He is thus made to
be a deceiver instead of His Apostles, which all will admit to be
most improbable.
And then, what became of Him afterwards? If He died again within a
few weeks, His disciples could scarcely have thought Him the Prince
of Life, who had the keys of Death and of Hades;[328] and if He
continued to live, where did He go to? Moreover He must have died
again at some time, and His real tomb is sure to have been much
venerated by His followers; and it would have prevented any belief
in the Ascension. Yet as said before (Chapter XV.), this seems to
have formed a part of Christian instruction from the very first.
[Footnote 328: Acts 3. 15; Rev. 1. 18.]
But perhaps the chief argument against this theory is that it does
not account for many of the actual _facts_ recorded; such as Christ
passing through closed doors, His vanishing at pleasure, and His
Ascension. These details present no difficulty on the Vision Theory,
nor on that of deliberate falsehood; but they are inconsistent with
the present one. And though it accounts to some extent for the empty
tomb; it does not account for the _angels_ being there, announcing
the Resurrection.
Nor does it account for the _grave-clothes_ being so carefully left
behind. For if Christ had come out of the tomb by Himself, He could
scarcely have left His clothes behind; not to mention the difficulty
of taking them off, caused by the adhesive myrrh, which would have
stuck them together, and to the Body. These grave-clothes are thus
fatal to this, as to every other theory, except the Christian one;
yet it was a simple matter of fact, as to which there could be no
possible _mistake_. Either the clothes were there, or else the
persons who said they saw them were telling a falsehood. Moreover,
in any case Christ could not have walked to Emmaus and back, or
appeared to the Apostles, or to anyone else, in His _grave-clothes_,
so He must have obtained some others, and how did He get them? His
enemies are not likely to have supplied them, and if His friends
did, they must have been aware of the fraud.
On the whole then, we decide that the _Swoon Theory_, like the
Vision Theory, is very improbable in any case, and only tenable at
all by supposing a large part of our narratives to be intentionally
false. But then it is quite needless.
(_E._) CONCLUSION.
Before concluding this chapter a few remarks may be made on the
alleged difficulties of the _Christian_ theory. There are only two
of any importance. The first is that the Resurrection would be a
_miracle_, and probably nine out of ten men who disbelieve it, do so
for this reason. It is not that the evidence for it is insufficient
(they have perhaps never examined it) but that no conceivable
evidence would be sufficient to establish such an event. Miracles,
they say, are incredible, _they cannot happen_, and that settles the
point; for it is of course easier to believe _any_ explanation,
visions, swoons, or anything else, than the occurrence of that which
cannot happen.
But we have already admitted, in Chapter VII., that miracles
are _not_ incredible. And though no doubt, _under ordinary
circumstances_, a dead man coming to life again would be so
_extremely_ improbable as to be practically incredible; yet these
were not ordinary circumstances, and Christ was not an ordinary man.
On the contrary, as we shall see, He was an absolutely unique Man,
claiming moreover to be Divine, and having a mass of powerful
evidence both from His own Character, from previous Prophecies, and
from subsequent History, to support His claims. Therefore that He
should rise from the dead, as a proof that these claims were
well-founded, does not seem so very improbable after all.
The other difficulty refers to Christ's not appearing _publicly_ to
the Jews. Why, it is asked, did He only appear to His own disciples?
Surely this is very suspicious. If He really did rise from the
dead, and wished the world to believe it, why did He not settle the
point by going publicly into Jerusalem?
But we cannot feel sure that this would have _settled the point_. No
doubt the Jews who saw Him would have been convinced, but the nation
as a whole might, or might not, have accepted Christianity. If they
did _not_, saying for instance it was due to a pretender, it would
have been worse than useless. While if they did, the Romans would
very likely have looked upon it as a national insurrection, and its
progress would have been more than ever difficult. It would also
have greatly weakened the force of _Prophecy_; since, in the absence
of ancient manuscripts, people might think that the old Jewish
prophecies had been tampered with, to make them suit their Christian
interpretation. But now these prophecies, having been preserved by
men who are opposed to Christianity, are above suspicion.
Moreover, to get the world to believe in the Resurrection required
not only evidence, but _missionaries_, that is to say, men who were
so absolutely convinced of its truth, as to be willing to spend
their whole lives in witnessing for it, in all lands and at all
costs. And the chief object of the appearances may have been to
produce such men; and it is obvious that (apart from a miraculous
conversion like St. Paul's) there could not have been more than a
few of them.
For only a _few_ could have conversed with Christ, and eaten with
Him after His death, so as to be quite certain that He was then
alive; only a _few_ could have known Him so intimately before, as
to be quite certain that it was really He, and only a _few_ had
loved Him so dearly as to be willing to give up everything for His
sake. In short, there were only a few _suitable_ witnesses
available. And Christ's frequently appearing to these few--the
_chosen witnesses_ as they are called[329]--in the private and
intimate manner recorded in the Gospels, was evidently more likely
to turn them into ardent missionaries (which it actually did) than
any public appearance. Indeed it so often happens that what
everybody should do, nobody does; that it may be doubted whether
Christ's publicly appearing to a number of persons in Jerusalem
would have induced even one of them to have faced a life of
suffering, and a death of martyrdom, in spreading the news. This
objection, then, cannot be maintained.
[Footnote 329: Acts 10. 41.]
In conclusion, it seems scarcely necessary to sum up the arguments
in this chapter. We have discussed at some length the veracity,
knowledge, investigation, and reasoning of the _first witnesses_ of
the Resurrection; and as we have seen, not one of these points can
be fairly doubted. In fact the evidence in favour of each is
overwhelming. Therefore the alternative theories--the Falsehood, the
Legend, the Vision, and the Swoon Theory--which are founded on
denying these points, are all untenable. And this greatly supports
the conclusion we arrived at in the last chapter; so that combining
the two; we have an _extremely strong_ argument in favour of the
Resurrection of Christ.