Skip to main content

Full text of "The first Easter dawn : an inquiry into the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus"

See other formats 


CONVERTED 
lEixeiit  ^ 

LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY   Of 
CALIFORNIA 


THE  FIRST  EASTER  DAWN 


THE 


FIRST  EASTER  DAWN 


AN 

INQUIRY  INTO  THE  EVIDENCE  FOE  THE 
EESUREECTION  OE  JESUS 


BY 


CHARLES  TURNER  GORHAM 


"  Far  hence  he  lies 
In  the  lorn  Syrian  town, 
And  on  his  grave,  with  shining  eyes, 
The  Syrian  stars  look  down." 


[issued   for   the   rationalist   press   association,  LTD.] 


London : 

WATTS  &  CO., 

17,  JOHNSON'S  COURT,  FLEET  STREET,  E.G. 

1908 


LOAN  STACK 


G6 


/ 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction        .-...--        vii 


PART  I. 
THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SCRIPTURES 

CHAP. 

I.  Observations  on  the  New  Testament  Accounts              -  1 

II.  The  Statements  of  the  Apostle  Paul    -            -            -  29 

III.  Paul's  Conversion                -----  48 

rv.  The  Theory  of  Subjective  Impressions    -            -            -  76 


PART  II. 

CHRISTIAN  DEFENCES  EXAMINED 

I.  The  Late  Bishop  of  Durham         .  .  .  .         103 

II.  "The  Resurrection    of    Our   Lord,"  by  Professor  W. 

Milligan,  D.D.  ------         134 

III.  "The  Risen  Master,"  by  the  Rev.  Henry  Latham         -         167 

IV.  "The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,"  by  the  Rev,  John 

Kennedy,  D.D.    .-..--         186 


177 


vi  CONTENTS 


PART  m. 

NATURALISTIC  EXPLANATIONS 

CHAP.  PAGB 

I.  Gnosticism  and  the  Messianic  Idea          -            -            -  215 
II.  The  Book  of  Enoch  and  the  Uncanonical  Gospels       -  241 
ni.  Christian  Testimonies  in  Support  of  the  Vision  Hypo- 
thesis     -------  266 

IV.  Concluding  Remarks            .            .            -            -            -  289 


List  of  Works  Consulted  -  -  -  -  -        311 

Index         ___--_-_        317 


INTRODUCTION 


The  prominence  which  the  subject  of  this  work  has 
assumed  in  recent  years  may  be  held  to  excuse  the  pub- 
lication of  a  further  attempt  to  bring  it  into  clearer  light. 
So  far  as  I  am  aware,  no  tolerably  complete  examination 
of  the  evidence  from  the  standpoint  of  modern  Rational- 
ism exists  in  this  country.  It  is  hoped  that  the  present 
volume  may  supply  a  need  which  is  felt  by  many 
inquirers. 

The  extensive  sale  of  a  certain  work  of  fiction,  the 
strange  crudities  of  which  might  have  been  a  source  of 
innocent  amusement  had  they  not  been  gravely  endorsed 
by  some  dignitaries  of  the  Church,  has  stimulated  my 
resolve  to  supply,  to  the  best  of  my  power,  a  counter- 
acting influence  on  behalf  of  sobriety  and  common 
sense.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  a  work  on  the 
unpopular  side  will  meet  with  equal  assent  or  apprecia- 
tion ;  but  if  it  should  enable  even  a  few  seekers  after 
truth  to  obtain  a  firmer  grasp  of  a  great  historical 
problem,  my  labour  will  not  have  been  wasted. 

Many  will  think  this  book  too  long.  It  is  in  reality 
too  short.  Some  branches  of  the  subject  have  had  to  be 
treated  either  very  lightly  or  not  at  all.  A  careful  inves- 
tigation of  the  religious  conditions  of  the  ancient  world 
is  essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  belief  in 


vn 


viii  INTRODUCTION 


the  resurrection.  For  such  a  study  I  have  not  had  the 
time,  nor  do  I  claim  to  possess  the  quaUfications.  Never- 
theless, the  reader  may  find  in  Part  III.  some  fresh 
information  of  a  kind  not  usually  furnished  by  Christian 
advocates.  Again,  a  complete  examination  of  the  whole 
question  of  miraculous  phenomena  would  have  led  me 
too  far  astray  from  the  main  theme,  and  therefore  could 
not  be  undertaken.  A  third  important  topic,  the  relation 
of  Christian  concepts  to  the  mythology  of  other  religions, 
has  scarcely  been  alluded  to,  for  similar  reasons.  The 
alleged  divinity  of  Jesus,  also,  in  spite  of  its  manifest 
bearing  on  the  subject,  has  been  discussed  in  only  a 
fragmentary  way. 

Objection  ma}^  possibly  be  taken  to  the  frequent  use  of 
the  antitheses,  natural — supernatural ;  material — spiri- 
tual ;  subjective — objective.  It  has  not  seemed  worth 
while  to  attempt  a  minute  philosophical  analysis  of  these 
terms.  They  are  here  used  in  those  approximately 
accurate  senses  in  which  they  are  generally  understood, 
rather  than  with  a  scientific  precision  which  is  perhaps 
scarcely  attainable.  A  writer  in  the  Hihbert  Journal  for 
July,  1905,  has  objected  to  such  distinctions  as  being 
"  out  of  date,"  and  adds  that  ''  the  fact  of  resurrection  is 
nowhere  in  dispute  among  serious  thinkers."  Is  it  not 
possible,  then,  to  differentiate  the  consciousness  of  man 
from  his  environment?  And  in  dealing  with  an  alleged 
incident  of  history  does  not  the  argument  turn  on  what 
we  mean  by  "the  fact"?  If  the  resurrection  was 
nothing  more  than  a  revival  of  ethical  and  psychical 
influence,  no  Rationalist  would  deny  it,  because  he  knows 


INTRODUCTION  ix 


that  such  a  fact  is  a  common  feature  of  human  experi- 
ence. But  when  it  is  asserted  that  an  organism  which 
has  undergone  the  process  of  physical  death  has  returned 
to  physical  life,  it  must  be  insisted  that  nothing  short  of 
absolute  proof  can  justify  belief  in  such  an  exception  to 
natural  causation.  The  question  is  not  whether  all 
nature  is  divine,  but  whether  a  particular  event  is  divine 
in  a  sense  which  does  not  apply  to  the  rest  of  nature. 
The  term  "  objective  "  correctly  denotes  all  phenomena 
which  are  external  to  the  individual ;  while  the  term 
"  subjective  "  indicates  the  mental  and  emotional  facts 
of  his  inner  nature.  To  say  that  "the  real  historical 
evidences  of  the  Resurrection  lie  in  the  lives"  of  those 
who  know  that  "  Christ  lives  in  them  "is  to  confuse  two 
wholly  different  kinds  of  evidence,  and  to  throw  the 
question  into  obscurity.  Everyone  knows  that  there  is 
a  difference  between  external  events  and  internal  impres- 
sions which  may  or  may  not  correctly  represent  them. 
That  is  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  critical  investiga- 
tion. If  religion  means  anything,  it  surely  means  the 
purifying  by  moral  and  intellectual  experience  of  man's 
primitive  impulses ;  a  slow  transition  from  external 
forms  to  inward  sentiments,  from  the  material  to  the 
spiritual.  Particular  doctrines  inevitably  share  in  the 
general  change,  and  so  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  has  for 
many  religious  minds  become  transformed  from  an  im- 
possible wonder  to  an  ethical  and  spiritual  relationship. 

The  truest  evidence  is  to  be  found  "  in  the  life  of  the 
believer."  What  does  this  mean  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that 
the  claim  implies  essentially  a  spiritual  affinity,  a  fact  of 


INTRODUCTION 


the  religious  consciousness  for  which  an  objective  cause 
may  or  may  not  exist  ?  And  may  not  the  behef  have 
arisen  by  virtue  of  the  same  affinities  that  sustain  it  ? 
"Why  should  it  be  assumed  that  an  unverifiable  event 
alleged  to  have  happened  after  the  death  of  Jesus  could 
alone  have  originated  the  resurrection  belief  ?  Was  not 
the  spiritual  relation  established  rather  by  his  life  ? 
The  analogy  of  the  spirit  is  with  the  things  of  the  spirit, 
not  with  the  facts  of  the  material  order  alone. 

To  the  advanced  Rationalist  this  book  may  seem 
superfluous.  Miracles,  some  may  say,  are  impossible, 
because  they  would  conflict  with  the  universal  law  of 
causation.  No  evidence  can  prove  a  miracle.  Why, 
then,  trouble  to  examine  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  ?  But  many  sound  thinkers  decline  to  assume 
the  impossibility  of  the  miraculous,  while  remaining 
convinced  that  a  dead  man's  return  to  life  must  always 
be  more  unlikely  than  the  falsity  of  testimony  to  that 
effect.  And  as  the  haziest  notions  on  this  subject  are 
still  prevalent  it  has  seemed  desirable  to  group  into  one 
volume  some  of  the  principal  objections  to  the  orthodox 
doctrine  as  well  as  some  examination  of  the  main 
arguments  in  its  favour. 

In  doing  this  the  theory  that  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  written  under  the  influence  of  divine 
inspiration  has  designedly  been  put  on  one  side,  as  being 
both  discredited  and  unnecessary.  Even  conceding  the 
possibility  that  a  man  may  be  inspired,  it  must  be  difficult 
for  him  to  know  this  with  certainty,  or  to  distinguish 
between    the   divine   and    the    human    sources    of    his 


INTRODUCTION  xi 


knowledge.  And  it  must  also  be  difficult  to  convince 
other  persons  of  his  inspiration.  The  credulous  may  at 
once  accept  his  claims  ;  the  critical  will  examine  them. 
Inspiration  cannot  give  to  statements  of  fact  any  greater 
truth  than  belongs  to  their  intrinsic  reality.  And  as  in 
the  case  of  past  events  we  have  to  arrive  at  this  truth 
by  the  method  of  evidence,  we  must  disregard  the  claim 
to  special  inspiration  as  alike  irrelevant  and  illusory. 

While  some  Christian  apologists  doggedly  assert  that 
the  historical  evidence  for  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is 
strong  and  ample,  others  of  broader  views  candidly 
admit  its  weakness.  To  them  the  person  of  Jesus  alone 
guarantees  its  practical  sufficiency.  Christ,  they  claim, 
was  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  a  unique  and  perfect 
being,  the  "Prince  of  Life,"  who  "must  overcome 
death."  The  evidence  is  therefore  approached  in  the 
light  of  a  strong  presupposition,  and  one  which  is  very 
ill-supported  by  the  writings  on  which  such  implicit 
reliance  is  placed.  Considering  that  the  Gospel  writers 
unhesitatingly  attribute  spoken  words  to  non-existent 
beings  like  angels  and  evil  spirits,  it  is  prima  facie 
probable  that  they  would  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
also  expressions  which  he  did  not  utter  ;  and  that  they 
actually  did  so  in  several  instances  cannot  fairly  be 
denied.  It  is  consequently  impossible  to  be  sure  what 
the  claims  of  Jesus  really  were,  and  even  certainty  on 
that  point  would  not  insure  the  accuracy  of  a  particular 
interpretation  of  them.  That  educated  Christians  of  our 
own  time  should  insist  on  a  literal  acceptance  of  the 
figurative  terms  of  a  long  past  epoch  of  superstition  and 


xii  INTRODUCTION 


ignorance  is  nothing  less  than  surprising.  For  it  seems 
clear  to  any  impartial  reader  of  the  New  Testament  that, 
even  if  we  make  no  allowance  for  Oriental  hyperbole, 
Jesus  did  not  regard  himself,  nor  did  his  followers  regard 
him,  as  other  than  essentially  human,  though  still  in 
some  vague  sense  an  embodiment  and  representative  of 
the  divine.  Indications  to  this  effect  are  numerous,  and 
they  imply  a  distinction  between  the  person  sending  and 
the  person  sent  which,  if  not  real,  is  both  gratuitous  and 
misleading.  It  cannot  be  admitted  that  a  string  of 
doubtful  propositions  is  made  stronger  by  being  forced 
into  dogmatic  relationship.  In  reality  this  is  nothing 
more  than  the  old  process  of  bringing  forward  one 
miracle  to  prove  another. 

Finally,  it  should  be  said  (though  the  remark  ought 
to  be  superfluous)  that  the  treatment  in  these  chapters 
of  portions  of  the  Gospel  narrative  as  if  they  were 
historically  true  does  not  imply  that  they  really  are  so. 
True  they  may  be  ;  verifiable  they  are  not.  But  investi- 
gation of  the  Christian  records  cannot  be  carried  on 
without  comparison  of  their  parts,  and  if  some  are  found 
more  doubtful  than  others  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
less  doubtful  elements  are  therefore  true.  The  present 
work  is  written  without  prejudice  to  the  possibility  that 
a  far  greater  degree  of  myth,  legend,  and  selective 
tradition  may  have  gathered  round  the  figure  of  Jesus 
than  is  commonly  supposed. 

C.  T.  G. 

February,  1008. 


PAET  I. 

THE  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 
SCRIPTURES 


Chapter  I. 


OBSERVATIONS  ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 

ACCOUNTS 

The  Gospel  narratives  of  the  resurrection  are  so  well 
known  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  quote  them  in  extenso. 
Nor  is  there  any  need  to  dwell  in  detail  on  their 
numerous  discrepancies.  Some  of  these  are  trifling, 
and  nothing  more  than  are  to  be  expected  in  accounts 
given  independently  by  persons  who  had  not  witnessed 
the  events  they  relate.  Such  discrepancies  have  con- 
siderable weight  as  against  a  mechanical  theory  of 
inspiration,  but  they  are  not  important  enough  to 
deprive  the  tradition  of  all  value.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  must  beware  of  supposing  that  good  faith  on  the 
part  of  a  chronicler  necessarily  involves  the  truth  of 
his  account.  Such  a  principle  is  no  more  valid  in  the 
case  of  the  Gospels  than  in  the  case  of  the  numerous 
miracles  which,  in  later  ages,  were  thought  to  have 
accompanied  the  diffusion  of  the  Christian  faith.  One 
may  admit  the  honesty  of  the  Gospel  writers,  and  yet 
fail  to  detect  any  close  connection  between  the  original 

1 


2      THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

facts  and  accounts  of  them  compiled  forty  or  fifty  years 
afterwards.  In  times  of  religious  upheaval  men  do  not 
observe,  do  not  criticise,  do  not  reason.  They  believe 
and  obey.  They  see  something  which  passes  their 
comprehension,  and  misinterpret  it.  What  they  do 
see  is  beheld  through  a  veil  of  preconceived  notions, 
of  mystical  assumptions,  of  reverent  ignorance.  Their 
vague  reports  are  handed  down  by  an  undiscriminating 
tradition  which  transforms  its  contents  into  still  greater 
marvels. 

In  the  case  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  have  we 
the  evidence  of  eye-witnesses?  The  character  of  the 
accounts  precludes  that  supposition.  We  shall  point 
out  many  indications  in  the  Gospels  themselves  that 
they  cannot  be  the  writings  of  first-hand  informants. 
And  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  what  we  know  of 
their  origin.  Jf  forty  or  fifty  years  elapsed  before  the 
earliest  existing  accounts  of  the  resurrection  appeared, 
it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  we  have  a  record  on  the 
accuracy  of  which  humanity  should  be  asked  to  stake 
its  salvation. 

We  proceed  on  the  assumption  that  the  earliest  Gospel 
is  that  attributed  to  Mark.  And,  as  the  concluding 
verses  of  this  Gospel  are  generally  admitted  to  be  of  later 
origin,  we  shall  disregard  them.  The  priority  of  Mark 
is  conceded  by  most  modern  scholars ;  and  Dr.  Abbott, 
in  his  famous  article  "  Gospels,"  in  the  EncyclopcEdia 
Britamiica,  has  furnished  strong  reasons  for  holding  this 
view.  It  is  certainly  more  probable  that  the  Gospel 
tradition,  like  all  other  traditions,  expanded  indefinitely 
than  that  the  original  nucleus  of  truth  should  have  been 
forgotten  or  designedly  left  unrecorded  by  the  earliest 
chronicler.  Thus,  while  Mark's  Gospel  relates  a  vague 
report,  that  of  John  narrates  four  distinct  appearances 


C-Z^^  t'  iOi^'i^^^f^    4P*ca/"«  x\>  /^«^<< 


7-*-"^  "n.  THE  pi^V  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  ^      /3 


of  the  risen  Jesus,  and  ihe  application  of  physical  tests 
of  his  identity. 

We  have  to  balance  probabilities.  Even  good  evidence 
generally  has  to  be  discounted.  Evidence  furnished  by 
persons  who  do  not  understand  the  nature  of  evidence  is 
never  reliable.  Throughout,  the  Gospel  testimony  is  of 
the  latter  character.  Modern  Biblical  criticism  finds 
that  the  most  credible  passages  relating  to  Jesus  are 
those  in  which  the  tendency  to  glorify  him  is  least  con- 
spicuous. As  Professor  Schmiedel  has  pointed  out, 
expressions  which  contradict  this  tendency  are  not  likely 
to  have  been  deliberately  invented.  It  does  not  follow, 
as  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson  has  rejoined,  that  they  are,  for 
that  reason,  true,  or  that,  even  if  true,  they  guarantee 
that  any  other  part  of  the  tradition  is  true.  But  theyS^X 
are  more  likely  to  be  true  than  passages  which  are!  /* 
obyioa8.lv  the  product  of  a  particular  bias.  Now,  the!  .  ^ 
Go.sjDel  accounts  bear  unmistakable,  traces  of  the  dis- 
position  to  deify  the  traditional  figure  of  Jesus  :  and. 
whether  these  are  due  to  the  Apostles  or  to  their  *^ 
successorirthe  historical  character  of  the  records  _is_ at 
once  depreciated.  It  is  in  the  second  Gospel  that  this 
tendency  is  least  prominent,  and  it  therefore  seems  the 
more  likely  to  embody  the  primitive  tradition.  Applying 
this  test  to  what  is  probably  the  earliest  existing  form 
of  the  resurrection  tradition,  we  arrive  at  the  startling 
result  that  Mark  contains  no  account  whatever  of  Jesus 
having  risen  from  the  dead.  Nothing  is  said  about  it 
beyond  a  report  that  such  an  event  had  happened,  this 
report  being  attributed  to  the  mythical  agency  of  an 
**  angel."  This  is  prima  facie  ground  for  concluding 
that  the  later  accounts  of  the  resurrection  have  been  . 
amplified  from  x^'^^e  „  and  unverified  reports,  such  as  J  *''^ 
are  referred  to  in  Mark's  Gospel. 

Ic^^AA^    idJoL   c^^k     /ihic^^ " 


4      THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

A  further  illustration  of  this  tendency  is  afforded  by 
Matthew's  statement  that,  at  the  moment  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, a  great  earthquake  took  place,  and  the  still  more 
singular  addition  that  "  many  bodies  of  the  saints  which 
slept  arose,  and  came  out  of  the  graves  after  his  resur- 
^     rection,  and  went  into  the  holy  city,  and  appeared  unto 
j{^,  many."     A  story  so  incoherent,  and  totally  unsupported 
ryrl^.^y  evidence,  is  not  worth  the  trouble  of  examination. 
^       It  is  one  of  the  stock  "difficulties"  of  the  expositor, 
W^a^'^o,  rather  than  admit  that  it  is  a  sheer  piece  of  super- 
V  J      stition,  attempts  in  vain  to  defend  it,  and  darkens  counsel 
lc)y   words  without  knowledge.      Thus  Farrar  says  the 
'^^"^  hypothetical  earthquake  ''  seemed  to  the   imaginations 
^/^< "  of  many  to  have  disimprisoned  the  spirits  of  the  dead, 
^^^^^nd  to  have  filled  the  air  with  ghostly  visitants,  who, 
^  j^fter  Christ  had  risen,  appeared  to  linger  in  the  holy 
city"^ — a  kind  of  explanation  which  applies  to  many 
other  parts  of  the  Gospels.     As  the  authority  for  this 
story  is  also  an  authority  for  the  resurrection,  we  do  not 
see  why  the  writer's  obvious  incapacity  in  the  one  case 
should   be   thought    consistent   with    his   entire   trust- 
worthiness in  the  other. 

One  discrepancy  stands  out  from  the  rest,  and  con- 
stitutes a  difficulty  which  no  apologetic  ingenuity  has 
ever  got  over.  According  to  Matthew,  the  disciples  were 
directed  to  go  into  Galilee,  and  did  so.  Probabl}^  they 
had  already  gone  there,  for,  when  they  fled  on  the  arrest 
of  Jesus,  whither  should  they  go  but  to  their  own  homes  ? 
Luke,  however,  expressly  states  that  they  were  com- 
manded "  not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem,"  and  that  they 
remained  *'  continually  in  the  temple,  praising  God." 
A   liberal  Christian   justly  considers  this   a  surj)rising 

1  Life  of  Christ  J  l-vol.  ed.,  p.  708. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS      5 

feature  in  accounts  meant  to  be  historical.  "  If  any  fact 
would  seem  to  be  matter  of  sober  history,  it  is  the  fact 
that  the  Apostles  did  or  did  not  continue  in  Jerusalem 
after  their  Master's  death.  Yet  in  regard  to  so  simple 
a  matter  we  have  divergent  accounts,  and  no  objective 
certainty."^  Unquestionably  w^e  have  here  two  inde- 
pendent versions  of  a  vague  and  fluctuating  tradition. 
And,  in  spite  of  all  the  melancholy  efforts  to  reconcile 
them,  these  versions  remain  mutually  exclusive.  Of 
what  value  would  "  profane  "  history  be  if  it  adopted  the 
methods  of  the  "  sacred  "  and  "  inspired  "  record  ? 

The  implicit  reliance  of  the  Gospel  waiters  upon  Old 
Testament  prophecies  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  must 
be  considered  as  casting  suspicion  on  their  testimony. 
If  the  alleged  prophecies  w^ere  clear  and  distinctly 
applicable — if  a  necessary  connection  between  prediction 
and  event  could  be  shown — the  argument  from  prophecy 
would  be  a  strong  one.  But  that  is  where  it  breaks 
down.  No  actual  predictions  of  the  event  are  to  be  found 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  we  think  the  frame  of  mind 
which  led  to  a  strong  contrary  impression  would  not  be 
slow  to  manipulate  facts  in  the  light  of  preconceptions. 
This  undue  reliance  on  doubtful  and  obscure  sayings  in 
the  Jewish  scriptures  is  shown  by  the  following  quota- 
tions :  "  Behoved  it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer  these  things  ?" 
says  Jesus  (Luke  xxiv.  26).  "  As  yet  they  knew  not  the 
scripture,  that  he  viust  rise  again  from  the  dead  "  (John 
XX.  9).  ''  It  was  7ieeclful  that  the  scripture  should  be 
fulfilled"  (Acts  i.  16).  ''All  things  must  needs  be  fulfilled" 
(Luke  xxiv.  44).  *'  Whom  God  raised  up,  having  loosed 
the  pangs  of  death :  because  it  ivas  not  i^ossihle  that  he 
should  be  holden  of  it  "  (Acts  ii.  24).     "  The  scripture 

^  Dr.  Percy  Gardner,  Exploratio  Evangelica,  p.  255. 


6      THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

cannot  be  broken  "  (John  x.  35)  is  an  expression  attributed 
to  Jesus  himself.  These  and  many  other  passages  show 
an  intensity  of  belief  in  the  infallibility  of  the  Hebrew 
scriptures,  and  a  lixed  conviction  as  to  their  fulfilment, 
^  which  no  educated  man  of  to-day  possesses. 

Another  strange  feature  of  the  Gospel  narratives 
deserves  notice.  The  accounts  of  the  crucifixion  of 
Jesus,  though  they  contain  numerous  discrepancies 
and  improbabilities,  are  fairly  minute  and  detailed. 
Immediately  after  that  event  the  accounts  become  not 
merely  vague  and  deficient  in  their  information,  but  to  a 
very  remarkable  degree  in  conflict  with  one  another.  We 
have  reports,  impressions,  beliefs,  supernatural  marvels. 
The  facts  we  cannot  get  at  anyhow.  It  is  an  obvious 
deduction  from  this  peculiarity  that,  while  there  may 
^        be  some  historical  foundation  for  the  accounts  of  the 

'^^ '^'^crucifixion  of  Jesus,  the  Gospel  writers  were  conscious 

^•^j^lJHhat,  when  they  described  his  rismg  again,  the  truth  was 

x^^^^^jiot  to  them  personally  known. 
^       The   third   Gospel    contains    a    detailed    but   highly 

/^fyi-  improbable  story,  which  is  greatly  relied  on  by  apolo- 
gists as  proof  of  the  resurrection.  One  of  the  disciples 
^'^^*  named  Cleopas  and  another  person  unnamed  walk  from 
Jerusalem  to  Emmaus  on  the  day  of  the  resurrection. 
No  motive  for  the  journey  is  alleged ;  and  if,  as  the 
story  relates,  they  had  heard  the  report  that  Jesus  had 
risen,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  why  they  should  have  taken 
L'        a  walk  which,  with  the  return  journey,  involved  a  dis- 

"^^  tance  of  fifteen  miles,  when  natural  curiosity  and  solici- 
tude would  surely  have  kept  them  in  Jerusalem.  They 
are  accosted  by  Jesus,  but  do  not  recognise  him,  the 
reason  being,  according  to  the  supernatural  method  of 
explanation  adopted  by  the  Gospel  writers,  that  "  their 
eyes  were  holden  that  they  should  not  know  him."     As 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 


Jesus  himself — with,  it  must  be  confessed,  a  certain  lack 
of  candour — appears  to  be  in  complete  ignorance  of  what 
had  happened  that  morning,  they  inform  him  of  the 
strange  events  which  they  assume  to  have  been  known 
to  every  sojourner  in  the  city.  He  then,  somewhat 
sharply  and  apparently  with  little  justice,  reproves  them 
for  their  slowness  of  belief,  tells  them  it  behoved  ''  the 
Christ  to  suffer  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his  glory," 
and  proceeds  to  expound  the  prophecies  in  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  relating  to  himself,  "  beginning  from  Moses 
and  from  all  the  prophets."  Although  he  must  by  this 
time  have  accompanied  the  two  disciples  for  some  miles, 
they  still  fail  to  recognise  the  Master  from  whom  they 
had  been  parted  only  a  very  few  days.  Neither  voice,^ 
appearance,  gesture,  nor  manner  aroused  even  a  suspicion 
of  his  identity.  It  would,  indeed,  require  supernatural 
influence  to  cause  this  total  paralysis  of  memory.  On 
reaching  Emmaus  Jesus  "  made  as  though  he  would 
go  further."  With  what  object  was  this  dissimulation 
practised  ?  At  length,  when  taking  a  meal  with  him, 
they  recognise  their  Master;  but  no  sooner  have  they 
done  so  than  he  vanishes  from  their  sight.  Though  the 
day  was  "  far  spent "  before  they  began  their  meal,  they 
at  once  take  the  long  journey  back  to  Jerusalem,  find 
the  eleven  gathered  together  with  others,  and  learn  that 
the  Lord  had  "  appeared  to  Simon."  As  this  manifes- 
tation does  not  seem  to  have  taken  place  before  the  two 
disciples  began  their  journey,  or  they  would  certainly  . 
have  mentioned  it  in  their  announcement  to  Jesus,  it 
must  have  occurred  while  he  was  with  them,  and  there- 


1  An  apologetic  writer  states  that  Mary  "could  not  mistake  the  voice 
when  it  spoke  her  name"  (Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  p.  631).  How  was  it,  then,  that  the  two  disciples  failed  to 
recognise  it  during  a  long  conversation  ? 


8      THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

fore  he  must  have  been  in  two  places,  miles  apart,  at  or 
about  the  same  time — a  feature  of  the  story  which  is 
explicable  only  by  the  assumption  that  the  appearance 
to  Peter  was  of  a  visionary  character.  Dr.  Edersheim 
states  that  it  was  in  the  afternoon  that  the  disciples  left 
the  city,  and  in  the  afternoon  that  Jesus  appeared  to 
Peter, ^  which  would  imply  either  that  Jesus  was  in  two 
places  at  once,  or  that  the  appearances  were  subjective. 
The  Evangelist  seems  to  have  overlooked  this  difficulty ; 
and  it  is  one  which  is  not  removed,  but  only  evaded,  by 
the  assumption  that,  as  the  resurrection  w^as  itself  a 
miracle,  we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  the  pheno- 
menon of  a  body  being  in  two  places  at  once  presents  no 
additional  difficulty.  Whether  historical  criticism,  which 
necessarily  rests  upon  the  conviction  of  the  continuity 
of  the  natural  order,  is  justified  in  assuming  at  will 
breaches  of  that  order  which  cannot  possibly  be  proved 
to  have  taken  place  is  a  question  which  will  be  noticed 
hereafter.  Strange  to  say,  however,  this  appearance  to 
Peter,  although  mentioned  by  Paul  as  the  first  that  took 
place,  is  not  recorded  in  the  Gospels  at  all,  except  for 
the  casual  and  self-contradictory  reference  by  Luke. 
If  Peter  was  in  some  sense  the  chief  man  among  the 
Apostles,  it  would  have  been  only  appropriate  that  a 
manifestation  should  have  been  made  specially  to  him, 
and  that  a  distinct  account  of  it  should  have  been  left. 
It  is  most  surprising  that,  while  we  have  accounts  of 
appearances  to  much  less  important  and  responsible 
persons,  we  have  no  account  of  an  appearance  to  Peter — 
except  vague  statements  of  later  manifestations  to  all  the 
disciples.  These,  however,  cannot  refer  to  an  appearance 
to  Peter  alone,  which  took  place  while  Cleopas  and  his 

^  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus,  p.  633. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS      9 

companion  were  either  going  to  or  returning  from 
Emmaus.  The  doubtful  character  of  the  statement  is 
heightened  by  the  omission  of  Peter  in  his  speech  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  to  declare  that  any  such  manifestation 
had  been  made  to  him  personally.  Nor  in  the  Epistles 
bearing  his  name  is  the  occurrence  related.  This  neglect 
to  render  explicit  testimony  to  events  of  supreme  import- 
ance is  quite  unaccountable  on  the  assumption  that  they 
actually  happened. 

The  statement  that  Jesus  interpreted  to  the  two 
disciples  the  "  things  concerning  himself  "  in  Moses  and 
the  prophets  is  also  of  a  kind  to  cause  astonishment  to 
all  who  do  not  share  the  singular  notions  of  the  New 
Testament  writers  in  reference  to  the  Jewish  scriptures. 
What  are  the  "things  concerning  himself"  is  not  stated, 
though  it  would  have  been  of  the  utmost  interest  and 
importance  to  have  had  the  authoritative  views  of  Jesus 
on  this  subject.  Evidently  he  accepted  the  current  ideas 
as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  and  it 
is  probable,  therefore,  that  he  saw  no  reason  to  reject 
the  popular  methods  of  interpreting  them.  But  the 
awkward  fact  remains  that  these  methods  were  erroneous. 
It  is  true  that  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  appears  to 
have  a  close  application  to  many  of  the  details  of  the  last 
days  of  Jesus  ;  but  this  and  similar  passages  are  con- 
sidered by  a  large  number  of  scholars  to  relate  solely  to 
a  poetic  personification  of  the  Jewish  people.  Such  a 
view  seems  to  be  borne  out  by  the  context,  for  it  is  an 
arbitrary  proceeding  to  allege  that  "my  servant  Israel," 
referred  to  in  the  forty-second,  forty-ninth,  and  fifty- 
second  chapters  of  Isaiah,  cannot  be  identical  with  the 
victim  of  the  fifty-third  chapter,  when  nothing  is  said  to 
distinguish  them.  Some  writers  hold  that  the  personage 
referred  to  in  the  latter  passage  was  Jeremiah  ;  others 


O 


10  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 


that  it  was  Zerubbabel ;  others  that  it  is  a  prediction  of 
Jesus  ;  while  the  majority  of  modern  critics  regard  it  as 
relating  to  the  ideal  Israel.  A  passage  thus  confessedly 
obscure,  a  passage  which  may,  for  all  we  can  tell,  have 
had  a  known  ai^plication  to  current  events,  cannot  safely 
be  regarded  as  a  clear  and  definite  prediction  of  anything 
then  in  the  future.  Nor  can  we  be  sure  that  incidents 
were  not,  when  the  Gospels  came  to  be  written  down, 
made  to  correspond  with  passages  in  the  Jewish  scrip- 
tures. But  the  strange  thing  we  have  to  notice  is  that 
this  passage,  often  assumed  to  be  unmistakably  distinct 
in  its  terms,  is  never  in  the  four  Gospels  quoted  as 
applying  to  Jesus,  either  by  himself  or  by  the 
Evangelists.  This  is  one  of  the  inexplicable  peculiarities 
of  the  Gospel  writers.  Not  only  do  they  fail  to  give  a 
coherent  account  of  some  of  the  most  important  occur- 
rences which  it  was  their  business  to  relate,  but  they 
neglect  to  apply  to  their  avowed  purpose  the  least 
irrelevant  passage  in  the  whole  Jewish  scriptures.  It  is 
in  a  high  degree  doubtful  whether  there  is  in  these 
scriptures  a  single  passage  which  beyond  question 
applies,  or  was  intended  to  apply,  to  Jesus.  The  texts 
adduced  in  this  sense  by  orthodox  writers  are  commonly 
interpreted  in  the  most  fanciful  and  unconvincing 
manner,  sometimes  in  complete  disregard  of  their 
obvious  meaning.  The  supposed  prophecies  introduced 
by  Matthew  into  the  early  chapters  of  his  Gospel  are 
among  the  most  flagrant  examples  of  misquotation  in 
existence.  Indeed,  careful  comparison  will  show  that 
some  of  the  Gospel  misquotations  are  so  worded  that 
they  must  be  considered  intentional,  though  probably  the 
writers  were  not  conscious  of  any  dishonesty.^   Matthew's 

*    See   The  Sling  and   the  Stone,  by  Rev.  C.  Voysey,  for  evidence 
(vol.  vii.,  chap.  4). 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  11 

handling  of  these  prophecies,  indeed,  arouses  the 
suspicion  that  some  of  the  incidents  related  were  in  the 
first  instance  purely  legendary,  becoming  afterwards,  in 
virtue  of  a  strong  sub-conscious  bias,  accommodations 
to  the  supposed  Old  Testament  predictions.  Every 
prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  quoted  in  the  New  needs 
to  be  verified  before  it  is  assumed  to  be  accurately 
applied,  and  in  most  cases  no  special  knowledge  is 
required  to  perceive  how  freely  such  passages  are  used 
in  a  sense  different  from  that  of  the  original. 

One  of  the  first  things  that  strike  a  reader  of  the  New 
Testament  is  that  marvellous  events  are  related  quite  as 
a  matter  of  course,  and  without  the  least  expression  of 
wonder  at  their  extraordinary  character.  Evidently  the 
Gospel  writers  were  so  familiarised  with  the  idea  of  miracle 
that  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  presented  no  such 
difficulty  to  them  as  it  would  present  to  us ;  and,  not 
being  aware  that  evidence  of  the  truth  of  their  state- 
ments was  required,  they  took  no  trouble  to  obtain  or 
furnish  it.  Intellectually  they  were  children,  and  what 
Stevenson  says  about  children  applies  to  them  and  to 
the  Apostles :  "  They  are  passionate  after  dreams  and 
unconcerned  about  realities ;  speech  is  a  difficult  art  not 
wholly  learned  ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  their  own  tastes 
or  purposes  to  teach  them  abstract  truthfulness."^ 

Evidence  is  the  proving  of  certain  facts  which  neces- 
sarily involve  the  truth  of  other  facts  of  a  character  more 
or  less  similar.  It  is  a  display  of  the  links  of  causation 
which  unite  them,  and  thus  enables  us  to  perceive  their 
mutual  relations.  Evidence,  therefore,  which  would  be 
adequate  to  prove  facts  within  the  order  of  nature  and 
human  experience  must  obviously  be  inadequate  to  prove 

1  Virginibus  Puerisque,  p.  164. 


12  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

occurrences  lying  outside  that  order,  their  connection 
with  which  cannot  be  shown.  But,  without  discussing 
the  abstract  question  whether  the  known  laws  of  nature 
can  or  cannot  be  superseded,  we  have  to  base  our 
acceptance  of  any  alleged  event  on  the  degree  of  evidence 
which  can  be  adduced  in  its  favour.  The  reasonable 
canon  that  the  more  unlikely  an  event  the  greater 
evidence  it  needs  to  support  it  is  habitually  ignored  by 
writers  who  set  out  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
They  tell  us  this  is  as  well  established  as  any  other  event 
in  history.  Supposing  this  to  be  so,  how  would  it 
remove  the  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the  resur- 
rection ?  That  evmit,  if  it  happened,  was  a  supernatural 
event ;  the  events  with  which  it  is  compared  are  natural 
events,  which  require  no  evidence  w^hatever  to  make 
them  at  least  credible.  A  miracle  is  antecedently 
incredible  because  of  the  overwhelming  presumption 
against  it  derived  from  a  uniform  experience  of  a 
different  character.  Any  supernatural  event,  therefore, 
needs  the  support  of  evidence  strong  enough  first  to 
overcome  the  immense  probability  against  it,  and  then  to 
establish  positive  reasons  for  believing  in  its  reality. 

Can  this  be  done  by  any  human  testimony  ?  Probably 
not.  The  least  evidence  on  which  we  ought  to  believe 
that  a  dead  person  returned  to  life  is  the  evidence  of  our 
own  senses.  Even  this  would  not  be  conclusive.  There 
are  thousands  of  instances  in  which  persons'  senses  have 
deceived  them,  or  in  which  they  have  reasoned  erro- 
neously with  regard  to  what  they  have  really  seen.  If  a 
friend  of  known  integrity  informed  us  that  he  had  seen 
a  dead  man  come  back  to  life,  should  we  at  once  believe 
him?  We  should  certainly  not  do  so  without  careful 
inquiry.  We  should  want  to  make  sure  that  the  man 
was  beyond  all  question  known  to  have  died ;  that  the 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  13 

doctor  had  made  no  mistake  (and  it  is  certain  that 
doctors  have  made  such  mistakes) ;  that  our  informant 
was  in  sound  health,  of  competent  knowledge  and  under- 
standing, and  not  subject  to  any  illusion ;  and  finally  we 
should  desire  to  see  the  resuscitated  man  ourselves,  and 
hear  his  account  of  the  matter.  If  these  conditions 
could  not  be  complied  with,  we  should  consider  it  more 
likely  that  our  friend  was  mistaken  than  that  an  infrac- 
tion of  the  universal  law  of  death  had  taken  place.  All 
human  testimony,  being  from  a  complex  variety  of  causes 
liable  to  error,  has  to  be  discounted.  And  the  testimony 
for  past  events  is  so  commonly  the  outcome  of  inadequate 
knowledge  that  it  can  only  be  accepted  subject  to  indefi- 
nite modifications. 

It  is  said  that  the  New  Testament  accounts  furnish 
reasonably  sufficient  evidence  of  the  reality  of  Christ's 
return  to  life.  We  are  not  sure  that  their  statements 
can  properly  be  termed  evidence  at  all ;  but  such  evidence 
as  they  do  give  must  at  least  be  carefully  examined 
before  being  accepted  as  proof  of  the  event.  The 
Gospels  are  compilations  made  by  writers  whose 
personalities,  being  unknown  to  us,  afford  no  guarantee 
for  the  truth  of  their  statements.  They  are  characterised 
by  numerous  marks  of  carelessness  and  imperfect  know- 
ledge of  the  facts ;  they  contain  traces  of  mythical 
elements,  and  many  indications  that  superstitious  ideas 
actuated  the  minds  of  the  writers.  Such  evidence  would 
be  insufficient  to  prove  a  natural  fact  which  it  was 
important  that  we  should  believe.  To  suppose,  there- 
fore, that  it  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  Jesus  returned  to 
life  after  being  put  to  death  is  out  of  the  question. 

What  really  happened  on  the  first  Easter  dawn  ? 
Incredible  as  it  may  seem,  no  one  knows,  and,  judging 
from  the  New  Testament  accounts,  no  one  ever  did  know. 


14  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

If  anyone  ever  did  know,  the  knowledge  has  not  been 
handed  down  to  later  ages.  For  a  long  time,  whether 
thirty,  fifty,  or  a  hundred  years  does  not  matter,  it  was 
left  to  oral  tradition  to  pass  on  testimony  of  the  most 
serious  import.  Can  we  be  sure  that  in  the  process  of 
transmission  the  original  truth  was  in  no  way  changed  ? 
In  an  age  of  almost  universal  ignorance  and  superstition, 
when  the  need  and  even  the  nature  of  evidence  are 
unperceived,  and  literary  standards  do  not  exist,  tradi- 
tion simply  means  the  memories  of  uneducated  men, 
liable  at  every  turn  to  exaggeration  and  error.  Even 
when  written  records  of  the  life  of  Jesus  came  into  being 
very  little  trouble  seems  to  have  been  taken  to  make 
them  accurate  and  coherent;  nor,  indeed,  did  there 
exist  in  the  first  century  a  writer  qualified  to  undertake 
such  a  task. 

All  four  Gospels  agree  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead. 
Here  we  have  four  independent  witnesses  to  a  statement 
of  fact.  The  Apostle  Paul,  whose  statements  will  be 
dealt  with  later,  makes  a  fifth  witness.  If  we  include 
the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  and  also  the  women,  we  have 
about  twenty  persons  who  have,  directly  or  indirectly, 
testified  to  the  reality  of  the  event. 

Though  at  first  greatly  depressed  by  the  untoward 
death  of  their  Master,  the  ideas  and  feelings  of  the 
disciples  underwent  a  rapid  and  complete  transforma- 
tion. Their  beliefs,  their  characters,  their  aims,  their 
whole  lives,  were  changed.  From  gloom  to  joy,  from 
despair  to  hope,  from  disappointment  and  sorrow  to 
such  buoyant  confidence  and  zeal  for  the  propagation  of 
their  new  faith  that  they  were  ready  to  die  and  did  die 
for  it — what  could  have  wrought  this  marvellous  change 
but  that  which  they  believed  and  alleged :  the  veritable 
reappearance   of  their  Master?     Something   wonderful 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  15 

must  have  happened.  What  was  that  something  ?  So 
fervent  a  belief  must  have  had  a  solid  basis,  or  it  could 
not  have  arisen  and  endured.  It  is,  we  are  told,  for 
those  who  deny  the  resurrection  to  show  what  that 
basis  was,  if  it  was  not  a  conviction,  founded,  as  the 
Gospels  state,  on  actual  perception  by  the  senses,  that 
the  disciples  had  seen  Jesus  alive  after  they  had  seen 
him  put  to  death. 

This  looks  like  a  fairly  strong  presumption,  though  it 
gives  us  little  help  in  getting  at  the  actual  facts.  Pre- 
sumption, however,  is  not  proof.  And  when  we  are  told 
that  a  person  rose  from  the  dead  it  is  proof,  not  pre- 
sumption, that  we  require.  The  claim  may  be  met  by 
the  counter  and  far  stronger  presumption  derived  from 
the  uniform  experience  that  all  human  beings  die,  and 
this  can  only  be  set  aside  by  absolute  proof  that  physi- 
cally Jesus  was  not  a  human  being.  The  Gospel  writers 
have  made  one  thing  quite  clear,  and  that  is  that  they 
were  satisfied  with  a  very  much  weaker  degree  of  proof 
than  would  convince  persons  living  at  the  present  time. 
Their  belief  must  have  had  a  basis,  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  their  account  of  it  is  correct.  That  "  some- 
thing happened  "  by  no  means  justifies  the  assumption 
that  the  "  something  "  must  have  been  a  variation  of 
the  law  of  physical  dissolution.  It  is  true  that  the 
Gospels  agree  in  asserting  that  Jesus  was  seen  alive  after 
his  death.  But  a  mere  assertion  cannot  be  accepted  as 
proof.  Did  the  fact  come  within  the  personal  knowledge 
of  the  Gospel  writers  ?  If  so,  are  they  competent 
witnesses  ?  It  is  not  sufiicient  to  say  that,  because  they 
agree  as  to  the  event  while  differing  in  the  manner  of 
relating  it,  therefore  the  fact  is  established,  and  the  con- 
flicting details  may  be  disregarded.  If  four  known  and 
trustworthy  historians  relate  an  incident,  and  differ  only 


16  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 


in  minor  details,  it  is  conceivable  that  the  discrepancies 
may  not  seriously  diminish  the  weight  of  their  evidence ; 
there  would  be  a  presumption  that  they  were  right  in 
essentials,  though  wrong  in  accessories.  But  this  prin- 
ciple cannot  safely  be  applied  to  the  Gospel  records. 
We  are  not  dealing  with  known  and  reliable  historians. 
We  are  dealing  with  unknown  writers,  who,  at  unknown 
dates,  in  ages  of  ignorance  and  credulity,  handed  down 
to  posterity  traditions  which  originated  we  know  not 
how  or  when,  but  which  are  undeniably  saturated  with 
belief  in  the  miraculous.  Independent  evidence  which 
might  enable  us  to  check  the  accuracy  of  these  writers  is 
almost  wholly  lacking.  We  know  that  their  compila- 
tions are  fragmentary  and  carelessly  pieced  together. 
We  know  that,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  ancient 
times,  words  are  sometimes  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
which  he  could  not  have  uttered.^  We  know  that,  even 
if  it  were  conceded  that  the  accounts  of  the  Evangelists 
are  reliable  in  regard  to  natural  events,  this  w^ould  not 
be  the  smallest  proof  of  their  accuracy  in  regard  to 
supernatural  events,  for  which  stronger  evidence  is 
required.  The  narratives,  for  example,  of  the  last 
supper  of  Jesus  may  be  perfectly  credible.  But  does 
this  make  credible  the  statement  that  5,000  persons 
made  a  hearty  meal  on  a  quantity  of  food  which  would 
have  formed  a  light  lunch  for  a  dozen  of  their  number, 
and  that  after  the  banquet  there  was  more  food  left  than 
when  it  began  ?^    We  know,   moreover,   that    several 

1  Matthew  xi.  12,  xviii.  17,  xxiii.  35;  John  iii,  13.  Probably  the  long 
discourses  in  the  fourth  Gospel  should  come  under  the  same  category. 
Writers  who  falsify  their  scriptures  will  from  the  same  motive  falsify 
facts.  Paul,  indeed,  appears  willing  to  lie  for  the  glory  of  God 
(Romans  iii.  7).  Can  we  trust  a  man  who  thinks  the  cause  of  truth  may 
be  served  by  falsehood  ? 

2  Many  modern  critics  hold  that  this  narrative  originated  in  a  mis- 
application of  a  parable,  the  figurative  language  being  afterwards  understood 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  17 

passages  in  which  words  are  attributed  to  Jesus  have 
been  exjiunged  from  the  Revised  Version  of  the  New 
Testament  because  they  are  not  found  in  the  oldest 
existing  copies.  If  still  earlier  copies  were  found,  can  we 
be  sure  that  no  further  excisions  would  be  necessary? 
It  is  clear  that  the  unknown  compilers  had  not  that 
regard  for  accuracy  which  is  deemed  necessary  in  the 
historical  records  of  modern  times.  In  view  of  these 
considerations,  it  is  impossible  to  admit  that  the  mere 
fact  of  the  resurrection  may  be  treated  as  proved  and 
the  doubtful  details  ignored.  These  doubtful  details  are 
part  of  the  only  evidence  we  have  that  the  universal  law 
of  nature  was  set  aside. 

What  was  it,  then,  that  changed  the  beliefs  and  lives 
of  the  followers  of  Jesus  ?  Our  imperfect  records  do  not 
furnish  us  with  a  satisfactory  explanation.  But  indica- 
tions may  be  gathered  which  show  that  the  conviction  of 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  strengthened  by  a  fanciful 
interpretation  of  the  Jewish  scriptures,  and  probably 
combined  with  unexplained  visionary  experiences,  led 
naturally  to  the  belief  that  he  had  actually  risen  from 
the  dead.  It  was  this  belief  which  was  the  proximate 
cause  of  their  revived  faith.  But  how  came  this  belief 
to  be  so  clear  and  strong  ?  In  attempting  an  examina- 
tion of  this  question  some  digression  will  be  advisable. 

The  fact  of  this  remarkable  revival  of  faith  cannot  be 
admitted  without  a  certain  degree  of  reserve.  The  only 
evidence  we  have  that  this  revival  took  place  is  contained 
in  the  New  Testament  records,  and  these  records  leave 

literally.  If,  as  is  implied  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  bread  was  intended 
to  typify  spiritual  truth  which  would  not  be  exhausted  by  diffusion,  the 
error  may  easily  have  arisen.  Nor  is  the  Old  Testament  without  analo- 
gous suggestions,  as  in  the  story  of  the  widow's  "  barrel  of  meal  which 
wasted  not  "  (1  Kings  xvii.  16),  and  the  passage  in  2  Kings  iv.  44,  "  And 
they  did  eat,  and  left  thereof." 

C 


18     THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

the  facts  in  great  obscurity.  Our  present  Gospels  are 
translated  from  copies  of  older  docuuients,  which  may  or 
may  not  have  accurately  embodied  the  early  Christian 
tradition  ;  we  certainly  cannot  appeal  to  originals  which 
do  not  exist,  and  the  truth  of  which  is  pure  matter  of 
assumption.  It  is  said  that  the  truthfulness  and  good 
faith  of  the  Gospel  writers  are  amply  testified  by  the 
documents  as  they  have  come  down  to  us.  Criticism 
may  concede  the  sincerity  of  the  Evangelists  without 
admitting  that  it  affords  any  proof  of  their  competency 
as  historians.  On  the  contrary,  the  Gospels  themselves 
furnish  ample  evidence  that  their  compilers  were  ignorant 
and  credulous  men,  whose  statements  of  facts  cannot  be 
accepted  without  investigation.  There  are  reasons  for 
supposing  that  the  spread  of  Christianity  was  not 
unusually  rapid,  and  that  the  stories  in  the  Book  of  Acts 
of  wholesale  conversions  effected  by  the  Apostles  are  not 
free  from  exaggeration. 

The  Gospel  writers  being  totally  unknown  to  us,  except 
so  far  as  the  documents  in  question  reveal  their  per- 
sonalities, their  sincerity  can  only  be  inferred  from  the 
accounts.  This  sincerity  was  obviously  the  outcome  of 
their  strong  belief  in  the  reality  of  their  Master's 
reappearance,  and  we  are  at  once  thrown  back  on  the 
grounds  of  their  belief.  As  far  as  the  writers  themselves 
are  concerned,  these  grounds  are  nowhere  clearly  stated. 
They  do  not  claim  to  have  been  eye-witnesses  ;  they  do 
not  write  as  eye-witnesses  would  naturally  write.  They 
simply  put  into  writing — and  that  long  after  the 
event — the  tradition  which  was  commonly  received 
among  the  first  Christians.  They  would  not  dream  of 
regarding  miraculous  occurrences  as  infractions  of  laws 
the  mere  existence  of  which  was  unsuspected.  Thus 
their  very  good  faith  furnishes  a  presumption  against 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  19 

rather  than  in  favour  of  their  capacity  as  judicially- 
minded  chroniclers.  They  would,  without  inquiry, 
accept  mere  reports  as  embodying  actual  facts,  when 
greater  intellectual  enlightenment  would  have  doubted  or 
rejected  such  reports.  Many  incidents  recorded  in  the 
Gospels,  of  which  the  alleged  resurrection  is  the  chief, 
clearly  illustrate  this  tendency.  The  artless  simplicity 
of  unskilled  writers  is,  indeed,  very  poor  evidence  of 
their  competency  as  reporters.  The  narrative  of  the 
woman  taken  in  adultery  is  related  with  the  same  air  of 
good  faith  and  circumstantial  detail  as  the  rest  of  the 
Gospel  accounts  ;  yet,  as  it  is  absent  from  the  oldest 
manuscripts,  its  unhistorical  character  must  be  con- 
ceded. The  same  remark  applies  to  the  concluding 
verses  of  the  second  Gospel,  and  many  other  passages 
which  have  been  rendered  doubtful  by  critical  investiga- 
tion. If  such  passages  are  interpolations,  how  can  we 
be  sure  that  many  more  are  not  equally  so  ? 

The  argument  that  the  spread  of  Christianity  was  of 
such  a  character  as  to  involve  supernatural  intervention 
is  not  well  supported  by  the  facts.  The  narratives  to 
this  effect  in  the  Book  of  Acts  have  to  be  received  with 
caution.  For  a  considerable  number  of  years  the  main 
body  of  Christ's  followers  were  simply  a  reformed  Jewish 
sect  practising  the  rites  and  meeting  in  the  synagogues 
of  the  Jewish  Church.  "  Many  thousands  "  of  Jews  who 
believed  are  referred  to  in  Acts  xxi.  20,  but  they  were 
*^  all  zealous  for  the  laiv.''  If  they  were  zealous  for  the 
law,  they  clearly  combined  Christianity  with  Judaism. 
The  process  by  which  the  new  faith  assumed  a  separate 
existence,  and  discarded  the  burden  of  the  ceremonial 
law,  appears  to  have  gone  on  slowly,  and,  as  it  were, 
with  reluctance.  Peter,  we  are  told,  needed  a  heavenly 
vision  to  enable  him  to  grasp  the  conception  that  persons 


20  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 


other  than  Jews  would  be  admitted  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  although,  according  to  the  Gospels,  he  had  been 
directed  by  Jesus  to  preach  to  "all  nations."  Twenty 
years  after  the  crucifixion  an  agitation  arose  in  the 
infant  Church  as  to  the  terms  of  membership,  though 
even  then  it  appears  to  have  related  only  to  the  admis- 
sion of  Gentile  converts,  the  question  whether  Jewish 
Christians  should  conform  to  the  Mosaic  law  not  even 
being  raised.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  denied  that  the 
conversion  of  "  about  3,000  souls "  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost  was  (if  it  took  place)  certainly  not  a  conversion 
to  Christianity  as  we  understand  it,  but  a  conversion  to 
Judaism,  j^lus  belief  in  the  Messiahship  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus.  Indeed,  proselytes  to  Judaism  were  numerous 
about  the  close  of  the  first  century,  and  probably  for 
many  years  previously.  Graetz  writes  :  "  Jewish  prose- 
lytes had  to  overcome  immense  difficulties Never- 
theless, it  is  an  extraordinary  fact  that  during  the  half 
century  after  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  State  there 
were  everywhere  conversions  of  heathens  to  Judaism, 
both  in  the  East  and  in  Asia  Minor,  but  especially  in 
Eome."^  This  writer  states  that  the  success  of  Chris- 
tianity was  in  great  part  due  to  the  facilities  afforded  by 
its  parent  faith.  These  facts  do  not  at  all  correspond 
with  the  popular  notion  that  an  entirely  new  religion 
sprang  into  existence  immediately  after  and  in  conse- 
quence of  the  assumed  return  of  Jesus  to  life. 

If  the  miracles  which  are  said  to  have  accompanied 
the  first  preaching  of  Christianity  could  be  proved,  its 
supernatural  diffusion  would  have  to  be  conceded.  But 
to  assume  miracles,  and  then  assume  supernatural  conse- 
quences  from    thom,   is    not   a   legitimate    method    of 

*  History  of  the  Jeu-s,  vol.  ii.,  p.  387. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS     21 

argument.  It  is  merelyusingone  miracle  toprove  another.^ 
We  must  not  bring  in  supernatural  causes  till  we  have 
exhausted  natural  causes,  and,  as  knowledge  of  the  facts 
of  early  Christianity  has  grown,  it  has  been  more  clearly 
perceived  that  natural  causes  are  sufficient  to  account  for 
a  progress  which  was  not  abnormally  rapid.  A  variety 
of  conditions  favoured  the  diffusion  of  the  new  faith. 
There  was  the  abandonment  by  the  cultured  few  of  the 
polytheistic  conceptions  of  antiquity,  combined  with  a 
moral  reaction  on  the  part  of  the  masses  dissatisfied 
with  the  practical  results  of  those  conceptions.  There 
was  a  struggle  for  the  mastery  between  many  manifesta- 
tions of  the  religious  spirit,  including  the  finer  elements 
of  paganism,  the  activity  of  the  Mithraic  religion,  which 
long  survived ;  the  philosophic  speculations  of  Plato, 
largely  amalgamated  with  those  of  the  Alexandrian 
school  of  Philo  and  others;^  the  ascetic  practices  of  the 
Essenes,  the  ideas  introduced  into  Western  Asia  by 
Buddhist  missionaries,  and  the  narrow  zeal  of  the 
Jewish  people.  In  its  comparative  purity  and  the 
simplicity  and  flexibility  of  its  principles  Christianity 
possessed  a  great  advantage  over  its  rivals,  though  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  absorbed  many  of  their  peculiari- 
ties, combined  them  in  a  new  religious  synthesis,  and  so 
gave  them  fresh  vitality.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that 
the  vast  extension  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the  need  of  a 
universal  religion  which  arose  from  the  break-up  of  local 
faiths,  and  the  dispersion  into  almost  all  its  parts  of  the 

^  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  Evangelists  did  not  regard  miracles  as 
peculiar  to  their  own  faith.  Jesus  is  said  to  have  recognised  the  power 
of  others  to  perform  them  (Matt.  xii.  27).  Evidently  they  were  a  kind  of 
public  property. 

2  For  fuller  information  on  this  subject  see  Professor  Jowett's  On  the 
Interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  other  essays,  where  the  parallelisms 
between  Philo  and  the  New  Testament  are  exhibited  in  detail. 


22  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

people  among  whom  the  cult  of  Jesus  originated,  as  well 
as  the  existence  of  communistic  clubs  and  benefit  socie- 
ties, were  also  singularly  favourable  to  the  spread  of 
Christianity^  The  Romans  tolerated  all  religions  as  long 
as  they  were  not  considered  inimical  to  the  interests  of 
the  State,  and,  though  this  general  tolerance  was  varied 
by  outbreaks  of  persecution,  these,  while  severe  enough 
to  stimulate,  were  not  sufficient  to  destroy  the  new  faith. 
It  is  commonly  taken  for  granted  that  the  success  of 
the  Christian  appeal  was  due  exclusively  to  purity  and 
rationalit}^  of  doctrine.  This  was  not  the  case.  In 
times  when  the  supernatural  is  believed  in  without  the 
slightest  question,  imperfect  moral  conceptions  are  sure 
to  be  accepted  upon  its  supposed  authority.  Even  in 
the  present  day  large  numbers  of  persons,  during 
popular  "revivals"  and  in  paroxysms  of  spiritual 
emotion,  embrace  religion  out  of  dread  of  its  threaten- 
ings  rather  than  appreciation  of  its  moral  and  intellec- 
tual truth.  If,  in  times  when  the  idea  of  endless  punish- 
ment is  practically  abandoned  as  a  superstition,  it  is  still 
possible  for  conversion  to  originate  in  the  dread  of  hell- 
fire,  much  more  must  this  have  been  the  case  in  times 
when  the  doctrine  of  hell  was  implicitly  and  fervently 
believed.  Thus  we  find  (and  this  is  an  idea  which  we 
wish  to  emphasise)  that  the  impelling  force  of  much 
religious  earnestness  is  derived  from  a  conception  which, 
so  far  from  being  divinely  true,  is  essentially  false. 
Christianity  took  over  and  soon  gave  an  appalling  vivid- 
ness and  reality  to  the  pagan  doctrine  of  hell,  and  it 
seems  undeniable  that  at  least  part  of  its  early  success 
was  due  to  its  dexterous  incorporation  of  the  elements  of 
earlier  faiths,  and,  that  being  so,  its  influence  is  less  a 
proof  of  divine  origin  than  of  human  adaptation.  In 
addition  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  idea  of  a 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  23 

speedily  approaching  end  of  the  world  (an  idea  very 
prominent  in  the  New  Testament)  appealed  with  irresis- 
tible force  to  the  superstitions  of  the  average  believer. 

With  regard  to  the  actual  numbers  of  the  primitive 
Christians  nothing  certain  is  known,  and  it  is  therefore 
impossible  to  form  any  reliable  estimates.  Even  the 
express  statements  of  ancient  writers  as  to  the  growth  of 
Christianity  cannot  be  implicitly  accepted.  The  follow- 
ing passage,  quoted  by  Gibbon,  will  explain  why.  "There 
exists  not,"  says  Justin  Martyr,  "  a  people,  whether 
Greek  or  barbarian,  or  any  other  race  of  men,  by  what- 
soever appellation  or  manners  they  may  be  distinguished, 
however  ignorant  of  arts  or  agriculture,  whether  they 
dwell  under  tents  or  wander  about  in  covered  waggons, 
among  whom  prayers  are  not  offered  up  in  the  name  of 
a  crucified  Jesus  to  the  Father  and  Creator  of  all  things." 
"But,"  as  Gibbon  adds,  "this  splendid  exaggeration, 
which  even  at  present  it  would  be  extremely  difficult  to 
reconcile  with  the  real  state  of  mankind,  can  be  con- 
sidered only  as  the  rash  sally  of  a  devout  but  careless 
writer,  the  measure  of  whose  belief  was  regulated  by  that 
of  his  wishes."^ 

In  spite  of  the  strenuous  exertions  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
without  whom  Christianity  might  never  have  been 
anything  more  than  a  reformed  branch  of  Judaism,  the 
Christians  do  not  seem  at  any  time  prior  to  the  reign  of 
Constantino  to  have  exceeded  from  three  to  five  per  cent, 
of  the  total  population  of  the  Roman  Empire.  "  The  most 
favourable  calculation  that  can  be  deduced  from  the 
examples  of  Antioch  and  of  Rome  will  not  permit  us  to 
imagine  that  more  than  a  twentieth  part  of  the  subjects 
of  the  Empire  had  enlisted  themselves  under  the  banner 

1  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  vol.  i.,  p.  376. 


24  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 


of  the  Cross  before  the  important  conversion  of  Con- 
stantine."^  The  "conversion"  of  Constantino  took 
place  in  c.e.  312,  so  that  for  almost  the  first  three 
centuries  of  its  career  the  new  faith  does  not  appear  to 
have  made  such  remarkable  progress  as  to  warrant  the 
assumption  that  it  was  aided  by  any  supernatural 
influence. 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  popularly  accepted  as  a 
faithful  account  of  the  beginnings  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Probably  few  competent  scholars  share  this 
view,  but  its  truth  is  assumed  by  the  so-called  Evan- 
gelical writers  who  still  influence  large  numbers  of 
impressionable  minds. 

An  article  by  Professor  Schmiedel  in  the  Encydopoidia 
Biblica  states  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  appeared 
during  the  early  years  of  the  second  century,  probably 
between  the  years  105  and  130  c.e.  If  a  period  of 
seventy  or  eighty  years  intervened  between  the  events 
related  and  the  written  account,  it  would  be  very  remark- 
able if  the  book  were  free  from  error.  Detailed  exami- 
nation of  its  contents  would  here  be  out  of  place  ;  we 
can  but  call  attention  to  two  or  three  points  which 
militate  against  its  historical  accuracy. 

Theologians  almost  unanimously  admit  that  the  refer- 
ence in  the  fifth  chapter  to  the  revolt  of  Theudas  involves 
a  chronological  error  of  about  ten  years.  The  speech  in 
which  it  is  said  to  have  occurred  "before  these  days" 
was  delivered  (if  delivered  at  all)  in  the  year  34.  The 
revolt  took  place  in  the  year  44.  "Before  these  days  " 
may  well  mean  before  the  writer  compiled  his  book  ;  it 
cannot  mean  before  a  speech  delivered  ten  years  earlier 
than   the   insurrection.     Does   not   the  slip  betray  the 

1  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  377. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS     25 

later  hand  ?    Is  not  the  speech  "put  into  the  mouth"  of 
the  speaker  ? 

In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Genesis  we  have  a  legendary 
account  of  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel.  In  the 
second  chapter  of  Acts  we  find  an  analogous  incident,  which 
suggests  the  possibility  of  having  been  derived  from  the 
ancient  tradition.  In  the  one  case  a  common  language 
is  under  supernatural  influence  forgotten,  while  new 
languages  appear  to  be  instantaneously  formed.  In  the 
other  case,  men  are  said  to  have  been  under  the  same 
influence  endowed  in  a  moment  with  the  power  of 
speaking  in  a  number  of  languages  with  which  they  had 
previously  not  been  acquainted.  Is  there  no  trace  of 
doctrinal  prepossession  in  the  later  narrative  ?  The 
account  exhibits  many  improbabilities,  which,  in  the 
entire  absence  of  evidence,  certainly  do  not  command,  or 
even  justify,  a  ready  assent.  We  need  not  insist  on 
the  obvious  inaccuracy  that  men  from  "every  nation 
under  heaven  "  were  then  present  in  Jerusalem  ;  but  it 
is  surely  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  whole  number 
(especially  as  it  is  said  that  most  of  them  were  Jews) 
were  unfamiliar  with  the  language  then  spoken  in  the 
city.  If  they  were  not,  for  what  purpose  was  the 
supposed  miracle  wrought  ? 

It  is  not  possible  to  rely  upon  the  literal  accuracy  of 
the  speeches  attributed  to  Peter.  Verbatim  reporting 
was  unknown  at  the  time,  and,  as  the  book  was  compiled 
many  years  afterwards,  we  are  warranted  in  maintaining 
that  the  speeches  are  simply  those  free  renderings  of 
what  was  thought  to  have  been  uttered  in  which  the 
historians  of  antiquity  indulged.  The  account  given  by 
Peter  of  the  death  of  Judas  is  very  difterent  from  the 
account  in  the  first  Gospel.  The  Apostle  states  that  the 
traitor's  end  was  foretold  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the 


26  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

mouth  of  David.  Persons  who  believe  without  examina- 
tion would  naturally  assume  that  this  reference  is 
accurate,  whereas  there  is  not  in  the  whole  of  the  Old 
Testament  a  single  prophecy  to  this  effect. 

Another  incident  may  be  mentioned  which  involves 
supernatural  intervention,  and  that  of  a  character  so 
extraordinary  that  one  can  but  marvel  at  its  immoral 
implication  being  totally  unperceived  by  the  writer. 
We  allude  to  the  story  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  Let  the  reader  bear 
in  mind  that  this  account  is  given  with  the  same  simple 
good  faith  and  circumstantial  air  common  to  the  New 
Testament  narratives  in  general,  and  then  assert,  if  he 
can,  that  the  absence  of  literary  artifice  affords  the 
smallest  proof  of  accuracy  in  statement.  Ananias  had 
presumably  (though  it  is  not  so  stated)  agreed  to  make 
over  the  whole  of  his  property  for  the  benefit  of  the 
community  of  which  he  was  a  member,  but  he  had  a 
perfect  right  to  retain  (as  he  is  said  to  have  done)  a 
portion  for  his  own  use,  and  this  right  is  expressly 
recognised  by  the  Apostle  Peter.  In  depriving  himself 
of  even  part  of  his  possessions  for  the  good  of  others, 
Ananias  was  to  that  extent  benefiting  his  fellow-men 
and  performing  a  virtuous  action.  His  guilt  lay  solely 
in  his  deceitful  violation  of  an  honourable  under- 
standing. Yet  for  this  offence — an  offence  so  com- 
paratively trivial  that  no  civilised  court  of  justice  would 
take  cognisance  of  it — his  meritorious  action  is  ruthlessly 
ignored,  and  Ananias  is  said  to  have  been  instantly  put 
to  death  by  divine  judgment.  No  trial  was  vouchsafed, 
no  opportunity  given  of  defending  himself.  He  was 
simply  murdered,  without  warning  or  remonstrance, 
or  the  chance  of  repentance  and  reformation  being 
afforded.     It  would   be   useless   to   reply  that  Ananias 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS  27 

probably  suffered  violent  agitation,  and  died  from  failure 
of  the  heart,  for  the  implication  that  his  death  was  due 
to  the  anger  of  God  is  unmistakably  clear.  If  this  is 
divine  justice,  we  can  only  be  thankful  that  our  own 
human  justice  is  infinitely  milder.  The  story  goes  on 
to  relate  that  the  wife  of  Ananias,  on  being,  about 
three  hours  later,  questioned  on  the  subject,  and  being 
in  ignorance  of  what  had  happened,  declares  falsely  that 
nothing  had  been  retained.  She,  too,  immediately  falls 
dead  in  the  same  sudden  and  mysterious  manner.  Her 
self-constituted  judge  is  not  satisfied  with  one  death,  but 
is  so  confident  of  the  issue  that  he  even  threatens  her  in 
advance  with  the  tragic  fate  of  her  husband.  Not  a  trace 
of  sorrow  or  commiseration  on  Peter's  part  for  the 
wretched  offenders  appears  in  this  callously  immoral 
story.  Christian  commentators  have  so  little  perceived 
its  objectionable  features  as  to  accept  it  as  an  undoubted 
example  of  God's  dealings  with  mankind,  and  have  with 
lavish  sophistry  defended  the  accuracy  of  the  account. 
But  the  question.  Is  it  true?  cannot  be  evaded.  Surely 
it  is  far  more  honest  and  far  more  religious  to  reject 
than  to  believe  it. 

"  Great  fear  came  upon  the  whole  Church,  and  upon 
all  that  heard  these  things  "  (Acts  v.  11).  This  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at.  If  people  believed  in  a  God  ready  at 
any  moment  to  punish  moral  delinquencies  with  imme- 
diate death,  it  would  be  surprising  if  something  like  a 
"reign  of  terror"  did  not  set  in.  It  has  been  already 
remarked  that  a  superstitious  dread  of  divine  judgments 
was  an  important  factor  in  the  growth  of  Christianity. 
Other  passages  in  the  Book  of  Acts  confirm  this  view  : 
'*  Fear  came  upon  every  soul "  (chap.  ii.  43) ;  "  Great 
fear  came  upon  all  that  heard  "  of  the  death  of  Ananias 
(chap.  V.  5).     When  Peter  charged  the  people  with  being 


28  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  ACCOUNTS 

jiarticeps  criminis  in  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  "  they  were 
pricked  in  the  heart,"  and  inquired  what  they  should  do, 
though  the  responsibility  of  these  particular  persons  is 
not  shown.  His  exhortations  were  the  means  of  adding 
to  the  community  *'  that  day  about  3,000  souls,"  a 
number  which  may  fairly  be  deemed  exaggerated  when 
we  read  in  the  fifth  chapter  the  following  strange  contra- 
diction :  "  And  by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  were  many 
signs  and  wonders  wrought  among  the  people ;  and  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  Solomon's  porch.  But  of  the 
rest  durst  no  man  join  himself  to  them :  howbeit  the 
people  magnified  them  ;  and  believers  ivcre  the  more 
added  to  the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women." 
In  view  of  the  above  incidents  it  is  impossible  to  treat 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  as  sober  and  reliable  history. 
Doubtless  it  embodies  valuable  traditions ;  but  its 
apologetic  tendencies,  its  contradictions  and  exaggera- 
tions, its  reliance  on  supposed  prophecies,  its  occa- 
sionally imperfect  moral  conceptions,  and  its  excessive 
supernaturalism,  prevent  us  from  accepting  it  as  an 
inspired,  or  even  an  accurate,  account  of  the  events  with 
which  it  deals. 


Chapter  II. 

THE  STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

Paul  the  Apostle  was  converted  to  the  Christian  faith 
shortly  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  if  he  really  wrote 
the  Epistles  bearing  his  name  his  testimony  is  important. 
What  is  the  nature  and  worth  of  that  testimony  ? 

We  shall  assume  the  genuineness  of  the  well-known 
passage  about  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  in  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  merely  remarking  that  this 
is  not  certain,  but  doubtful.  At  least  one  critic  has  con- 
tended that  the  passage  is  an  "  obvious  forgery  ";^  and, 
while  this  may  be  considered  an  extreme  view,  the 
admission  by  many  Christian  advocates  that  Paul's 
Epistles  have  been  interpolated  precludes  acceptance  of 
their  statements  as  final. 

The  first  point  to  notice  in  Paul's  declaration  is  the 
statement  that  he  "received"  his  knowledge  of  the 
resurrection.  From  whom,  by  what  means,  on  what 
authority,  or  at  what  time  and  place  he  received  it,  is 
not  clear,  though  he  does  elsewhere  state  that  it  was 
given  to  him  by  ''  revelation  "  from  God  direct.^  This 
is  a  claim  which  it  is  impossible  to  verify,  and  we  are 
not  prepared  to  admit  that  a  dead  person  can  com- 
municate with  a  living  one.     Paul  emphatically  declares 

1  Mr.  J.  M.  Robertson,  Studies  in  Religious  Fallacy,  pp.  150,  172,  173. 
Professor  Schmidt  states  that  this  view  is  also  held  by  Straatman,  a 
German  critic  {The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  p.  395).  Professor  Stech,  of 
Berne,  and  the  Dutch  theologians  Pierson,  Meyboom,  Loman,  Matthes, 
etc.,  also  oppose  the  traditional  view  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Epistles. 

2  Galatians  i.  15,  16. 

29 


80         STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

that  the  other  Apostles  "imparted  nothing"  to  him 
(Galatians  ii.  G),  another  statement  to  which  it  is  not 
easy  to  give  implicit  credence,  in  view  of  his  claim  that 
a  knowledge  of  the  last  supper  was  also  given  to  him  by 
revelation,  when  he  must  have  derived  it  from  the 
current  belief.  We  may  add  that,  as  Paul  is  admitted  to 
be  no  authority  for  the  life  of  Jesus,  he  can  hardly  be  a 
good  authority  for  his  supposed  return  to  life. 

Judging  from  Paul's  writings,  we  cannot  suppose  that 
he  was  a  man  who  either  would  or  could  distinguish 
carefully  between  the  operations  of  his  own  conscious- 
ness and  experiences  believed  to  have  been  supernaturally 
originated.  On  this  point  Dr.  Percy  Gardner  says  :  '*  It 
is  easy  to  prove  from  the  acknowledged  writings  of  St. 
Paul  that  he  had  no  sufficient  perception  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  that  which  is  within  and  that  which  is 
without,  between  the  ethical  and  the  physical  "  {Explo- 
ratio  Evangelica,  p.  10).  It  was  then,  and  is  still/  a 
characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  mind  to  attribute  to  an 
immediate  action  of  divine  power  that  for  which  we 
should  at  once  assume  the  sufficiency  of  natural  causes. 
This  vagueness  of  statement  common  to  all  the  New 
Testament  writers,  who  had  little  idea  that  they  were 
writing  for  distant  ages,  is  a  regrettable  feature  in  an 
author  who  desires  his  assertions  to  be  accepted,  and 
claims  divine  authority  for  his  communications.  We 
cannot  verify  Paul's  statements,  but  it  seems  evident 
that  his  knowledge  was  based  partly  on  the  Christian 
tradition  then  current,  and  partly  on  psychological 
experiences  peculiar  to  himself. 

1  The  following  nineteenth-century  incident  is  mentioned  in  Dr.  Abbot's 
Throwjh  Nature  to  Christ.  Some  Jews  of  an  Eastern  village  where  an 
accidental  fire  had  occurred  appealed  for  aid  to  Sir  Moses  Montefiore, 
telling  him  that  "  fire  had  come  down  from  heaven  "  and  destroyed  their 
homes. 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL         31 

Paul  specifies  at  least  the  nature  of  the  communication 
he  had  received.  This  was,  firstly,  that  ''  Christ  died 
for  our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures" — i.e.,  the  Old 
Testament  writings.  The  reference  is  to  passages  in  the 
Psalms,  and  the  books  of  Isaiah,  Daniel,  and  Zechariah. 
These  passages  do  not  contain  a  single  clear  and  unmis- 
takable prediction  of  the  death  or  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
such  as  Paul  evidently  assumes.  Modern  criticism  has 
thrown  so  much  light  on  the  meaning  of  the  Jewish 
sacred  writings  that  the  once  popular  methods  of  inter- 
pretation which  saw  prophetic  references  to  Christ  in 
almost  every  page  have  become  no  longer  tenable.  Such 
methods  satisfied  the  early  Christians,  but  they  are  felt 
by  many  modern  scholars  to  be  misleading.  These 
inconclusive  "prophecies"  are  adduced  in  scores  of 
places  in  the  New  Testament,  and  a  large  number  of 
them,  those  in  the  first  Gospel  especially,  embody  inter- 
pretations which  are  not  merely  fanciful,  but  erroneous. 
The  expression  "  Christ  died  for  our  sins  "  is  a  deduction 
of  Paul  rather  than  part  of  the  authentic  teaching  of 
Jesus — a  deduction,  moreover,  which  it  certainly  needed 
no  "  revelation  "  to  enable  Paul  to  make.  And  it  implies 
a  theological  doctrine  foreign  to  the  simple  ethics  of  the 
founder  of  Christianity.  If  any  theory  of  the  Atonement 
is  true,  it  is  unaccountable  that  the  only  real  authority 
on  the  subject  should  have  omitted  to  proclaim  it  in  his 
own  public  preaching  to  those  whom  it  concerned. 

Paul  next  states  that  Christ  "  hath  been  raised  on  the 
third  day,"  again  "  according  to  the  scriptures,"  an 
assertion  the  erroneous  character  of  which  will  appear 
by  comparison  with  the  passages  on  which  he  seems  to 
rely,  though  he  does  not  quote  them. 

The  Apostle,  however,  seems  to  have  an  idea  that  some 
evidence  of  the  resurrection  is  needed.     Here   is  the 


82         STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

evidence.  Christ  **  appeared  to  Cephas;  then  to  the 
twelve  ;  then  he  appeared  to  above  five  hundred  brethren 
at  once,  of  whom  the  greater  part  remain  until  now,  but 
some  are  fallen  asleep ;  then  he  appeared  to  James ; 
then  to  all  the  Apostles ;  and,  last  of  all,  as  unto  one 
born  out  of  due  time,  he  appeared  to  me  also." 

This  passage,  which  Paul  seems  to  regard  as  conclu- 
sive, implies  that  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  after  his 
resurrection  was  to  Peter  alone.  Do  the  Gospels  bear 
this  out  ?  By  no  means.  Two  of  them  relate  that  the  first 
appearance  was  to  the  women,  the  third  relates  that  the 
first  appearance  was  to  Cleopas  and  his  companion,  while 
the  remaining  Gospel  relates,  in  its  genuinepart,  no  appear- 
ance at  all.  It  is  true  that  Luke  incidentally  remarks 
on  an  appearance  to  Peter  having  taken  place ;  but  as 
this  would  seem  to  have  been  while  Jesus  was  in  another 
place,  it  tells  distinctly  in  favour  of  its  visionary  character. 

Then  Jesus  "  ajDpeared  to  the  twelve."  The  Gospels 
nowhere  state  that  he  appeared  to  the  twelve.  That 
number  included  Judas  Iscariot,  and  he  did  not  remain 
among  the  faithful  disciples.  Matthias  was,  of  course, 
not  yet  chosen.  John  records  two  appearances  to  the 
disciples,  the  first  when  ten  were  present,  the  second 
when  eleven  were  present. 

Paul's  next  statement  is  that  Jesus  "  appeared  to  above 
five  hundred  brethren  at  once."  This  incident  also  is 
unconfirmed  by  the  Gospels.  Many  apologists  have 
considered  that  it  relates  to  the  appearance  of  Jesus 
**  on  a  mountain  "  in  Galilee,  recorded  in  the  twenty- 
eighth  chapter  of  Matthew.  As  this  account  distinctly 
states  that  the  appearance  was  to  the  eleven,  without 
mentioning  any  other  persons,  the  supposition  is  purely 
arbitrary,  and  illustrates  the  straits  to  which  apologetic 
writers  are  reduced  in  their  efforts  towards  impossible 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL        33 

reconciliations.  One  serious  objection  to  Paul's  state- 
ment arises  from  the  difficulty  of  believing  that  there 
were  so  soon  after  the  death  of  Jesus  as  many  as  500 
disciples  in  existence,  since  the  total  number  gathered 
together  in  Jerusalem  some  weeks  later  is  given  as  about 
120.  The  possibility,  at  least,  of  500  Galilean  disciples 
being  known  to  exist  within  a  few  days  of  the  crucifixion 
may  be  admitted,  though  it  is  far  from  easy  to  suppose 
that  out  of  the  poor  and  ignorant  multitudes  who 
followed  Jesus  for  the  sake  (largely)  of  material  benefits 
so  considerable  a  number  actuated  by  a  common  faith 
could  at  that  time  have  been  found,  or  that  they  would 
have  been  termed  "  brethren,"  or  that  they  could  have 
been  got  together,  apparently  without  previous  notice,  in 
the  short  time  that  had  elapsed,  or  that  they  would  have 
had  the  privilege  of  beholding  a  supernatural  manifes- 
tation, or  that,  if  they  did,  they  should  have  rendered 
no  testimony  to  it.  It  must,  we  think,  be  admitted 
that  the  occurrence  intimated  by  Paul  cannot  be  iden- 
tified with  that  described  by  Matthew,  and,  if  that  be  so, 
we  cannot  find  the  slightest  confirmation  of  it  in  the 
Gospel  records.^  Nothing  could  be  more  perplexing  and 
unsatisfactory  than  these  vague  references  of  the  New 
Testament  writers  to  events  of  transcendent  importance. 
We  are  told  by  Matthew  of  **  a  mountain,"  without 
knowing  where  it  was.  Mark  leaves  us  before  an  empty 
sepulchre.  Luke  virtually  excludes  the  forty  days  which 
he  elsewhere  alleges.  John  gives  us  appearances  of 
which  no  other  writer  knows  anything.  And  the  state- 
ments   of    Paul,    the    earliest    witness,    are     entirely 

^  The  incident  is,  by  some  writers,  identified  with  the  ascension,  but  on 
grounds  which  appear  to  us  insufficient.  Others  think  it  may  have  been 
confused  with  the  Pentecost  narrative.  Possibly  it  is  merely  Paul's 
figurative  way  of  expressing  the  apprehension  by  the  whole  body  of 
believers  of  what  was  to  them  a  revelation  from  heaven. 

D 


84    STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

uncorroborated  by  the  writers  who  purport  to  give  a 
formal  record  of  the  facts.  Paul  refers  in  the  most  casual 
manner  to  500  witnesses,  of  whom  more  than  half  were 
living  when  he  wrote ;  yet  he  does  not  state  who  they 
were,  how  and  where  they  could  be  found,  what  it  was 
they  saw,  the  nature  of  their  testimony,  or  whether  it 
was  rendered  to  others — in  fact,  he  relates  nothing  of 
the  slightest  service  to  later  times.  All  details  of  time, 
place,  circumstances  are  ignored.  Such  laxity  in  the 
relation  of  events  alleged  to  be  supernatural,  and  there- 
fore specially  needing  attestation,  is  surely  unparalleled 
in  history. 

Paul  goes  on  to  say  that  Jesus  then  appeared  to  James. 
Again  we  have  no  record  in  the  Gospels  of  this  appear- 
ance. Nor  does  Paul  specify  which  James  he  refers  to. 
There  were  three  men  of  this  name  in  the  Church — the 
brother  of  Jesus,  the  brother  of  John  (whom  Herod  put 
to  death),  and  the  son  of  Alphaeus.  If  the  James  referred 
to  by  Paul  was  he  who  presided  over  the  meeting  at 
Jerusalem,  recorded  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  and 
if  he  wrote  the  Epistle  of  James,  his  omission  to  mention 
the  appearance  to  himself  is  quite  unintelligible.  If 
such  an  appearance  took  place,  it  was  the  most  important 
affirmation  James  could  make.  Yet  he  says  not  a  w'ord 
about  it.  Is  it  suggested  that  the  fact  was  so  well  known 
that  it  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  declare  it  ?  Why, 
then,  did  Paul  repeatedly  declare  the  resurrection  when 
he  never  saw  Jesus  at  all,  except  in  a  doubtful  vision? 
We  may  admit  that  the  resurrection  was  readily,  and 
without  evidence,  believed  in  ;  but  no  proof  of  it  as  a  fact 
has  come  down  to  us.  The  suggestion  is  nothing  more 
than  a  wholly  unwarranted  inference.  That  a  person 
may  be  assumed  to  possess  knowledge  which  he  never 
claims  is   a  novel   method  of    proving  a  supernatural 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL         35 

occurrence  to  future  ages.  James's  negative  testimony 
has  greater  weight  than  that  of  another  person  given  on 
his  behalf  and  without  a  word  of  confirmation. 

The  appearance  to  "  all  the  Apostles  "  does  not  require 
detailed  notice.  It  cannot  be  clearly  identified  with  any 
manifestation  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  unless  it  be  that 
in  John  xx.  26-29,  and  appears  to  imply  a  distinction 
between  "  all  the  Apostles  "  and  "  the  twelve,"  which  is 
rather  perplexing.     Who  were  "  all  the  Apostles  "  ? 

The  last  appearance  mentioned  by  Paul  is  that  to 
himself,  and  this  is  said  to  have  been  *'  as  unto  one 
born  out  of  due  time."  As  the  marginal  reading  of  this 
obscure  expression  is  ''  an  abortive,"  it  implies  that  the 
perception  was  of  an  abnormal  kind.  The  mystical 
tendency  which  in  the  New  Testament  writers  leads  to 
such  extraordinary  vagueness  of  statement  is  here  very 
marked.  Precisely  where  rigid  accuracy  and  perfect 
clearness  are  requisite,  Paul's  words  are  most  obscure. 
As  there  is  no  record  of  his  having  met  Jesus  prior  to 
the  alleged  resurrection,  the  reference  is  generally 
admitted  to  be  to  one  of  those  "  visions"  which  are  so 
common  in  the  Christian  records,  and  which  were 
apparently  in  those  times  considered  as  perfectly  satis- 
factory evidence  of  matters  of  fact.  Paul  gives  no 
further  account  of  this  experience,  unless  the  passage 
in  2  Cor.  xii.  relates  to  it,  though  this  is  denied  by 
many  theologians  :  "  I  will  come  to  visions  and  revela- 
tions of  the  Lord.  I  know  a  man  in  Christ  fourteen 
years  ago  (whether  in  the  body  I  know  not ;  or  whether  out 
of  the  body  I  know  not :  God  knoweth),  such  a  one  caught 
up  even  to  the  third  heaven.  And  I  know  such  a  man 
(whether  in  the  body  or  apart  from  the  body  I  know  not : 
God  knoweth),  how  that  he  was  caught  up  into  paradise, 
and  heard  unspeakable  words,  which  it  is  not  lawful  for 


36         STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

a  man  to  utter."  None  but  a  mind  of  a  peculiarly  super- 
stitious bent  can  regard  this  strange  passage  as  affording 
the  smallest  approach  to  evidence  of  an  actual  appear- 
ance of  Jesus.  To  any  other,  Paul's  inability  to  tell 
whether  he  was  *'  in  the  body  "  or  not  deprives  it  of  all 
evidential  value,  while  his  expression,  "  On  behalf  of 
such  a  one  will  I  glory ;  but  on  mine  own  behalf  I  will 
not  glory,"  marks  a  distinction  between  himself  and  the 
visionary  which  renders  it  doubtful  whether  he  was 
referring  to  an  experience  of  his  own. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Paul  merely  catalogues  certain 
appearances,  his  knowledge  of  which  must  have  been 
derived  from  tradition,  and  that  in  a  form  which  differed 
materially  from  the  several  traditions  embodied  in  the 
Gospels.  In  the  opinion  of  Weizsiicker,  "  the  events  at 
the  grave  itself  form  the  central  point  on  which  every- 
thing else  turns. "^  He  adds,  referring  to  Paul's  know- 
ledge of  the  resurrection,  *'  the  circumstance  that  he 
passes  over  the  events  at  the  grave  is  striking,  if  only 
because  he  has  just  mentioned  the  burial,  but  chiefly 
because  they  would  have  served  his  purpose  best.  In 
the  proof  which  he  undertakes  so  earnestly  and  carries 
out  with  such  precision  the  absence  of  the  first  and  most 
important  link  is  in  the  highest  degree  suspicious.  The 
only  possible  explanation  is  that  the  Apostle  was  ignorant 
of  its  existence.  And  this  is  important.  For  Paul's 
knowledge  of  these  things  must  have  come  from  the 
heads  of  the  primitive  Church.  Therefore  it  is  the 
primitive  Church  itself  that  was  ignorant  of  any  such 
tradition.  And,  still  further,  this  tradition  is  directly 
negatived  by  the  fact  that,  among  the  Christophanies 
recorded  by  Paul,  that  of  Peter  is  absolutely  the  first.    If 

1  The  Apostolic  Age  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.,  p.  5. 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL         37 


the  series  of  appearances  which  prove  the  resurrection 
began  with  Peter's  experience,  those  at  the  grave  which 
exclude  Peter  cannot  have  preceded  it."^ 

It  should  be  added  that  the  sense  in  which  Paul  uses 
the  word  ''appeared"  is  nowhere  defined  by  him,^ 
though,  as  the  same  term  covers  his  own  experience  and 
that  of  others,  it  implies  their  similarity.  And  the  sub- 
jective element  in  the  former  is  very  pronounced. 

To  make  up  for  the  remarkable  omission  of  any  data 
by  which  Paul's  own  accounts  can  be  tested,  we  have,  in 
the  Book  of  Acts,  no  less  than  three  narratives  of  Paul's 
conversion.  These  narratives  were  written  or  compiled, 
not  by  Paul  himself,  but  by  someone  else.  Two  of  them 
purport  to  be  reports  of  speeches  by  Paul,  though  we  have 
no  guarantee,  or  even  presumption,  that  they  are  accurate. 
The  details  of  these  accounts  are,  of  course,  contradic- 
tory, though  not  sufficiently  so  to  enable  us  to  say  that 
there  is  no  basis  of  truth  in  them.  But  what  that  basis 
was  is  a  matter  on  which  the  utmost  variety  of  opinion 
prevails  among  Christian  scholars — a  clear  enough  proof 
that  nothing  like  certainty  exists.  In  one  account^  we 
are  told  that  the  people  with  Paul  heard  the  voice  which 
addressed  him.  If  they  did,  no  sworn  testimony  of  the 
fact  appears  to  have  been  furnished  to  the  governor  of 
Damascus  or  anybody  else.  We  do  not  know  who  these 
people  were,  nor  whether  they  had  any  testimony  to  give. 
When,  on  reading  the  second  account,^  we  find  Paul 
stating  that  his  companions  did  not  hear  the  voice,  our 
perplexity  is  increased.  The  third  account,^  also  in  a 
speech   of   Paul,   makes   neither   of  these    statements. 

1  Ibid. 

"  Professor  G.  H.  Gilbert  states  that  the  Greek  word  translated 
"  appeared "  is  only  used  of  spiritual  appearances  (StudenVs  Life  of 
Paul,  p.  29-30). 

^  Acts  ix.  7.  ^  Acts  xxii.  9.  ^  Ihid,  xxvi. 


38        STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

The  point  is  not  altogether  trifling  ;  for,  if  articulate 
words  were  heard  by  other  persons  besides  Paul,  they 
could  have  borne  witness  to  them.  If  they  heard  no 
words,  the  probability  of  the  account  having  originated 
in  purely  subjective  experiences  is  greatly  heightened.-^ 
If  the  passage  in  2  Cor.  xii.  relates  to  this  incident,  we 
have  the  admission  that  Paul  himself  could  not  tell 
whether  it  was  real  or  imaginary.  It  is  manifest  that 
such  a  mind,  passing  through  a  vivid  emotional  experi- 
ence, would  be  certain  to  look  upon  it  as  supernatural 
where  we  should  regard  it  as  a  natural  and  inevitable 
result  of  prior  conditions.  And  a  writer  like  the  author 
of  the  Acts  would  be  equally  certain  to  increase  rather 
than  diminish  the  supernatural  element  in  the  tradition 
with  which  he  was  dealing. 

There  is  a  further  discrepancy.  The  first  of  Paul's 
speeches  introduces  Ananias,  who  instructs  and  directs 
him.  The  second  speech  omits  all  reference  to  Ananias, 
and  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  a  speech  which  is 
absent  from  the  other  discourse,  though  the  substance  of 
it  is  attributed  to  Jesus  in  a  later  manifestation  or  vision 
at  Jerusalem.  In  all  three  of  these  narratives  in  Acts 
the  words  said  to  have  been  uttered  by  Jesus  are  different. 
No  two  of  the  accounts  agree.  Nor  in  Paul's  own  epistle  ia 
this  mysterious  Ananias  so  much  as  mentioned — a  thing 
surely  incredible  if  he  rendered  to  Paul  the  important 
services  related  in  Acts.  Indeed,  the  Apostle's  language 
in  Gal.  i.  IG  expressly  repudiates  the  historical  account, 
for  he  says  :  "  Immediately,  I  conferred  not  with  flesh 
and  blood :  neither  went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  them 
which  were  Apostles  before  me."  Compare  this  with  the 
statement  in  the  ninth  chapter  of  Acts,  where  it  is  said 

I  Cp.  John  xii.  29,  where  a  similar  uncertainty  exists  among  the  by- 
standers. 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL         39 

that,  after  preaching  at  Damascus  for  "  many  days"  (a 
term  which  cannot  easily  be  expanded  into  the  ''  three 
years  "  which,  according  to  Gal.  i.  18,  elapsed  before 
he  went  to  Jerusalem),  Paul  repaired  to  the  latter  city 
and  *'  assayed  to  join  himself  to  the  disciples ;  and  they 
were  all  afraid  of  him,  not  believing  that  he  was  a  disciple. 
But  Barnabas  took  him,  and  brought  him  to  the  Apostles; 

and  he  was  with  them  going  in  and  going  out  at 

Jerusalem."  More  than  this:  Paul  not  only  declares 
that,  on  the  visit  in  question,  he  did  not  associate  with 
the  Apostles  as  a  body,  and  that  he  was  after  that  visit 
still  "unknown  by  face  to  the  churches"  of  Judea,  but 
that  it  was  fourteen  years  later  before  he  again  went  to 
Jerusalem.  So  that  the  friendly  association  related  in 
Acts  must  be  postponed  for  seventeen  (or  fourteen)  years 
after  Paul's  conversion.  Is  it  possible  that  the  Jerusalem 
Christians  should  have  doubted  that  Paul  was  a  disciple 
of  the  new  faith,  after  he  had  been  preaching  it  success- 
fully for  seventeen  or  fourteen  or  even  three  years? 
Paul's  mission,  in  fact,  seems  to  have  been  almost  entirely 
independent  of  that  of  the  original  Apostles.  While  they 
conformed  to  the  Mosaic  law,  he  went  about  subverting 
it.  How  did  Paul  arrive  at  this  very  different  conception  ? 
Perhaps  Philo  and  the  book  of  Enoch  supply  the  answer. 
If  these  accounts  are  not  contradictory,  we  may  as  well 
say  that  contradictions  do  not  exist.  The  writer  of  Acts 
says  that  Paul  remained  many  days  at  Damascus  preach- 
ing immediately  after  his  conversion,  and  so  successfully 
that  the  Jews  sought  to  kill  him,  and  he  was  forced  to 
escape  to  Jerusalem  under  cover  of  night.  Paul's  own 
solemn  declaration  "before  God"  is  that  immediately 
after  his  conversion  he  went  into  Arabia,  returned  to 
Damascus,  and  did  not  go  to  Jerusalem  at  all  for  three 
years.    If  the  writer  of  Acts  is  correct  in  saying  that  the 


40        STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

Jews  were  seeking  to  kill  Paul,  it  was  madness  for  him 
to  return  to  Damascus;  but  as,  on  every  ground,  his 
own  narrative  is  likely  to  be  the  more  accurate,  the 
details  in  Acts  may  be  regarded  as  the  product  of  pious 
imagination. 

During  his  short  visit  to  Jerusalem  Paul  stayed  with 
Peter  fifteen  days,  during  which  time  he  also  saw 
"  James,  the  Lord's  brother."  Of  what  passed  at  their 
interviews  Paul  gives  no  particulars  whatever.  Their 
substantial  agreement  in  regard  to  the  resurrection  may 
fairly  be  inferred  from  the  absence  of  any  statement  to 
the  contrary.  But  beyond  inference  we  cannot  go.  If 
Peter  had  seen  the  risen  Jesus  in  bodily  form,  while 
Paul  had  only  beheld  him  in  a  vision,  their  agreement 
could  hardly  have  been  complete.  It  is  more  likely  to 
have  been  complete  if  Peter's  experience  also  had  been 
of  a  visionary  character,  and  this  is  what  many  scholars 
now  hold  to  have  been  the  case.  But  it  is  a  feasible 
supposition  that  neither  Apostle  defined  the  sense  in 
which  he  understood  the  resurrection,  or  even  broached 
a  matter  the  truth  of  W'hich  each  took  for  granted.  In 
those  days  no  one  was  likely  to  become  a  disciple  at  all 
unless  he  believed  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  and 
Peter  was  not  likely  to  question  an  assurance  by  Paul 
that  he  had  some  years  before  "seen"  Jesus.  An 
assurance  of  a  divine  revelation,  a  mysterious  vision,  or, 
best  of  all,  a  prophecy,^  was  quite  sufficient  to  convince 
Peter,  just  as  his  account  of  his  vision  at  Joppa  is  said 
to  have  at  once  convinced  his  fellow  Apostles  that  new 
views  of  truth  had  been  revealed  to  him.  To  such  men 
a  scientific  explanation  would  have  been  more  fantastic 
than  the  account  of  a  trance  or  a  dream.     Quite  probably 

^  '  Cp.  2  Peter  i.  19,  which  (though  in  a  doubtful  epistle)  makes  predic- 
tion better  evidence  than  the  physical  senses. 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE   APOSTLE  PAUL         41 

Paul  related  his  experiences,  but  quite  as  probably  the 
subject  was  not  further  discussed.  The  relation  of 
Paul's  conception  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Mosaic  law  was 
more  likely  to  have  been  the  chief  topic  of  conversation. 
The  general  and  purely  inferential  agreement  of  the 
Apostles,  however,  is  twisted  by  some  writers  into 
*' direct  evidence  "  of  the  specific  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection. **  We  cannot  err,"  says  the  Rev.  C.  A.  Row, 
*'in  asserting  that  we  have  here  the  direct  testimony  of 
these  two  men  (Peter  and  James)  that  they  had  seen  the 
risen  Jesus.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  belief  in  the 
Resurrection  was  that  on  which  the  Church  was  recon- 
structed immediately  after  the  crucifixion."^  Now, 
because  records  which  are  exceedingly  sketchy,  and 
almost  invariably  fail  to  supply  just  the  particulars 
that  are  most  needed,  do  not  say  that  Peter  and  James 
disagreed  with  Paul,  we  are  hardly  entitled  to  assume 
that  their  views  must  have  coincided  with  his  on  every 
subject  they  discussed,  and  even  upon  a  subject  which 
they  may  not  have  discussed  at  all.  We  can  only 
assume  that  they  agreed  because  Paul  does  not  say  they 
differed.  Assumptions  are  often  useful,  but  it  is  possible 
to  have  an  overdose  of  them.  And  the  student  of  apolo- 
getics usually  gets  it. 

In  this  matter  Mr.  Row  seems  to  be  under  a  misappre- 
hension. Testimony  consists  of  a  solemn  declaration  or 
affirmation  by  a  known  witness  for  the  purpose  of 
proving  a  fact.  If  the  affirmation  is  made  to  ourselves, 
it  is  direct  testimony.  If  it  is  made  to  others  and  by 
them  reported  to  us,  it  is  indirect  testimony.  If  the 
affirmation  has  been  made  by  a  person  long  since  dead,  it 
may  be  treated  as  direct  testimony  if  placed  on  record  by 

1  Popular  Objections  to  Revealed  Truth,  p.  242. 


42         STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

the  person  himself,  and  that  circumstance  attested  by 
others  then  present,  the  date,  place,  and  means  of  identi- 
fication being  furnished,  and  the  record  handed  down  in 
its  integrity  to  later  times.  In  such  a  case,  as  in  the 
case  of  a  will,  the  attestation  becomes  important.  If 
these  details  are  not  supplied,  our  acceptance  of  the 
testimony  is  necessarily  dependent  on  the  accuracy  of 
those  who  transmit  it.  And  if  these  persons  are  them- 
selves unknown  to  history,  if  their  authorship  of  the 
records  ascribed  to  them  is  likewise  doubtful,  it  is  quite 
impossible  to  be  sure  that  we  possess  the  evidence  of  the 
original  wdtness.  In  every  respect  the  New  Testament 
accounts  fail  to  comply  with  these  conditions,  the 
necessary  attestation  in  particular  being  wholly  lacking. 
The  original  witnesses  are  not  known.  Their  testimony, 
if  there  ever  was  any,  appears  never  to  have  been 
formally  recorded,  and  we  do  not  know  of  what  it 
consisted.  Even  its  reporters  are  not  known.  Nor  can 
we  tell  when,  where,  and  under  what  circumstances  the 
existing  accounts  were  first  put  into  writing,  because 
their  original  sources  are  lost.  The  plain  man  can  see 
that  in  such  a  case  as  this  the  possibilities  of  error  are 
almost  without  limit.  Critically  regarded,  the  whole  of 
the  New  Testament  statements  concerning  the  resurrec- 
tion afford  but  a  low  degree  of  indirect  evidence.  Even 
to  those  of  Paul  the  remark  applies,  since  we  cannot 
prove  the  genuineness  of  every  sentence  contained  in  his 
writings. 

This  indirect  testimony  contains  references  to  other 
persons  who,  it  is  inferred,  agreed  with  the  writers,  but 
who  left  no  statements  of  their  own.  And  this  still 
feebler  degree  of  indirect  evidence  is  termed  by  a 
cultured  apologist  **  direct  testimony."  So  exaggerated 
a  claim  can  but  be  emphatically  repudiated.     Testimony 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL    43 

cannot  possibly  be  direct  when  it  comes  through  a 
medium  other  than  that  of  the  original  witness,  the 
medium  being  uncertain,  and  the  substance  of  the 
testimony  itself  unknown. 

Not  only  do  Paul's  own  words  imply  that  he  did  not 
begin  to  preach  immediately  after  his  conversion,  but  he 
relates  a  singular  incident  which  adds  greatly  to  the 
suspicion  he  casts  upon  the  account  in  Acts.  Seventeen 
years  after  his  conversion  he  went  again  to  Jerusalem. 
What  was  his  object?  He  went  there  in  order  to  make 
sure  that,  after  all  that  lapse  of  time,  he  had  not  been 
preaching  an  erroneous  version  of  the  Gospel !  This 
would  be  simply  incredible  if  we  had  not  the  Apostle's 
own  assurance  that  it  was  so.  On  his  previous  visit, 
three  years  after  his  conversion,  he  had  stayed  fifteen  days 
with  Peter,  seeing  no  one  else  but  James.  Fifteen  days 
would  seem  to  have  been  ample  time  in  which  to  obtain 
all  the  necessary  facts  from  Peter  and  James,  yet  fourteen 
years  later  Paul  seems  to  have  thought  his  divinely 
revealed  information  might  have  been  inadequate.  *'  I 
went  up  by  revelation  ;  and  I  laid  before  them  the  Gospel 
which  I  preach  among  the  Gentiles,  but  privately  before 
them  who  were  of  repute,  lest  by  any  means  I  should  he 
running  or  had  run  in  vain.'"'^  Here  we  have  not  merely 
a  significant  admission  that  doubts  had  arisen  in  Paul's 
mind  concerning  the  nature  of  his  mission,  but  the  still 
more  extraordinary  fact  that  Paul  consulted  the  other 
Apostles  "  by  revelation  "  in  order  to  get  the  accuracy  of 
his  previous  revelation  confirmed.  He  emphatically 
asserts  that  he  did  not  receive  "from  man"  the  Gospel 
which  he  preached,  but  that  *'it  came  to  me  through 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  ";^  and  that,  having  received 

^  Gal.  ii.  2.     Christian  apologists  very  seldom  quote  this  passage. 

2  Gal.  i.  12. 


44         STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

it,  he  *' conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood. "^  Why, 
then,  did  he  think  it  advisable  to  "  confer  with  flesh  and 
blood  "  many  years  later,  and  why  should  a  second  reve- 
lation cast  doubt  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  first  ?  This 
passage  makes  it  clear  that  with  Paul  and  minds  of 
similar  bent  "  a  revelation  "  means  what  we  should  term 
a  ''  change  of  mind,"  the  climax  of  a  normal  process 
of  reflection. 

It  should  be  noted  that,  according  to  the  narrative  in 
Acts,  Ananias  received  his  instructions  regarding  Paul 
in  a  manner  similar  to  that  in  which  the  Apostle  received 
his  ''  revelations."  "  The  Lord  said  unto  him  in  a 
vision:  Ananias."^  Then  follows  a  dialogue  which  can 
only  be  pronounced  an  absurdity.  Ananias,  in  the 
precise  style  of  several  of  the  dialogues  between  God  and 
man  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  actually  ventures 
to  argue  with  the  Lord  about  the  express  command  given 
to  him,  and  it  is  only  after  a  fuller  explanation  of  his 
duty  that  he  agrees  to  fulfil  it.  This  is  strong  indirect 
evidence  that  such  visions  w^ere  purely  subjective.  No 
religious  man,  conscious  of  receiving  a  divine  command, 
would  at  that  moment  be  so  self-willed  as  to  dispute  it. 
But  any  man  conscious  of  a  fresh  impression  arising  in 
his  mind  would  adopt  it  slowly  and  reluctantly  if  it  were 
opposed  to  his  previous  convictions.  The  supernatural 
element  in  these  impressions  of  Paul,  Ananias,  and 
others,  is  simply  the  mode  in  which  the  Jewish  mind  at 
that  time  conceived  such  experiences  to  originate. 

A  perplexing  feature  about  Ananias  is  that,  while  in 
the  ninth  chapter  of  Acts  he  is  described  as  a  ''  disciple," 
Paul  refers  to  him  in  the  twenty-second  chapter  as  ''  a 
devout  man  according  to  the  law,  well  reported  of  by  all 

'  Gal.  i.  16.  '-i  Acts  ix.  10. 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL        45 

the  Jews  "  of  Damascus.  We  cannot  tell  whether  he  was 
a  Christian  or  a  Jew,  or  a  compound  of  both.  If  a  Chris- 
tian, able  to  instruct  the  new  convert,  and  divinely 
selected  for  the  purpose,  it  is  strange  that  he  should 
have  been  in  favour  with  persons  who  in  a  few  days  were 
so  furiously  angry  with  another  convert  as  to  seek  to 
kill  him.  And  if  Ananias  conformed  to  the  Jewish  law, 
he  was  not  a  Christian  of  Paul's  type.  It  may  further 
be  asked  what  was  the  object  of  Ananias  being  chosen  to 
give  Paul  directions  as  to  his  preaching  when  Paul  him- 
self declares  that  his  directions  came  from  Jesus  himself  ? 
Why  was  the  intervention  of  "  flesh  and  blood  "  made 
necessary  to  Paul's  receiving  his  sight  and  becoming 
*'  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  "?  If  Paul  was  miraculously 
converted,  why  was  he  deprived  of  sight  for  three  days  ? 
Shall  we  be  told  that  these  things  are  mysteries,  on 
which  we  have  not  been  vouchsafed  complete  enlighten- 
ment ?  Surely  no  reasonable  person  can  deny  that  the 
probability  of  legend  is  enormously  greater  than  the 
probability  that  these  superfluous  miracles  actually 
occurred.  Paul's  omission  to  say  in  his  epistles  any- 
thing about  Ananias  strengthens  the  presumption  that 
whatever  truth  there  may  be  in  the  account  has  become 
distorted  by  legendary  influences.  Such  a  presump- 
tion is  increased  by  the  peculiarity  that  although,  in  the 
first  and  second  accounts  of  Paul's  conversion  as 
recorded  in  Acts,  he  is  directed  to  go  into  Damascus  and 
there  receive  instructions,  these  instructions  are,  accord- 
ing to  the  third  account,  given  him  on  the  spot  by  Jesus 
himself.  What  is  one  to  make  of  such  hopelessly  in- 
coherent stories  ?  The  most  sophistical  ingenuity  cannot 
convert  them  into  sound  evidence  of  a  supernatural 
occurrence.  They  are  merely  the  a  iwiori  traditional 
explanation  of  Paul's  extraordinary  change. 


46    STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

A  further  point  regarding  the  twenty-second  chapter 
remains  to  be  noticed.  Paul  has  a  **  trance  "  in  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem,  in  which  he  **saw"  Jesus,  who 
directs  him  to  leave  the  city  speedily,  because  the  people 
will  not  receive  his  testimony.  If  his  testimony  had  no 
better  foundation  than  trances  and  visions,  the  reluc- 
tance of  the  inhabitants  can  be  readily  understood. 
This,  however,  makes  it  the  loss  easy  to  account  for  the 
remarkable  success  of  Peter's  preaching  a  year  or  two 
earlier.  If  the  Jews  were  inflexibly  hostile  to  Paul,  how 
did  Peter,  if  his  Christianity  was  the  same  as  Paul's, 
manage  to  convert  3,000  persons  in  one  day?  And 
these  persons  were  for  the  most  part  not  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  but  persons  living  among  Gentile  com- 
munities, and,  therefore,  precisely  the  kind  of  people  to 
whom  Paul  was  likely  to  be  a  more  successful  missionary 
than  Peter.  No  doubt  the  latter's  converts  did  not 
remain  permanently  in  the  capital,  but,  as  it  usually 
contained  large  numbers  of  strangers,  it  is  highly 
perplexing  to  read  that  Paul  was  ordered  to  leave  the 
city  on  the  ground  that  his  mission  there  would  meet 
with  nothing  but  failure.  The  probability  that  this 
account  of  Paul's  trance  is  legendary  becomes  greater 
when  we  notice  that  the  instructions  alleged  to  have 
been  given  him  are  nothing  more  than  a  repetition  of 
those  which,  according  to  the  twenty- sixth  chapter  of 
Acts,  he  had  already  received  at  the  moment  of  his  con- 
version. Christian  apologists  say  very  little  about  this 
trance  ;  but  it  seems  to  throw  some  light  on  the  whole 
subject.  Here  we  have  a  record  of  Jesus  appearing  and 
speaking  to  Paul,  and  of  Paul's  reply — something  of  a 
remonstrance,  of  course.  Clearly  the  writer  sees  no 
improbability  in  the  incident  being  real,  though  at  the 
same  time  taking  place  only  in  a  "  trance."     Probably 


STATEMENTS  OF  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL         47 

the  subjective  and  the  objective  are  similarly  mixed  in 
the  resurrection  stories,  in  spite  of  the  term  ''trance" 
not  being  applied  to  them.  It  is  impossible  to  see  in  this 
narrative  anything  more  than  the  record  of  a  conviction 
formed  by  Paul  that  his  version  of  the  Gospel  (which 
did  not  in  all  respects  harmonise  with  that  of  the 
original  Apostles)  was  likely  to  meet  with  greater  success 
among  the  Gentiles  than  in  the  centre  of  Jewish 
orthodoxy.  The  precise  value  of  these  accounts  in  Acts 
may  be  difficult  to  ascertain,  but  it  is  obvious  that  their 
truth  is  rendered  additionally  doubtful  by  the  subject  of 
them  having  omitted  to  mention  the  circumstances  they 
relate.  That  some  reasons  must  have  existed  for  the 
change  which  converted  a  bitter  opponent  of  the  new 
faith  into  its  most  active  and  successful  missionary  is 
certain,  unless  we  are  to  regard  Paul  as  a  mythical 
figure  altogether.  The  difficulty  is  to  determine  what 
those  reasons  were.  The  accounts  are  so  strangely 
imperfect  and  contradictory  that  we  have  not  the 
material  from  which  an  entirely  satisfactory  conclusion 
can  be  formed.  An  attempt,  however,  to  account  for 
the  phenomenon  of  Paul's  conversion  as  a  natural  event, 
resulting  from  the  inevitable  conditions  of  his  environ- 
ment and  personality,  will  be  made  in  the  next  chapter. 


Chapter  III. 

PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

Many  difficulties  present  themselves  when  we  try  to 
ascertain  the  actual  facts  of  Paul's  conversion.  Not 
only  are  the  records  extremely  scanty  and  very  unre- 
liable, but  the  mental  tendencies  prevalent  in  those 
remote  times  were  in  some  respects  quite  alien  to  those 
which  form  the  necessary  conditions  of  modern  thought. 
In  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era  the  world  was 
very  small.  Its  spherical  form  was  unsuspected;  its  true 
position  as  one  of  many  planets  revolving  round  a  central 
sun  was  unknown.  Heaven  was  believed  to  be  a  little 
way  above  the  clouds  ;  hell  was  a  locality  lying  under  the 
surface  of  the  earth.  The  conception  of  an  inflexible 
natural  order  had  not  been  formulated ;  all  things  were 
supposed  to  be  under  the  immediate  supervision  of 
unseen  agencies.  God  was  assumed  to  hold  familiar 
intercourse  with  man,  whose  mental  operations  he 
frequently  directed.  The  air  was  peopled  with  spirits, 
good  and  evil ;  to  the  Jews  the  most  elementary  ideas  of 
modern  science  were  unknown.  No  distinction  between 
sacred  and  secular,  natural  and  supernatural,  spiritual 
and  material,  was  known  to  exist;  nor  any  idea  that  it 
could  exist.  Clear  conceptions  of  personality  had  not 
been  formed.  Disease,  instead  of  being  traced  to  neglect 
of  the  laws  of  health,  was  regarded  as  due  to  the  agency 
of  demons,  who  could  be  driven  out  only  by  exorcisms, 
prayer,  and    fasting.^     Praj^er,  indeed,  was  a  power  by 

i^Matt.  xvii.  21. 
48 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  49 

means  of  which  mighty  results  could  be  brought  about, 
not  only  in  mind  and  character,  but  in  the  phenomena 
of  the  material  world. ^  The  idea  prevailed  that  moral 
purity  carried  with  it  command  over  evil  spirits. 
Unhesitating  credence  was  given  to  the  dreams  and 
visions  in  which  God  was  supposed  to  reveal  his  designs. 
Legend  was  accepted  as  history ;  evidence  of  a  fact  was 
seldom  considered  necessary ;  religious  truth  was 
arrived  at  less  by  individual  thought  than  on  authorita- 
tive assertion.  Faith  was  the  supreme  factor.  Reason 
an  almost  unknown  quantity. 

Between  such  mental  conditions  and  those  of  our  own 
time  the  dissimilarity  is  so  great  as  to  render  it  difficult 
for  the  later  age  to  understand  the  earlier.  Precisely 
the  reverse  is  very  commonly  assumed.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  mind  of  Paul  did  not  share 
the  imperfect  knowledge  and  the  superstitious  tendencies 
of  his  epoch.  While  his  writings  show  that  he  some- 
times rose  beyond  them,  and  reveal  a  remarkable 
intensity  and  purity  of  religious  faith,  combined  with 
unusual  powers  of  intellect,  they  also  make  it  clear  that 
he  was  unable  to  shake  off  the  influence  of  current  con- 
ceptions. Great  as  he  was,  his  reason  was  dominated  by 
an  imperious  faith,  which  put  theories  in  the  place  of 
facts,  and  absorbed  the  material  in  the  spiritual  aspects 
of  life.  Had  his  personality  been  different,  his  influence 
would  have  been  less.  His  enthusiastic  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  Christianity  might  never  have  existed  had  he 
been  able  to  sift  evidence  with  scientific  impartiality. 
Clearly  temperament  had  much  to  do  with  his  religious 
faith.  "  If  St.  Paul  had  not  been  a  very  zealous 
Pharisee,  he  would  have  been  a  colder  Christian."^ 

1  Matt.  xvii.  20.  ^  Stevenson,  Virginihus  Puerisque,  p.  57. 

E 


50  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

The  account  of  Paul's  miraculous  conversion  is  con- 
tained in  a  book  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not  a  trust- 
worthy record  of  facts.  This  book  is  not  known  to  have 
existed  until  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century; 
consequently  there  is  a  gap  of  nearly  a  hundred  years 
between  the  event  in  question  and  the  record  of  it.  To 
expect  us  to  believe  that  no  legendary  elements  were 
during  all  that  time  added  to  the  original  tradition  is  to 
ask  the  modern  world  to  revert  to  mediaeval  credulity. 
So  far  from  the  account  being  confirmed  by  Paul  him- 
self, the  Apostle's  own  writings  make  no  mention  of  the 
occurrence,  but  merely  refer  to  visions,  which  the  later 
writer  appears  to  have  expanded  into  a  quasi-historical 
relation.  The  three  accounts  contained  in  the  ninth, 
twenty-second,  and  twenty-sixth  chapters  of  Acts  need 
not  be  reproduced  in  full ;  but  for  the  purposes  of  argu- 
ment we  will  for  the  moment  assume  the  truth  of  their 
main  features. 

Paul,  while  actively  persecuting  the  followers  of 
Jesus, ^  is  suddenly  and  completely  turned  from  his 
purpose  by  an  audible  manifestation  of  the  risen 
Messiah.  A  great  light  shone  from  heaven  ;  he  fell  to 
the  ground,  and  heard  a  voice  saying,  "  Saul,  Saul,  why 
persecutest  thou  me?"  He  was  directed  to  go  into  the 
city  of  Damascus,  w^here  he  should  be  told  w^hat  he  was 
to  do.  Blinded  by  the  heavenly  radiance,  he  was  led 
into  the  city,  and  was  visited  by  Ananias,  of  whom 
nothing  else  is  known.  Not  one  of  the  accounts  states 
that  Paul  saw  Jesus,  while  Paul  himself  emphatically 
declares  that  he  did  so — though  not  necessarily  on  this 
occasion. 

Perplexing  as  are  the  contradictions  of  these  stories,  one 

^  It  seems  unlikely  that  such  a  persecution  would  have  been  permitted 
by  the  lioman  authorities. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  51 

of  the  most  important  being  that  in  two  of  the  accounts 
Paul's  instructions  come  afterwards  from  Ananias,  while 
the  third  alleges  they  came  at  the  time  from  Jesus  him- 
self,^ it  is  yet  conceivable  that  they  enshrine  a  germ  of 
truth.  What  is  that  truth  ?  We  will  attempt  to  outline, 
necessarily  in  an  imperfect  way  from  want  of  materials, 
what  many  scholars  now  consider  to  have  been  the 
natural  and  most  intelligible  process  of  Paul's  conver- 
sion. In  doing  so  we  will  avail  ourselves  of  the  very 
able  and  judicious  Natural  History  of  the  Christian 
Religion^  by  Mr.  W.  Mackintosh,  in  which  a  detailed 
examination  of  the  subject  is  contained. 

Shortly  before  his  conversion  Paul  had  been  present 
at  the  stoning  of  Stephen,  the  earliest  martyr  of  the 
infant  Church,  and  in  a  sense  the  predecessor  of  the 
Apostle  in  breaking  with  orthodox  Judaism.  This  event 
(doubtless  the  first  of  the  kind  Paul  had  witnessed)  must 
have  made  a  profound  impression  on  his  sensitive  and 
conscientious  nature^ — a  nature,  be  it  remembered, 
already  deeply  religious  from  the  Pharisaic  standpoint, 
and  evidently  disposed  to  adopt  a  spiritual  rather  than  a 
legal  view  of  righteousness,  and  to  trace  in  all  events 
the  working  of  divine  influences.  Not  for  long  would 
such  a  mind  attribute  to  sheer  delusion  the  steadfast 


^  Another  anomaly  is  that  Paul's  companions  saw  "  no  man,"  nor  did 
Paul  himself  see  anything  but  a  flash  of  light.  If,  as  some  apologists 
say,  the  appearance  was  a  bodily  reality,  it  must  have  been  visible  to  all 
of  them.  Again,  it  is  related  thtit  Paul  was  not  at  first  blinded  by  the 
light,  but  that  "  when  his  eyes  were  opened  he  saw  no  man."  Only  after 
that  did  he  become  blind.  It  is  remarkable  that  Paul's  Epistles  do  not 
relate  this  occurrence. 

2  An  American  theologian  admits  that  "  the  shining  face  of  the  martyr 
haunted  Paul  like  a  ghost,  warning  him  to  stop  his  mad  career."  (Dr. 
Philip  Schaff,  History  of  the  Chrutian  Church,  vol.  i.,  p.  300.)  We 
presume,  however,  that  the  luminosity  was  visible  only  to  friends,  not  to 
the  enemies  of  Stephen,  and  was  therefore  subjective,  just  as  the  opening 
heaven  must  have  been  to  him. 


52  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

faith,  the  divinely  forgiving  spirit  of  the  martyr.  Was 
not  such  a  faith  the  truest  fulfiUing  of  the  law  ?  Was  it 
not  higher  than  the  law  ?  Did  it  not  so  transform  the 
nature  of  the  heliever  as  to  do  away  with  the  necessity 
for  external  restraint,  formality,  ceremonial — for  the 
painful  effort  to  comply  with  a  vast  number  of  burden- 
some legalities  ?  Did  not  this  faith  bring  the  soul  into 
immediate  relation  with  the  Divine  Father  ?  Was  it 
possible  that  it  was  all  a  delusion?  These  men  who 
declared  they  had  seen  Jesus  after  he  had  been  crucified, 
could  they  be  wholly  in  error  ?  What  if  he,  Paul,  were 
to  be  found  fighting  against  God  ?  Was  it  right  that  he 
should  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  cruel  priests  who 
had  nailed  their  victim  to  the  cross  ?  Was  it  right  that 
he  should  persecute  the  inoffensive  men  and  women  who 
sought  not  rebellion  against  the  "powers  that  be,"  but 
proclaimed  a  religion  more  pure,  more  simple,  more 
spiritual,  than  his  own  traditional  faith? 

It  is  almost  impossible,  and  certainly  unreasonable,  to 
suppose  that  such  thoughts  did  not  enter  the  mind  of 
Paul.  "  The  glimpse  he  derived  from  the  disciples  of 
the  higher  form  of  righteousness  disturbed  his  Pharisaic 
complacency,  and  introduced  torturing  doubts  into  his 
mind."^  To  allay  these  doubts  he  persecuted,  but  he 
could  not  altogether  suppress  them.  The  more  he  learnt 
of  the  new  faith,  the  keener  became  his  dread  that  he 
might  be  seeking  to  destroy  a  divinely  originated  move- 
ment. His  mind  oscillated  between  antipathy  to  the 
new  sect  and  sympathy  with  its  purpose  of  destroying 
sin  by  renewing  the  sinful  nature  after  the  pattern  of 
one  who,  it  was  claimed,  knew  no  sin.  Irritated  and 
jealous  at  the  unaccountable  progress  of  the  reformed 

^  Mackintosh,  Natural  History  of  Christian  Religion^  p.  350* 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  53 

Judaism  preached  by  the  followers  of  an  obscure 
Galilean  prophet,  the  Pharisaic  instincts  of  Paul  were 
in  sharp  conflict  with  a  growing  perception  of  that 
prophet's  divine  mission.  Gradually  there  dawned  on 
Paul  the  idea  that  this  new  faith  offered  a  means,  far 
more  potent  than  the  Jewish  law,  by  which  all  men  might 
be  brought  to  God.  His  mind  realised  that  the  grand 
conception  of  the  fatherhood  of  God,  the  brotherhood 
of  men,  was  the  one  essential  element  of  a  universal 
religion,  the  one  doctrine  by  which  the  hearts  of  the 
Gentiles  were  to  be  reached.  Philo,  the  sage,  had 
shadowed  forth  the  idea  of  converting  the  world  to  the 
knowledge  of  God ;  the  Roman  moralists  had  proclaimed 
the  brotherhood  of  humanity  ;  and  a  heathen  poet,  as 
the  Apostle  long  afterwards  recalled  at  Athens,  had  said: 
"  We  are  also  his  offspring."  Homer,  Plato,  Seneca, 
and  others,  had  written  of  God  as  the  father  of  men. 
Nor  was  this  conception  unknown  to  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  though  it  was  Jesus  who,  with  the  authoritative 
accents  of  personal  conviction,  brought  it  home  to  the 
hearts  of  men  by  whom  it  was  not  fully  realised.  Had 
not  the  Psalmist  declared,  '*  A  father  of  the  fatherless  is 
God 'V  and  that,  "As  a  father  pitieth  his  children,  so 
the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear  him"?^  Paul  remem- 
bered the  reproach  of  the  Prophet :  "  Have  we  not  all 
one  father  ?  Hath  not  one  God  created  us  ?  Why  do 
we  deal  treacherously  every  man  against  his  brother?"^ 
Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach  had  expressed  the  same  idea  ;  it 
was  found  in  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  The  Psalms  of 
Solomon,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  rabbis.  From  the 
latter  we  learn  that  "  at  the  time  of  Jesus  the  expres- 
sions  '  heavenly  father,'  '  our   father   in  heaven,'  had 

1  Psalm  Ixviii.  5.  ^  pgalm  ciii.  13.  ^  Malachi  ii.  10. 


54  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

become  a  popular  substitute  for  the  old  name  of  God, 
which  had  fallen  into  disuse."^  It  is  not  fanciful  to 
suppose  that  Paul's  mind  was  able  to  see  that  this 
conception  of  the  divine  fatherhood  was  the  highest 
attainment  of  faith,  the  secret  of  religious  power,  the 
only  influence  that  could  abolish  the  barriers  which 
an  exclusive  tradition  had  set  up  between  the  Jew  and 
the  Gentile.  "  The  grandeur  of  the  thought  of  the 
equality  of  men  in  the  sight  of  God  was  one  of  the 
determining  causes  of  Paul's  conversion.  No  greater 
thought  than  this  has  ever  inspired  the  soul  of  man."^ 
Possessed  by  this  idea,  Paul's  mind  could  not  fail  to 
perceive,  though  at  first  dimly,  its  inevitable  outcome  in 
a  religious  faith  suitable  to  the  needs  of  all  mankind. 
His  conversion  was  *'  the  result  of  the  impression  made 
upon  his  mind  by  what  he  had  learned  of  the  doctrine, 
life,  and  death  of  Jesus  from  common  report,  or  from 
the  victims  of  his  persecuting  zeal."^  A  conquering 
Messiah  was  a  dream  of  national  pride ;  a  suffering 
Messiah  divinely  sent,  unjustly  slain,  could  touch  the 
hearts  of  all  men  with  pity  and  with  love. 

How  would  a  writer  of  the  first  century  represent  these 
ideas?  Not,  assuredly,  as  a  connected  and  self-conscious 
process  of  reasoning.  On  the  contrary,  he  would  repre- 
sent them  as  due  to  a  direct  and  sudden  manifestation  of 
divine  power.  He  would  assume  a  miracle  where  we 
should  assume  a  normal  operation  of  the  thinking 
faculties.  The  one  would  be  as  natural  to  him  as  the 
other  would  be  to  us.  This  is  what  happened  in  the 
case  of  the  Apostle  Paul.     "  The  instantaneousness  with 


1  Pfleiderer,  Christian  Origins,  p.  97. 

2  Natural  History  of  Christian  JRelicjion,  p.  352. 

'  Ibid,  p.  3G0.     The  conversion  of  his  friend  Barnabas  also  probably 
influenced  Paul. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  55 

which  the  scattered  hints  arranged  themselves  into  one 
connected  view  of  the  religious  relation,  and  brought  a 
sense  of  deliverance  to  his  mind,  could  hardly  but  present 
itself  to  his  imagination  as  a  supernatural  experience."^ 

Such  a  view  does  not  imply  that  Paul  was  either 
deceived  or  a  deceiver — an  unwarrantable  alternative 
which  strenuous  apologists  insist  upon  forcing  on  those 
who  seek  to  find  some  basis  of  natural  truth  in  accounts 
of  supernatural  incidents.  When  Paul  had  formed  the 
conception  that  Jesus  was  a  man  sent  from  God  it  was 
inevitable  that  he  should  think  it  impossible  for  him  to 
be  *'  holden  of  death,"  impossible  that  a  divine  saviour 
should  not  conquer  death  as  he  had  conquered  sin.  He 
would  thus  be  disposed  to  accept  the  current  traditions 
of  the  appearance  of  Jesus  after  his  death,  and  would 
regard  his  own  vision  as  conclusive  proof  of  its  reality. 
*'  A  sudden,  merely  spiritual,  revelation  of  Christ  was  a 
common,  not  to  say  universal,  experience  of  the  early 
converts,  and  something  of  the  kind  is  a  frequent  expe- 
rience even  to  this  day."^  In  the  present  day  even  the 
person  who  has  the  vision  does  not  usually  claim  it  to  be 
an  appearance  of  the  physical  body  of  Jesus.  Why  should 
we  assume  that  Paul's  visions  were  of  a  different 
character?  And  the  visions  of  to-day  invariably  take 
place  where  ignorance  and  superstition  create  predispos- 
ing causes  which  account  for  them.  What  clear  distinc- 
tion can  we  draw  between  the  appearance  to  Paul  and 
the  appearance  of  the  Virgin  Mary  to  a  peasant  girl  on 
a  remote  Pyrenean  hillside  ?  ^ 

The  words  of  Paul  in  2  Cor.  xii.  "seem  to  indicate  that 
he  thought  it  possible  that  the  spirit  of  a  man  might 

1  Natural  History  of  Christian  Religion,  p.  360.  ^  jjjid,  p.  363. 

'  See  Zola's  Lourdes  for  a  remarkable  account  of  some  modern  pheno- 
mena of  this  kind. 


56  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

separate  itself  from  his  body,  and  have  a  vision  for  itself 
apart  from  his  bodily  senses.  According  to  the  same 
notion,  he  might  think  it  possible  that  Jesus  could 
present  himself  to  the  spiritual  perception  or  to  the 
senses  of  the  disciples  without  the  intervention  of  an 
actual  body.  For  aught  the  Apostle  could  tell  or  know, 
Jesus  might  have  risen  again,  and  have  manifested  him- 
self without  being  in  the  body.  That  is  to  say,  the 
manifestation  might  have  a  reality  to  the  spirit  which  it 
had  not  for  the  bodily  sense;  and  it  almost  seems  as  if 
the  Apostle  was  himself  doubtful  as  to  the  nature  of  these 
manifestations,  and  as  to  whether  they  were  in  any  sense 
objective.  No  doubt  it  is  the  intention  of  the  Synoptists 
and  the  writer  of  the  Acts  to  represent  them  as 
objective,  but  it  by  no  means  follows  that  Paul  himself 
was  confident  of  this."^  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that 
any  clear  distinction  between  the  objective  and  the  sub- 
jective existed  in  the  mind  of  Paul.  Even  if  it  may  be 
presumed  that  he,  being  a  man  of  exceptional  mental 
power,  was  able  to  grasp  such  an  essentially  modern 
idea,  it  is  almost  certain  that  it  was  not  formed  by  the 
writers  of  the  Gospels  and  the  book  of  Acts.  It  is 
clear  from  many  passages  in  those  books  that  even  a 
purely  spiritual  conception  would  in  time  assume  a 
material  garb.  Unlearned  men  would  be  unable  to 
express  themselves  so  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of 
misinterpretation  by  less  imaginative  compilers  or 
copyists.  *'  The  language  which  the  earlier  disciples 
made  use  of  to  explain  the  process  or  phenomenon  by 
which  they  had  recovered  their  faith  in  Christ,  to  make 
it  intelligible  to  the  popular  mind,  was  necessarily  figura- 
tive, but  was  understood  literally  by  those  whom  they 

^  Mackintosh,  p.  3G2. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  57 

addressed,  and  by  frequent  repetition  may  have  lost  its 
figurative  character  even  for  themselves ;  or,  if  it  could 
never  have  altogether  lost  its  figurative  character  for 
them,  yet,  being  firmly  persuaded  of  the  substantial  truth 
and  prime  importance  of  that  which  they  sought  to  com- 
municate, they  might  feel  it  to  be  inopportune  and  ill- 
advised  to  betray  hesitation  as  to  the  mode  of  expressing 
it,  lest  to  others  doubts  might  be  suggested  as  to  its 
reality."^  The  experience  of  the  disciples  ''would  be 
reported  to  Paul  in  its  figurative  and  sensuous  clothing, 
and,  acting  upon  his  excited  state,  would  be  likely  to 
conjure  up  an  apparition  similar  to  that  which  was 
believed  to  have  been  seen  by  the  original  followers  of 
Jesus." ^  There  is  no  suggestion  that  anything  happened 
to  dispel  this  idea ;  on  the  contrary,  we  may  consider  it 
certain  that  an  apparently  trifling  incident  happening  at 
a  moment  of  poignant  doubt  and  agitation  would  be 
regarded  probably  by  Paul  himself,  certainly  by  a  later 
chronicler,  as  an  immediate  supernatural  manifestation, 
when  it  merely  accompanied  the  climax  of  a  natural 
psychological  process.  And  the  later  experience  of 
Paul  would  naturally  be  held  to  confirm  the  earlier 
experience  of  the  first  disciples,  and  enable  further 
inquiry  to  be  dispensed  with.  The  fact  that  Paul 
believed  he  had  a  vision,  "  by  disposing  him  to  receive 
without  inquiry  the  reports  concerning  the  visions  of  the 
earlier  disciples,  might  impair  the  value  of  his  testimony 
to  the  truth  of  those  reports."^ 

It  seems  evident  that  inner  experience  was  the  real 
ground  of  the  original  belief  in  the  resurrection.  This 
may  be  inferred  even  from  the  Gospel  accounts,  in  spite 
of  the  materialistic  additions  which  they  have  received 

1  Mackintosh,  p.  364.  2  jud^  p.  364.  s  m^^  p.  365. 


58  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

in  the  course  of  the  long  period  when  the  belief  was 
nothing  but  a  tradition  floating  in  the  minds  of 
uncultured  men.  It  is  certainly  involved  in  Paul's 
own   statements.     The   expression    in    Gal.   i.    15,   16, 

"  When  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God to  reveal  his 

Son  in  me,"  cannot  fairly  be  interpreted  except  as 
relating  to  a  subjective  experience,  a  normal  awakening 
to  a  fresh  idea.  That  the  expression  in  the  same 
Epistle,  "  I  went  up  by  revelation,"  denotes  a  similar 
experience  is  equally  certain.  These  two  passages, 
therefore,  afford  a  very  strong  confirmation  of  the  idea 
that  when  Paul  declares  that  he  saw  Jesus  he  was  simply 
describing  in  the  language  of  his  time  the  vivid  mental 
impression  made  upon  him  by  the  disciples'  faith  that 
their  crucified  Master  could  not  be  "  holden  of  death," 
because  he  was  a  human  embodiment  of  the  divine 
nature.  That  idea,  having  once  taken  possession  of 
Paul's  powerful  and  impetuous  mind,  would  inevitably 
issue  in  an  all-engrossing  conviction  which  would  neither 
seek  for,  nor  even  have  the  patience  to  scrutinise,  the 
prosaic  details  of  formal  evidence. 

To  minds  inclined  to  a  ready  acceptance  of  the  super- 
natural these  considerations  will  appear  insufficient  to 
account  for  the  fervour  and  persistency  of  Paul's  faith  in 
the  resurrection.  It  may  be  said  that  the  accounts  in 
Acts  of  Paul's  conversion  imply  more  than  a  subjective 
experience.  So  far  as  the  writer  of  these  accounts  is 
concerned,  this  is  probably  true.  They  do,  no  doubt, 
purport  to  describe  an  objective  reality.  But  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  writers  to  whom  the  figurative 
style  common  to  Orientals  was  the  most  natural  mode  of 
expression  are  not  the  persons  to  whom  we  can  look  for 
accurate  descriptions  of  a  particular  occurrence,  whether 
physical  or  mental.    Even  these  accounts,  however,  by 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  59 

implying  that  the  incident  partook  of  a  visionary 
character,  furnish  grounds  for  interpreting  it  as  a 
subjective  experience  which  subsequently  received 
materialistic  additions.  Further,  these  accounts  are 
not  by  Paul  himself,  and  must,  therefore,  yield  in 
authority  to  his  own  statements.  And  Paul's  own 
statements  clearly  imply  that,  however  strongly  he  may 
have  been  convinced  that  his  conversion  originated  from 
an  external  stimulus,  its  true  causes  must  be  traced  to 
the  action  of  his  own  mind  upon  the  favouring  circum- 
stances of  his  environment. 

Paul  is  the  earliest  and  most  direct  witness  to  the 
resurrection. 

The  testimony  of  this  earliest  and  most  direct  witness 
undeniably  favours  the  view  that  the  belief  in  the 
resurrection  arose  out  of  vivid  impressions  formed  by  the 
combined  operation  of  various  causes  in  the  minds  of 
the  original  disciples,  which  impressions  were,  without 
investigation,  accepted  by  Paul  as  valid. 

In  view  of  the  prevalent  and  unquestioning  acceptance 
of  the  supernatural  which  then  existed,  and  of  the 
tendency  of  the  time  to  interpret  symbolic  language 
and  spiritual  expressions  in  materialistic  senses,^  it  was 
inevitable  that  in  time  the  mental  impressions  of  the 
first  disciples  should  be  represented  as  due  to  real 
external  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus.  We  know  from 
the  Christian  Scriptures  themselves  that  this  unspiritual 
and  superstitious  tendency  animated  men's  minds  then, 
as  it  does  now,  and  that  it  was  combined  with  a  method 
of  Old  Testament  exegesis  which  modern  criticism  pro- 
nounces fallacious.  We  know  that  at  the  dates  when 
the  written  records  appeared  there  had  been  ample  time 

1  The    Gospels     furnish    many    examples    of     this    tendency.      See 
Luke  viii.  9  ;  John  vi.  52;  John  xvi.  17,  18 ;  Matt.  xvi.  11,  etc. 


60  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

for  these  tendencies  to  affect  seriously  the  original  tradi- 
tion. How,  then,  can  we  su^Dpose  that  the  tradition 
remained  pure  and  unsullied  ?  The  details  have  the  air 
of  afterthoughts. 

But,  it  may  he  said,  it  is  ahsurd  to  suppose  that  Paul 
would  credulously  accept  heliefs  which  he  was  doing  all 
he  could  to  extirpate.  His  conversion  must  have  had  a 
cause  adequate  to  produce  the  remarkahle  effects  which 
followed  it.  Is  not  a  supernatural  manifestation  of 
the  risen  Jesus,  such  as  Paul  himself  believed  to  have 
occurred,  the  simplest  and  most  adequate  cause  that  can 
be  alleged  ? 

Certainly  Paul's  conversion  must  have  had  an  adequate 
cause.  We  are  trying  to  find  out  what  that  cause  was. 
Our  view  is  that  in  the  peculiar  intellectual  and  religious 
conditions  of  the  time,  and  in  the  personality  of  Paul 
himself,  we  find  a  sufficient  explanation  of  his  complete 
change  of  attitude.  That  any  entirely  satisfactory 
explanation  can  be  given  it  is  hardly  reasonable  to 
expect,  since  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  do  not 
supply  the  necessary  information.  The  perplexing 
circumstances  in  the  accounts  are  not,  however,  removed 
by  dragging  in  a  supernatural  agency  which  involves 
still  greater  difficulties.  It  is  seldom  easy  to  account 
fully  for  a  bitter  opponent  of  a  particular  creed  after- 
wards becoming  one  of  its  most  enthusiastic  adherents ; 
but  it  is  a  phenomenon  that  has  frequently  occurred  in 
human  history,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  when  all 
the  facts  are  known  they  prove  to  be  susceptible  of 
natural  explanations.  Imperfect  as  the  New  Testament 
accounts  are,  we  can  glean  from  them  enough  to  make  us 
reasonably  sure  that  the  case  of  Paul  affords  no  exception 
to  the  laws  of  natural  causation. 

Explanations  of  a  supernatural  story  labour  under  the 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  61 

disadvantage  of  assuming  the  truth  of  some  of  its  details, 
while  one  is  compelled  to  doubt  the  historicity  of  the 
account  as  a  whole.  A  flash  of  lightning  from  a  passing 
thundercloud  may  have  seemed  to  the  persecutor  the 
radiance  of  the  divine  that  smote  his  presumptuous  head 
and  left  his  eyes  in  darkness.^  And  in  the  rolling 
thunder  he  may  have  heard  the  reproachful  voice  of 
Jesus.  Many  writers  think  that  Paul's  "  thorn  in  the 
flesh "  was  epilepsy.  Was  it  an  epileptic  convulsion 
that  seized  him  and  cast  him  to  the  ground?  Or  a 
cardiac  heat-stroke  that  caused  the  temporary  paralysis 
of  his  faculties  and  left  him  blind  for  three  days?^ 
Any  one  of  these  things  is  possible ;  we  do  not  know  ; 
truth  and  legend  are  too  closely  entwined.  We  may  be 
sure  that,  if  we  had  been  furnished  with  all  the  facts, 
a  natural  explanation  for  them  would  present  itself. 
*' What  we  do  know  with  certainty  is  that  Paul  thought 
he  had  a  vision  of  the  risen  Jesus.  Beyond  this  all  is 
uncertain,  as  anyone  must  admit  who  has  looked  into 
the  subject  and  compared  the  various  accounts  of  his 
conversion.  The  result  of  such  a  comparison  is  to 
convince  us  of  the  impossibility  of  determining  from 
these  accounts  what  actually  took  place." ^  Perhaps  we 
may  find  in  the  words  *'Why  persecutest  thou  me?"  a 
clue  to  the  character  of  the  incident.  Still  more  clearly 
is  a  subjective  experience  implied  by  the  words  :  "  It  is 
hard  for  thee  to  kick  against  the  goad"  (or  pricks). 
This  expression   occurs   only  in  the  last  of  the  three 

^  Ellicott  concedes  that  the  idea  of  a  sudden  thunderstorm  may  be 
"entertained  legitimately"  {New  Testament  Commentary,  vol.  ii. ,  p.  57). 
If  the  "  great  light "  was  real,  why  were  Paul's  companions  not  blinded  ? 
And  if,  as  some  apologists  contend,  the  appearance  of  Jesus  was  physically 
real,  how  is  it  that  neither  Paul  nor  any  of  the  others  beheld  it  ? 

2  These  are  frequent  symptoms  of  this  form  of  sunstroke  {Chambers* 
Encyclopcedia,  art.  "  Sunstroke"). 

^  Natural  History  of  Christian  Relir/ion,  p.  347. 


62  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

accounts,  and  may  therefore  be  a  later  addition  ;  but  it  is 
difficult  to  assign  to  it  any  other  meaning  than  that 
Paul's  conscience  was  in  revolt  against  his  bigotry  and 
cruelty.  To  him  this  inward  monitor  was  a  voice  from 
heaven.  But  we  are  compelled  to  see  in  it  the  peremp- 
tory dictate  of  a  mind  aroused  to  a  perception  of  its 
former  error.  He  had  resisted  as  long  as  he  could  the 
promptings  of  his  higher  nature  ;  a  time  came  when  it 
could  no  longer  be  silenced,  when  he  had  to  choose 
between  the  traditions  of  his  people  and  Jesus  Christ, 
"  and  him  crucified."  In  this  great,  honest  soul  we 
have  "  the  strange  but  not  uncommon  phenomenon  of  a 
man  yielding  unconsciously  and  in  spite  of  himself  to 
the  encroachments  of  ideas  which  he  endeavours  and 
seems  violently  to  resist."^  It  was  the  moral  beauty  of 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  that  converted  him.  According  to 
this  doctrine,  "  forgiveness  stands  in  no  relation  to 
expiation  of  any  kind,  in  which  sense  it  is  wholly 
unconditional.  And  it  was  by  catching  a  sight  of  this 
doctrine,  which  involved  an  entirely  new  view  of  the 
religious  relation,  that  Paul  was  converted,  though  he 
did  not  clearly  apprehend  that  it  was  so."^  This  idea 
furnished  the  framework  of  the  later  doctrinal  teaching 
of  Paul  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  law  were  once  for  all 
abolished  by  the  supreme  sacrifice  of  the  one  mediator, 
Jesus  Christ.  Certainly  the  Apostle  regarded  his  con- 
version as  supernatural  in  character.  "  But  we  are 
obliged  to  take  quite  a  different  view  of  that  great 
turning-point  in  his  history,  were  it  for  no  other  reason 
than  to  preserve  the  continuity  of  his  spiritual  life."^  A 
natural  explanation  is  to  be  preferred  to  a  supernatural 
one.     *'  To  regard  the  vision  of  Christ  in  glory,  in  what- 

^  Natural  History  of  Christian  Heliqion,  p.  347. 
2  Ibid,  p.  346.  3  jijid^  p.  343, 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  63 

ever  sense,  as  anything  more  than  an  accompaniment  or 
by-product  of  the  real  conversion,  and  to  trace  to  it  the 
development  of  the  Apostle's  dogmatic  and  ethical  views, 
is  to  throw  the  whole  history  into  confusion."^ 

Before  leaving  these  accounts  of  Paul's  conversion,  the 
reader  is  asked  to  compare  the  following  passage  from 
the  Book  of  Daniel  (written  in  the  second  century  b.c.) 
with  the  three  narratives  given  by  the  writer  of  Acts. 
He  will  then  see  from  what  source  the  latter  author  may 
have  drawn  at  least  part  of  his  materials : — 

And  I,  Daniel,  alone  saw  the  vision :  for  the  men  that 
were  with  me  saw  not  the  vision  ;  but  a  great  quaking 
fell  upon  them,  so  that  they  fled  to  hide  themselves. 
Therefore  I  was  left  alone,  and  saw  this  great  vision,  and 
there  remained  no  strength  in  me :  for  my  comeliness 
was  turned  in  me  into  corruption,  and  I  retained  no 
strength.  Yet  heard  I  the  voice  of  his  words  :  and  w^hen 
I  heard  the  voice  of  his  words,  then  was  I  in  a  deep  sleep 
on  my  face,  and  my  face  toward  the  ground.  ^ 

A  further  peculiarity  in  Paul's  testimony  must  be 
mentioned.  In  saying  that  Jesus  was  "  seen  "  by  him 
he  uses  the  same  verb  as  that  by  which  he  designates  the 
appearances  to  the  other  disciples.  Does  he  thereby 
imply  that  these  were  of  the  same  visionary  character  as 
his  own  experience?  That  he  may  not  have  intended 
to  convey  this  implication  is  possible,  but  his  language 
undoubtedly  puts  them  all  on  a  similar  footing,  and 
supports  the  view  that  the  original  belief  was  not  neces- 
sarily in  an  objectively  real  vision,  but  sprang  out  of  a 
revived  faith  in  the  spiritual  beauty  of  the  teaching  and 
personality  of  Jesus.  As  already  pointed  out,  this 
presumption  is  rendered  feasible  by  several  passages  in 
the  Gospel  accounts,  while  others  with  which  it  does  not 

1  Natural  History  of  Christian  Beligion,  p.  346.  ^  Dan.  x.  7-9. 


64  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

harmonise  appear  to  be  due  to  the  known  tendency  of 
the  first  century  to  add  materialistic  features  to  spiritual 
conceptions,  and  to  accept  visions,  real  or  imaginary,  as 
perfectly  good  evidence  of  physical  events.  Paul  himself 
furnishes  no  details  by  which  the  character  of  any  of 
these  appearances  can  be  determined.  And  we  are  com- 
pelled to  set  aside  the  details  given  by  the  later  compiler 
of  Acts  as  being  unworthy  of  credence,  on  the  twofold 
ground  that  they  contain  serious  internal  discrepancies 
and  are  unconfirmed  by  the  principal  person  concerned. 
To  dismiss  wholly  these  accounts  on  either  ground  might 
be  scarcely  judicial;  but  the  junction  of  two  lines  of 
evidence,  each  imperfect,  cannot  prove  a  supernatural 
incident.  We  cannot  believe  .  that  Paul  thought  this 
incident  important  enough  to  be  twice  related  when  he 
was  in  personal  danger,  yet  that,  when  he  was  solemnly 
declaring  in  writing  the  circumstances  of  his  change  of 
faith,  he  should  make  no  allusion  to  it,  but  refer  only  to 
an  inward  revelation.  If  the  statements  in  Acts  are 
really  true,  Paul  was  not  likely  to  withhold  them  merely 
because  they  implied  a  supernatural  manifestation.  He 
believed  fervently  in  the  supernatural ;  he  believed  that 
his  conversion  was  due  to  a  direct  divine  interposition. 
Yet  he  is  silent  as  to  the  occurrences  recorded  by  the 
Evangelist.  All  he  says  is  that  he  **  saw"  Jesus,  and 
he  implies  that  this  was  by  inward  revelation,  not  by 
bodily  sense.  It  is  probable  that  from  this  vague 
expression  the  account  which  appeared  about  fifty  years 
after  his  death  has  been  elaborated.^  *'  Revelations  "  of 
this  character  simply  describe  in  the  language  of  Paul's 
time  the  process  by  which  new  views  of  truth  became 

^  Dr.  Gardner  considers  that  the  Synoptic  account  of  the  Last  Supper 
was  derived  from  Paul's  reference  to  it  in  Corinthians  {Origin  of  the 
Lord's  Supper). 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  65 

credible  to  his  mind.  But  unless  we  are  to  hold  that 
such  a  process,  in  all  its  hopeless  obscurity,  is  binding 
on  all  other  minds,  the  reality  of  Paul's  belief  cannot,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  constitute  evidence  of  the  resur- 
rection to  later  ages.  We  in  the  twentieth  century  are 
asked  to  believe  that  Jesus  returned  to  physical  life 
because  a  religious  enthusiast  who  died  in  the  first 
century  believed  that  Jesus  appeared  to  him  in  a  vision. 
Christian  apologists  are  not  complimentary  to  human 
intelligence. 

The  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  asks:  **Does 
Paul  himself  ascribe  his  conversion  to  Christianity  to 
the  fact  of  his  having  seen  Jesus  ?  Most  certainly  not. 
That  is  a  notion  derived  solely  from  the  statements  in 
Acts.  The  sudden  and  miraculous  conversion  of  Paul  is 
a  product  of  the  same  pen  which  produced  the  story  of 
the  sudden  conversion  of  the  thief  on  the  cross — an 
episode  equally  unknown  to  other  writers.  Paul  neither 
says  when  nor  where  he  saw  Jesus.  The  revelation  of 
God's  son  in  him  not  being  an  allusion  to  this  vision  of 
Jesus,  but  merely  a  reference  to  the  light  which  dawned 
upon  Paul's  mind  as  to  the  character  and  mission  of 
Jesus,  there  is  no  ground  whatever,  from  the  writings 
of  the  Apostle  himself,  to  connect  the  appearance  of 
Jesus  with  his  conversion."^  As  the  same  critic 
points  out,  the  whole  of  Paul's  evidence  for  the 
resurrection  ''  consists  in  the  bare  statement  that 
he  did  see  Jesus.  Now,  can  the  fact  that  any  man 
merely  affirms,  without  even  stating  the  circumstances, 
that  a  person  once  actually  dead  and  buried  has  risen 
from  the  dead  and  been  seen  by  him,  be  seriously 
considered   satisfactory   evidence    for   so   astounding   a 

1  Supernatural  Religion  (1  vol.  ed.),  V-  865. 


66  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

miracle?  Is  it  possible  for  anyone  of  sober  mind, 
acquainted  with  the  nature  of  the  proposition  on  the 
one  hand,  and  with  the  innumerable  possibilities  of 
error  on  the  other,  to  regard  such  an  affirmation  even  as 
evidence  of  much  importance  in  such  a  matter?"^ 

An  idea  seems  to  have  been  held  by  the  first  disciples 
that  to  have  seen  the  risen  Jesus  was  an  essential  quali- 
fication for  being  an  Apostle.  The  first  chapter  of  Acts 
relates  that,  after  the  defection  and  death  of  Judas  the 
traitor,  another  witness  of  the  resurrection  was  chosen 
(by  lots)  in  the  person  of  Matthias,  although,  curiously 
enough,  it  is  nowhere  stated  that  Matthias  had  actually 
seen  Jesus  after  his  death.  It  seems  possible  to  trace  a 
dogmatic  prepossession  of  a  similar  kind  in  the  accounts 
of  Paul's  conversion.  It  is  clear  that  he  himself  con- 
fidently puts  forward  his  vision  as  equivalent  in  spiritual 
value  to  the  experiences  of  the  earlier  Apostles.  "Am 
I  not  an  Apostle?  Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  our  Lord?"^ 
''  There  can  be  no  doubt,"  says  the  author  of  Super- 
natural Religion  J  "  that  the  claims  of  Paul  to  the 
Apostolate  were,  during  his  life,  constantly  denied,  and 
his  authority  rejected.  There  is  no  evidence  that  his 
Apostleship  was  ever  recognised  by  the  elder  Apostles, 
nor  that  his  claim  was  ever  submitted  to  them.  Even 
in  the  second  century  the  Clementine  Homilies  deny  him 
the  honour,  and  make  light  of  his  visions  and  revela- 
tions. All  the  evidence  we  possess  shows  that  Paul's 
vision  of  Jesus  did  not  secure  for  him  much  consideration 
in  his  own  time — a  circumstance  which  certainly  does 
not  tend  to  estabUsh  its  reality."^ 

**  The  whole  of  the  testimony  before  us,  then,  simply 
amounts  to  this :  Paul  believed  that  he  had  seen  Jesus 

^  Supernatural  Relifjion,  p.  8G3.  2  1  Cor.  ix.  1. 

•*  Supernatural  Religion,  p.  8G7. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  67 

some  years  after  his  death ;  there  is  no  evidence  that  he 
ever  saw  him  during  his  life.  He  states  that  he  had 
'  received '  that  he  was  seen  by  various  other  persons, 
but  he  does  not  give  the  slightest  information  as  to  who 
told  him,  or  what  reasons  he  had  for  believing  the 
statements  to  be  correct ;  and  still  less  does  he  narrate 
the  particulars  of  the  alleged  appearances,  or  even  of 
his  own  vision.  Although  we  have  no  detailed  state- 
ments of  these  extraordinary  phenomena,  we  may 
assume  that,  as  Paul  himself  believed  that  he  had  seen 
Jesus,  certain  other  people  of  the  circle  of  his  disciples 
likewise  believed  that  they  had  seen  the  risen  Master. 
The  whole  of  the  evidence  for  the  Kesurrection  reduces 
itself  to  an  undefined  belief  on  the  part  of  a  few  persons, 
in  a  notoriously  superstitious  age,  that,  after  Jesus  had 
died  and  been  buried,  they  had  seen  him  alive.  These 
visions,  it  is  admitted,  occurred  at  a  time  of  the  most 
intense  religious  excitement,  and  under  circumstances  of 
wholly  exceptional  mental  agitation  and  distress.  The 
wildest  alternations  of  fear,  doubt,  hope,  and  indefinite 
expectation  added  their  effects  to  oriental  imaginations 
already  excited  by  indignation  at  the  fate  of  their 
Master,  and  sorrow  or  despair  at  such  a  dissipation  of 
their  Messianic  dreams.  There  was  present  every 
element  of  intellectual  and  moral  disturbance.  Now, 
must  we  seriously  ask  again  whether  this  bare  and 
wholly  unjustified  belief  can  be  accepted  as  satisfactory 
evidence  for  so  astounding  a  miracle  as  the  Resurrection  ? 
Can  the  belief  of  such  men  in  such  an  age  estab- 
lish the  reality  of  a  phenomenon  which  contradicts 
universal  experience  ?  It  comes  to  us  in  the  form  of 
bare  belief  from  the  age  of  miracles,  unsupported  by 
facts,  uncorroborated  by  evidence,  unaccompanied  by 
proof  of  investigation,  and  unprovided  with  material  for 


68  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

examination.  What  is  such  belief  worth  ?  We  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  it  is  absoUitely  worth  nothing."^ 
Yet  Christian  advocates  can  declare  that  the  resurrec- 
tion is  the  best-attested  fact  in  all  history  !^ 

In  regard  to  the  claim  that  Paul  is  a  good  witness  to  a 
miracle  which  he  never  beheld,  a  few  illustrations  of  his 
ambiguous  use  of  language  may  here  be  introduced. 
His  Epistles  afford  various  indications  which,  read  in 
the  light  of  modern  knowledge,  imply  that  the  appear- 
ance to  him  of  Jesus  was  a  subjective  impression  in  the 
mind  of  the  Apostle,  and  which  further  imply  that  his 
mental  and  psychical  tendency  was  such  that  any  real 
distinction  between  subjective  states  and  objective 
realities  was  to  him  impossible.  Some  of  these  passages 
we  shall  proceed  to  examine.  We  shall  find  from  most 
of  them  that  Paul  habitually  uses  words  in  special  and 
metaphorical  senses  which  he  leaves  undefined,  and 
which  usually  have  a  highly  mystical  and  even  theo- 
logical significance. 

Eom.  vi.  4-9. — We  were  buried  therefore  with  him 
through  baptism  into  death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised 
froiii  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also 
mit/ht  walk  in  neivness  of  life.  For  if  we  have  become 
united  with  him  by  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall  be 
also  by  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection  ;  knowing  this,  that 
our  old  man  was  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin 
might  be  done  away,  that  so  we  should  no  longer  be  in 
bondage  to  sin  ;  for  he  that  hatit  died  is  justified  from  sin. 
But  if  we  died  with  Christ  we  believe  that  we  shall  also  live 
with  him ;  knowing  that  Christ  being  raised  from  the 
dead  dieth  no  more  ;  death  no  more  hath  dominion  over 
him. 

Language  of  this  description  cannot  be  brought  within 

^  Supernatural  Relirjion,  p.  873. 

'^  Kev.  C.  A.  How,  The  SujJernatural  in  Christianity,  p.  472. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  69 

the  scope  of  logic.  It  is  the  language  of  the  mystic, 
which  awakens  a  sympathetic  response  only  in  minds 
similarly  constituted.  It  voices  the  aspirations  of  the 
soul,  not  the  conclusions  of  the  intellect.  To  the  sceptic 
the  phrases,  "  baptism  into  death,"  "  likeness  of  death," 
and  "  likeness  of  resurrection,"  convey  no  definite 
meaning.  The  general  drift  of  the  passage  may  be 
apprehended,  while  the  coherence  of  its  terms  may  not 
be  apparent.  But  when  we  perceive  that  the  word 
"  crucified "  implies  the  replacement  of  certain  human 
faculties  by  an  assumed  divine  influence,  and  that  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  is  made  analogous  to  the  renewed 
life  of  the  believer,  we  get  an  indication  of  the  tendency 
of  Paul's  mind.  We  see  how  probable  it  is  that  in  such 
a  mind  an  objective  fact  should  be  of  much  less  con- 
sequence than  the  spiritual  experiences  of  which  it  is 
supposed  to  be  the  occasion. 

2  Cor.  i.  9,  10. — We  ourselves  have  had  the  answer  of 
death  within  ourselves,  that  we  should  not  trust  in  our- 
selves, but  in  God,  which  raiseth  the  dead  :  who  delivered 
us  out  of  so  great  a  death,  and  will  deliver. 

Here  the  word  "death"  is  used  not  to  describe  a 
physical  dissolution,  nor  a  state  of  sin,  but  as  signifying 
the  sufferings  and  trials  which  Paul  experienced  in 
preaching  the  Gospel.  For  delivery  from  this  state  he 
trusts  in  God  "  which  raiseth  the  dead,"  an  expression 
which,  being  in  the  present  tense,  implies  a  continuous 
process,  and  therefore  harmonises  with  the  idea  of 
spiritual  revival  rather  than  with  the  idea  of  corporeal 
resuscitation. 

2  Cor.  iv.  10-12. — Always  bearing  about  in  the  body 
the  dying  of  Jesus,  that  the  life  also  of  Jesus  may  be 
manifested  in  our  body.  For  we  which  live  are  alway 
delivered  unto  death  for  Jesus'  sake,  that  the  life  also  of 


70  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

Jesus  may  be  manifested  in  our  mortal  flesh.     So  then 
death  workcth  in  us,  but  life  in  you. 

Paul's  style  is  sometimes  highly  paradoxical.  This 
passage  cannot  be  understood  unless  we  recognise  his 
free  use  of  metaphor  and  his  rapid  transitions  of 
meaning.  "  Bearing  about  in  the  body  the  dying  of 
Jesus"  is  an  expression  eminently  obscure  to  anyone 
who  holds  that  the  life,  rather  than  the  death,  of  Jesus 
is  the  more  valuable  example  for  human  imitation.  For 
the  life  of  Jesus,  however,  there  is  little  room  in  Paul's 
theology,  and  his  omission  to  dilate  upon  any  of  its 
incidents  becomes  the  more  remarkable  when  we 
remember  that  the  Gospels  were  not  in  existence  when 
he  wrote,  and  that  he  could  not  have  known  they  would 
be  compiled.  Nor  is  the  last  sentence  of  this  quotation 
readily  intelligible.  Why  should  Paul  say  that  death 
worked  in  himself,  but  life  in  his  disciples?  In  both 
intellectual  power  and  spiritual  attainments  they  must 
have  been  greatly  below  him.  He  doubtless  meant  that 
the  trials  he  endured  were  a  "  death  "  to  him,  but  that 
through  such  "  death"  spiritual  life  was  conveyed  to  his 
converts.  This,  however,  again  involves  a  non-natural 
use  of  familiar  words. 

Gal.  ii.  20. — I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ ;  yet  I 
live  ;  and  yet  no  longer  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me. 

In  this  passage  the  term  "  crucified  "  does  not  mean 
that  Paul  had  been  nailed  to  a  cross,  but  that  his  human 
nature  had  been  superseded  or  suppressed  by  the 
indwelling  of  the  spirit  of  Jesus.  This  interpretation  is 
borne  out  by  the  14th  verse  of  the  6th  chapter:  "Far  be 
it  from  me  to  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  through  which  the  world  hath  been  crucified 
unto   me,  and  I  unto  the  world."     Only  in  a  purely 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  71 

metaphorical  sense  can  it  be  admitted  either  that  Paul's 
original  nature  had  been  done  away  with,  or  that  the 
world,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  had  ceased  to  exist. 

Eph.  ii.  1. — And  you  did  he  quicken,  when  ye  were 
dead  through  your  trespasses  and  sins. 

This,  again,  clearly  relates  not  to  natural  dissolution, 
but  to  the  new  life,  or  rather  new  set  of  ideas,  arising  in 
the  believer  as  the  result  of  his  conversion.  But  the 
metaphor  is  carried  to  a  bewildering  pitch  a  few  verses 
later : — 

God when  we  were  dead  through  our  trespasses, 

quickened  us  together  with  Christ  (by  grace  have  ye  been 
saved),  and  raised  us  up  with  him,  and  made  us  to  sit 
with  him  in  the  heavenly  places. 

Here  the  phrase  "raised  us  up"  is  used  in  the  past 
tense,  clearly  showing  that  the  term  "resurrection" 
sometimes  designates  merely  the  renewed  spiritual  life  oj 
the  individual,  while  his  physical  life  subsists.  It  is  even 
said  that  the  "raising  up"  is  followed  by  the  believer 
being  seated  "  in  heavenly  places  "  along  with  Christ,  a 
form  of  mysticism  which  confuses  the  material  and 
spiritual  aspects  of  life,  and  detracts  from  the  value  of 
Paul's  testimony.  It  is  almost  the  same  expression  as 
the  phrase  "  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  God,"  so  often 
applied  to  Jesus.  Clearly  it  relates  to  the  life  of  the 
spirit,  not  to  the  life  of  the  flesh. 

1  Tim.  Hi.  16. — He  who  was  manifested  in  the  flesh, 
justified  in  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  among  the 
nations,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  in  glory. 

A  whole  theological  system  is  involved  in  this  passage. 
Only  two  clauses  need  be  noticed.  The  expression 
"  justified  in  the  spirit,"  placed  in  a  kind  of  antithesis  to 
"  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  seems  to  refer  to  the  post- 
resurrection  life  of  Jesus,  especially  as   it  precedes  the 


72  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

phrase  "  received  up  in  glory."  If  it  has  this  relation, 
it  is  significant  that  it  gives  no  countenance  to  the 
theory  of  a  bodily  resurrection,  but  confirms  the  idea  so 
often  expressed  by  Paul,  that  "  resurrection "  meant, 
primarily,  a  vivid  renewal  of  spiritual  life. 

The  curious  expression  "  seen  of  angels  "  implies  that 
these  imaginary  beings  were  the  only  ones  by  whom 
Jesus  was  seen  after  his  death. 

In  2  Cor.  v.  2  Paul  refers  to  the  resurrection  body  as 
''our  habitation  which  is  from  heaven,"  and  in  the  eighth 
verse  to  being  "  absent  from  the  body  "  and  "  at  home 
with  the  Lord."  This  is  language  which  harmonises 
not  with  the  idea  of  bodily  resurrection,  but  with  that  of 
a  survival  of  the  spirit,  which  was  then  believed  to  be  an 
entity  separable  from  the  body.  Mysticism  of  this  kind 
is  hardly  within  the  region  of  historical  proof.  It  should 
be  mentioned  that  in  more  than  one  passage  Paul  appears 
to  identify  the  risen  Jesus  with  the  Holy  Spirit  (1  Cor.  xv. 
45;  2Cor.iii.  17). 

The  paradoxical  phrase  in  Colossians  i.  15,  "the  image 
of  the  invisible  God,"  as  applied  to  Jesus,  seems  to 
imply  that  to  Paul  Jesus  may  have  been  a  purely  ideal 
figure  formed  by  an  arbitrary  identification  of  him  with 
the  heavenly  Messiah  who  w^as  the  object  of  the  pious 
Jews'  hope.  Hausrath  contends  that  the  expres- 
sions "in  Christ"  and  "in  the  spirit"  are  identical 
terms,  and  that  in  Paul's  view  the  second  Adam 
Christ  put  off  at  death  the  vesture  of  flesh  and  at  his 
resurrection  put  on  the  vesture  of  the  spirit.  The 
whole  Epistle  is  a  plea  for  the  spirit  in  distinction  to 
the  flesh. 

2  Tim.  il.  18. — Hymenreus  and  Philetus ;  men  who 
concerning  the  truth  have  erred,  saying  that  the  resur- 
rection is  past  already. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  73 

Evidently  doubts  as  to  the  resurrection  had  begun  to 
be  felt  even  in  the  times  of  the  Apostles  who  preached  it 
so  confidently.  This  passage  does  not  appear  to  relate 
to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  to  the  general  resur- 
rection of  believers.  But  how  could  these  very  inte- 
resting heretics  have  held  that  this  resurrection  was 
"  past  already  "?  Obviously  only  because  they  did  not 
believe  in  a  bodily  resurrection,  but  in  the  release  of  the 
soul  at  death  and  its  immediate  ascension  to  a  life  of  the 
spirit.^  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  held  that  the  resurrec- 
tion of  human  beings  would  take  place  at  the  Lord's 
second  coming.  It  is  on  this  point,  not  on  the  nature  oj 
the  resurrection  itself,  that  he  considered  Hymenseus  and 
Philetus  to  have  been  in  error.  It  is  clear  that  these 
men  believed  in  what  we  may  term  a  spiritual  resurrec- 
tion ;  and  if  they  erred  on  that  point,  how  is  it  that  Paul 
does  not  rebuke  them  on  that  specific  ground  ?  The 
Apostle's  own  words,  in  almost  every  case,  imply  that  he 
agreed  with  Hymenseus  and  Philetus  in  regard  to  the 
7iature  of  the  resurrection,  while  differing  from  them  as 
to  the  time  of  its  occurrence.  If  he  could  show  that  the 
actual  body  of  Jesus  left  the  tomb,  he  had  an  effective 
answer  to  any  doubts  on  that  score.  Yet  he  made  no 
use  of  it,  contenting  himself  with  such  pious  futilities  as 
"  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his  "  and  "Let  every 
one  that  nameth  the  name  of  the  Lord  depart  from 
unrighteousness."  The  existence  of  any  doubts  or 
differences  of  opinion  on  the  subject  long  before  our 
present  Gospels  appeared  is  proof  of  considerable 
uncertainty  as  to  the  facts  on  which  the  primitive  belief 
was  based. 

^  This  view  is  confirmed  by  Dean  Mansel  {Gnostic  Heresies,  p.  59),  and 
also  by  Professor  Swete  {The  Apostles  Creed,  p.  91)  and  Bishop  Ellicott 
(Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  p.  134). 


74  PAUL'S  CONVERSION 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  show  that  Paul  was  a  bad 
logician,  but  simply  that  he  was  prone  in  an  eminent 
degree  to  that  unquestioning  acceptance  of  Jewish 
tradition,  that  misapplication  of  scriptural  texts,  and 
that  tendency  to  spiritualise  ordinary  language  which 
were  common  features  of  the  religion  of  his  time.  It 
cannot  be  admitted  that  men  of  this  type  are  trust- 
worthy witnesses  regarding  matters  of  historic  fact. 
Assuming  that  the  Epistles  of  Paul  were  written  by  him 
— an  assumption  which  has  of  late  years  been  seriously 
challenged  by  Professor  Van  Man  en  and  others — we  find 
in  them  good  evidence  of  an  early  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. But  the  grounds  of  this  belief  we  discover,  on 
examination,  to  be  vague  and  contradictory  in  an 
extraordinary  and  unaccountable  degree.  It  is  neces- 
sarily the  reasons  for  the  belief,  not  its  mere  existence, 
with  which  the  modern  inquirer  is  concerned. 

A  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  attributed  to  Peter  is  too 
relevant  to  the  present  argument  to  be  passed  by  without 
notice.  The  writer  refers  to  Christ  "  being  put  to  death 
in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  in  the  sjnrit ;  in  which  also 
he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in  prison."^ 
Probably  no  other  passage  in  the  New  Testament 
indicates  with  equal  clearness  that  the  resurrection  was 
thought  to  be,  not  a  return  to  physical  life,  but  a 
resuscitation  of  the  spirit.  If  Jesus  was  thought  to  have 
preached  in  the  spirit  to  other  spirits,  he  also  must  have 
been  a  spirit.  Commentators  have,  with  their  accustomed 
ingenuity,  explained  these  words  in  a  sense  which  does 
not  conflict  with  the  idea  of  a  physical  resurrection ;  but 
their  natural  and  obvious  meaning  is  more  consistent 
with  the  view  that  the  resurrection  was  simply  a  revival 

1  1  Peter  iii.  18. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION  75 

of  the  spiritual  influence  of  Jesus  in  the  minds  of  his 
immediate  followers.  Whether  this  revival  was  brought 
about  by  the  actual  reappearance  of  the  same  physical 
organism  that  had  suffered  death,  or  by  a  real  objective 
apparition  of  Jesus  in  a  spiritual  form  no  longer  subject 
to  the  laws  of  gravity,  or  by  a  psychological  process 
dependent  on  emotional  exaltation  and  fostered  by  an 
unconscious  misapplication  of  Old  Testament  references, 
cannot  be  determined  with  absolute  precision.  It  can 
hardly  be  disputed  that  the  evidence  of  the  earliest 
witness,  Paul,  though  very  far  from  being  definite,  at 
least  favours  the  last  presumption.  And  we  now  perceive 
that  Peter  also  confirms  it  by  an  expression  which  cannot 
fairly  be  otherwise  interpreted.  If  Peter,  the  chief  of  the 
original  Apostles,  knew  that  Jesus  had  reappeared  in  a 
physical  or  semi-physical  form,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
understand  why  he  did  not  plainly  say  so  in  his  Epistles. 
And  the  silence  on  this  point  of  the  second  Gospel,  which 
the  Christian  tradition  asserts  (on  no  evidence)  to  have 
been  derived  from  his  teaching,  is  equally  significant. 
The  writer  of  Acts  undoubtedly  represents  Peter  as 
styling  himself  and  others  "  witnesses  "  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. But  it  is  well  known  that  the  term  was  then  used 
in  the  sense  of  "  testifiers,"  and  did  not  necessarily  mean 
eye-witnesses.  The  meaning  of  Peter's  language  is  best 
seen  by  comparison  with  the  passage  just  quoted,  which 
seems  tolerably  clear. 


Chapter  IV. 

THE  THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  strange  result  that,  of  the 
six  appearances  of  Jesus  after  his  death  which  are 
mentioned  by  the  earliest  witness  to  the  resurrection, 
not  a  single  one  is  clearly  related  in  the  historical 
accounts  of  the  origin  of  Christianity.  Apologists  who 
assure  us  that  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection  is  not 
weakened  by  these  variations  in  the  accounts  should 
explain  what  does  constitute  imperfect  evidence.  If 
testimony  is  not  weakened  by  internal  contradiction, 
credulity  on  the  part  of  the  witnesses,  and  absence  of 
corroboration,  by  what  is  it  weakened  ?  If  these  defects 
do  not  diminish  its  force,  the  presumption  is  that  their 
opposites  do  not  increase  it.  Testimony  which  is  con- 
sistent, rational,  and  amply  confirmed  becomes,  on  that 
supposition,  of  no  more  value  than  testimony  which  in 
every  respect  violates  these  essential  requirements.  To 
act  on  such  a  principle  is  to  disregard  the  rules  of  all 
critical  investigation  while  pretending  to  observe  them. 
Who  would  so  act  in  the  affairs  of  ordinary  life? 
Suppose  a  Christian  apologist  were  negotiating  for  the 
purchase  of  a  hundred  acres  of  land  in  Kent.  Would  he 
accept  without  hesitation  a  statement  by  the  vendor 
that  the  property  was  his  to  sell,  and  that  the  title  was 
without  flaw  or  incumbrance?  He  would  be  a  foolish 
person  if  he  did  not  put  the  matter  into  the  hands  of  a 
solicitor,  in  order  to  have  the  title  investigated  and  any 
doubtful  points  cleared  up. 

76 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS    77 

No  one  denies  that  all  human  testimony  is  fallible. 
That  is  simply  the  strongest  reason  for  making  testimony 
in  all  important  matters  as  little  fallible  as  we  can.  The 
logical  result  of  some  apologetic  argument  is  that  the 
more  fallible  the  testimony  the  more  likely  it  is  to  be 
true.  Historic  doubts  of  the  existence  of  Napoleon 
Bonaparte  may  cast  a  useful  light  on  the  imperfection 
of  all  human  testimony,  but  the  device  of  comparing  the 
normal  with  the  abnormal,  of  assuming  that  the  evidence 
for  the  supernatural  must  be  precisely  similar  to  that 
for  the  natural,  is  a  transparent  evasion  of  the  difficulty. 
And  it  is  untrue  that  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection 
is  as  good  as  the  evidence  for  any  event  in  history.  The 
Battle  of  Waterloo  is  proved  by  the  testimony  of  a  large 
number  of  eye-w^itnesses.  Not  a  single  eye-witness 
vouches  for  the  resurrection.  The  despairing  expedient 
of  proving  all  testimony  to  be  w^orthless  is  indeed  a 
singular  method  of  proving  some  testimony  to  be  true  ; 
for,  if  all  human  evidence  is  bad,  the  evidence  for  the 
resurrection  is  bad  also.  No  testimony  can  establish 
such  a  miracle,  because  the  probability  that  the  universal 
law  of  death  operated  in  a  particular  instance  must 
always  remain  infinitely  greater  than  the  probability  of 
any  exception  to  it  having  occurred.^  The  object  of 
written  testimony  is  to  perpetuate  the  truth  of  verbal 
testimony — that  is,  to  put  other  persons,  as  far  as 
possible,  in  the  position  of  the  original  recipients  of  the 
testimony.  We  ought,  therefore,  to  be  absolutely  sure, 
when  we  are  asked  to  examine  the  evidence  for  a 
miracle,  that  it  shall  comprise  the  statements  of  known 
and  credible  eye-witnesses. 

As  long  as  the  resurrection  is  claimed  to  have  been, 

1  See  Hume's  essay  on  Miracles,  and  Supernatural  Religion,  ch.  iii. 


78        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

not  the  result  of  subjective  impressions,  but  an  actual 
resuscitation  and  reappearance  of  a  physical  body,  its 
truth  can  be  tested  only  by  the  recognised  rules  of 
evidence.  ''  History  is  only  possible  upon  the  basis  of 
that  principle  of  continuity  which  is  irreconcilable  with 
miracles  ;  if  miracles  are  possible  history  is  impossible  ; 
and  historical  evidence  for  miracles  is  nothing  short  of  a 
contradiction  in  terms." ^  Historical  criticism  cannot  be 
applied  to  a  supernatural  event  without  negativing  it. 
For  this  reason  the  apologist  usually  contends  that  the 
Bible  should  not  be  read  as  any  other  book  would  be 
read,  but  by  the  aid  of  inspiration,  and  in  the  light  of 
that  theory.^ 

Though  we  have  not  the  direct  testimony  of  the 
original  Apostles,  their  belief  in  the  resurrection  need 
not  be  disputed.  But,  '•  in  the  light  of  experience,  it 
must  remain  more  probable  that  they  were  in  error  than 
that  such  an  event  took  place. "^  When  we  examine 
their  state  of  mind  and  the  characteristics  of  their  age, 
we  find  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  to  be  a  natural 
product,  but  not  due  to  the  objective  reality  of  the 
alleged  fact.  Though  we  can  place  little  reliance  on  the 
accuracy  of  the  records,  it  appears  probable  that  Jesus, 
during  his  life,  used  language  which,  "  when  recalled 
and  interpreted  in  the  light  of  his  Resurrection,  looked 
like  a  prophecy  of  the  event,  and  thus,  in  the  minds  of 
the  Apostles,  confirmed  at  once  the  fact  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion and  the  Messiahship  of  their  Master."^  The  idea  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  was  part  of  the  consciousness 
of   the   time.     The   death   of   Jesus   seemed  to  destroy 

^  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Chrut,  by  R.  W.  Macan,  M.A.,  p.  IIG 
(note). 

2  See  Liddon's  University  Sermons  (1-vol.  ed.),  p.  212. 

3  Macan,  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  122. 

4  Ibid,  p.  108. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        79 

the  cherished  pre-convictions  of  his  followers.  They 
felt  that  they  must  either  modify  these  pre-convictions 
or  give  up  their  belief  in  and  love  for  their  Master,  which 
they  could  not  possibly  do.  The  conviction  that  he  had 
risen  from  the  grave  restored  harmony  to  their  minds. 
That  they  should  interpret  the  appearances  as  objective 
was  pre-determined  by  the  doctrinal  lines  of  their  faith, 
and  the  mental  and  moral  excitement  to  which  the 
occasion  gave  rise.  Their  belief  furnished  the  indis- 
pensable condition  of  Paul's  conversion,  though  they 
never  grasped  the  significance  of  a  doctrine  which 
involved  the  abolition  of  the  Mosaic  law.  They  could 
await  the  speedy  return  of  Jesus  in  power  and  glory  to 
finally  establish  his  kingdom.  ^ 

People  in  the  twentieth  century  cannot  be  exjDected  to 
place  themselves  at  the  mental  standpoint  of  the  first 
century.  The  Apostolic  view  of  the  universe  can  no 
longer  be  held.  Science  has  disproved  it.  And  doctrines 
flowing  from  a  general  view  which  is  now  obsolete  can  be 
no  more  than  precarious  survivals.  The  New  Testament 
writers  have  made  it  clear  that  to  them  visions  and 
supposed  prophecies  were  good  evidence  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. That  being  so,  it  cannot  be  conceded  that  the 
bodily  presence  of  Jesus  after  his  death  was  essential  to 
the  formation  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  faith  of  the 
disciples  was  a  vivid  realisation  that  their  Master  was 
spiritually  present  with  them,  and  that  it  was  their  duty 
to  carry  on  his  spiritual  mission.  It  is  this  conviction 
which  takes  a  materialised  form  in  the  Pentecost  narra- 
tive. This  spiritual  presence  of  Jesus  with  his  disciples 
is  said  to  have  been  repeatedly  promised,  and  the 
Church  holds  that   the   promise  was   literally  fulfilled. 

^  Macan,  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  109-110. 


80        THEOEY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  BIPRESSIONS 


Let  the  reader   turn   to  the  fourteenth,  fifteenth,  and 
sixteenth  chapters  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  he  will  see 
that,  while  Jesus  speaks  of  his  approaching  departure  as 
if  it  were  to  be  the  consequence  of  his  impending  death, 
he  throughout  implies  that  his  return  is  to  be  understood 
in  a  spiritual  sense  only.^     One  passage  appears  to  throw 
a  ray  of  light  on  the  formation  of  the  belief  in  the  resur- 
rection :    "  Nevertheless,   I   tell   you   the   truth ;     it   is 
expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away :  for  if  I  go  not  away, 
the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you ;  but  if  I  go,  I  will 
send  him  unto  you."^     The  unbeliever  may  well  doubt 
on   critical  grounds  that   these  words  really  proceeded 
from   Jesus.      But   the  apologist   is   not   at   liberty   to 
repudiate  them  ;  he  is  bound  to  maintain  that  they  were 
uttered  by  Jesus  before  his  crucifixion.     What  do  they 
imply  ?     They  clearly  imply  that  after  his  death  a  sub- 
stitute for  his  bodily  presence  would  be  provided ;  that  it 
was  necessary  he  should  no  longer  be  with  his  followers 
in  the  flesh,  in  order  that  he  might  be  with  them  in  the 
spirit ;    that   the  earthly  intercourse  should   be  super- 
seded by  a  relationship  even  more  intimate.     Whether 
these  words   are  prophetic  or   retrospective,  they  lend 
support,  not  to  the  idea  of  a  bodily  resurrection,  but  to 
that  idea  of  an  enlarged  spiritual  communion  which  was 
the  secret  of  the  Apostolic  zeal,  the  idea  from  which  the 
narratives  afterwards  arose. 

The  expectation  that  Jesus  would  return  to  earth  shows 
how  the  illusion  of  the  first  disciples  was  perpetuated. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  this  expectation  could 
have  been  so  early  formed,  and  could  have  persisted  for 
so  long,  unless  it  was  considered  in  some  sense  a 
compensation   for   the    disappointment    caused    by  bis 

1  John  xiv.  IG,  2G  ;  xv.  26.  2  jHfj^  xvi.  7. 


THEOBY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        81 

untimely  death.  If  Jesus  really  rose  from  the  dead, 
if  he  remained  on  earth  for  forty  days,  teaching  his 
disciples  "  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God," 
how  did  they  come  to  form  an  idea  so  erroneous  as  that  of 
his  speedy  return  ?  There  seems  room  for  the  conjecture 
that  the  original  faith  of  the  disciples  was  similar  to  what 
many  hold  now — viz.,  that  Jesus  tuould  return,  not  that 
he  had  returned,  and  that  in  the  future  hope  lay  the  germ 
of  the  traditional  experience.  "  Trust  in  the  promise  of 
return  soon  changed  into  belief  in  his  resurrection,  which 
to  the  consciousness  of  the  early  Christians  was  the  first 
condition  of  his  return."^  The  idea  of  this  return  is  so 
prominent  in  the  Apostolic  w^ritings  that,  as  Mackay  says, 
**  Christ's  second  coming  was  to  the  Christian  what 
Messiah's  advent  had  been  to  the  Jew."^  In  neither 
case  was  the  aspiration  purely  spiritual.  The  "power 
and  glory  "  in  which  Jesus  was  expected  to  return  meant 
to  his  disciples  for  a  long  time  the  setting  up  of  a 
kingdom  of  righteousness  on  earth.  That  this  faith  was 
not  during  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles  realised  was  with 
them  no  reason  for  abandoning  it,  but  it  was  a  reason 
for  the  later  faith  that  Jesus  had  risen.  Nearly  twenty 
centuries  have  rolled  away,  and  many  people  still  believe 
that  Jesus  will  return.  The  type  of  mind  which,  in 
spite  of  natural  law,  in  spite  of  the  certainty  that  miracles 
do  not  happen,  hopes  from  age  to  age  to  behold  a  great 
supernatural  manifestation,  w^as  common  among  the 
early  followers  of  Jesus.  Their  hope  was  illusory,  but 
in  that  illusion  they  found  a  strength  and  support  w^hich 
they  thought  divine.  Paul  had  a  fervent  and  unquestioning 
assurance  that  he  would  live  to  see  the  return  of  his 
Master  in  glory.     Yet  he  was  mistaken.     The  strength 

^  Hausrath,  A  History  of  New  Testament  Times,  vol.  ii.,  p.  110. 
2  R.  W.  Mackay,  The  Progress  of  the  Intellect,  vol.  ii.,  p.  35i. 

G 


82        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

of  the  subjective  element  in  his  faith  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that,  though  he  never  knew  Jesus  in  the  flesh,  it  is 
the  Christ  within  him  which  is  the  highest  and  deepest 
truth. ^  It  was  by  the  power  of  this  internal  conviction 
that  Paul's  labours  were  crowaied  with  a  great  measure 
of  success.  Yet  we  may  be  sure  that  in  his  case  the 
conviction  w\as  not  produced  by  a  physical  manifestation 
of  Jesus.  Why  should  we  assume  such  a  physical 
manifestation  to  have  been  a  necessity  for  the  earlier 
Apostles  ?  "  Whatever  may  have  been  the  fact,  the  faith 
in  the  fact,  if  it  did  not  lay  the  foundation  of  the 
Christian  religion,  did  certainly  give  stability  and 
distinctness  to  religious  convictions  which  would  other- 
wise have  remained  vague  and  fluctuating."^ 

We  have  throughout  maintained  that  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  cannot  be  regarded  as  trustworthy 
witnesses  to  the  resurrection — first,  because  they  were 
not  eye-witnesses ;  second,  because  they  were  the  slaves 
of  a  bewildering  Old  Testament  exegesis  and  numberless 
current  superstitions ;  and  third,  because  they  had  little 
or  no  conception  of  any  distinction  between  objective 
fact  and  subjective  impression.  The  evidence  for  the 
resurrection  resolves  itself  into  accounts  in  the  current 
pictorial  manner  of  mental  and  emotional  phases, 
combined  with  a  series  of  visions  alleged  to  have  been 
seen,  first  by  certain  immediate  followers  of  Jesus,  and 
afterwards  by  Paul. 

It  cannot  be  admitted  that  these  visions  had  any  real 
objective  cause.  They  appear  to  have  resulted  from  the 
conviction  formed  by  the  disciples  that  Jesus  w^as  the 
Messiah,  who  fulfilled  in  a  profounder  sense  the  supposed 
predictions  contained  in  the  Jewish  scriptures,  who  had 

1  These  remarks  arc  slightly  adapted  from  Mr.  Macan's  work. 

2  Mackintosh,  Natural  History  of  Christian  Eeligion,  p.  604. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        83 

gone  into  heaven,  and  would  soon  return  to  establish  his 
kingdom.  That  it  was  no  slight  spiritual  impression 
which  could  produce  such  a  result  may  be  admitted ;  but 
it  was  reinforced  by  a  proneness  to  illusions  on  the 
part  of  the  disciples  which  is  natural  when  we  remember 
that  the  Jews  of  that  time  were  filled  with  the  most 
sanguine  expectations.  These  Christian  illusions  were 
concentrated  on  Jesus  as  the  ideal  being,  sometimes  on  a 
fanciful  and  apparent  rather  than  a  real  and  solid  basis. 
That  these  feelings  sprang  from  intense  devotion  to  a 
loved  but  ill-understood  teacher  is  undeniable,  assuming 
some  historical  character  behind  the  Gospel  tradition. 
As  M.  Reville  has  remarked  :  "  Strong  and  deeply-rooted 
sentiments  may,  by  force  of  circumstances,  be  for  a  time 
eclipsed ;  but  they  remain,  they  persist,  and  take  in  the 
mind  a  tenfold  energy,  as  if  to  make  up  for  their 
temporary  disappearance."-^ 

Professor  Schmiedel,  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica, 
says  :  ''  In  contradistinction  from  the  so-called  objective 
vision  the  image  that  is  seen  in  the  subjective  vision  is 
a  product  of  the  mental  condition  of  the  seer.  The  pre- 
supposition is  accordingly  that  he  is  not  only  in  a  high 
degree  of  psychical  excitement,  which  is  capable  of  pro- 
ducing in  him  the  belief  that  he  is  seeing  something 
which  in  point  of  fact  has  no  objective  existence,  but 
also  that  all  the  elements  which  are  requisite  for  the 
formation  of  a  visionary  image,  whether  it  be  views  or 
ideas,  are  previously  present  in  his  mind,  and  have 
engaged  its  activities.  That,  in  this  instance,  the  seer 
should  behold  an  image  for  which  there  is  no  correspond- 
ing reality  can  be  spoken  of  as  something  abnormal  only 
in  so  far  as  the  occurrence  is  on  the  whole  a  rare  one ; 

1  Jesus  tie  Nazareth,  vol.  ii.,  p.  464. 


84        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

as  soon  as  a  high  degree  of  mental  excitement  is  given, 
the  existence  of  visions  is  by  the  hiws  of  psychology  just 
as  intelHgible  and  natural  as,  in  a  lower  degree  of  mental 
excitement,  is  the  occurrence  of  minor  disturbances  of 
sense-perceptions,  such  as  the  hearing  of  noises  and  the 
like.  The  view  that  a  subjective  vision  could  never 
have  led  the  disciples  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  alive, 
because  they  were  able  to  distinguish  a  vision  from  a 
real  experience,  is  quite  a  mistake."^  Suppose  it  were 
conceded  that  they  could  make  this  distinction.  It  still 
would  not  follow  ''  that  they  held  the  thing  seen  in 
vision  to  be  unreal,  and  only  what  they  saw  when  in 
their  ordinary  condition  to  be  real.  It  pertains  precisely 
to  the  subjective  vision  that  the  seer,  if  he  is  not  a 
person  thoroughly  instructed  in  psychology  and  the 
natural  sciences,  is  compelled  to  hold  what  he  sees  in 
his  vision  to  be  real  as  long  as  it  does  not  bring  before 

him  something  which  to  his  conception  is  impossible 

The  visionaries  of  the  Bible  had  more  extended  powers 
than  modern  visionaries  have  for  taking  a  visionary 
image  as  an  objective  reality  ;  for  if  they  were  unable  to 
attribute  to  the  image  they  saw  any  ordinary  mundane 
reality  because  it  was  contrary  to  their  ideas  of  mundane 
things,  they  could  always  attribute  to  it  a  heavenly 
reality,  and  it  was  only  if  it  was  contrary  to  their  con- 
ception of  things  heavenly  that  they  came  to  recognise  it 
as  a  product  of  their  own  fantasy."^ 

''  What  sort  of  appearances  of  a  person  risen  from  the 
dead  were  regarded  by  the  disciples  as  possible  ?  Not 
incorporeal  appearances,  for  the  idea  of  the  immortality 

of  the  soul  was  utterly  strange  to  them What  is  alone 

authenticated  is  the  appearance  of  Jesus  in  heavenly 

1  Encyclopaedia  Bihlica,  art.  "  Kesurrection,"  sees.  3,  34.  ^  Ibid. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        85 

corporeality,"  and  that  "  corresponded  with  the  concep- 
tions of  Paul  and  likewise  with  those  of   the  original 

Apostles The   resultant   conclusion,   then,   must   he 

that,  when  the  disciples  experienced  an  appearance  of 
Jesus  in  heavenly  corporeality,  they  were  under  compul- 
sion to  regard  it  as  objectively  real,  and  therefore  to 
believe  that  Jesus  was  risen  because  they  had  actually 
seen  him.  Consequently  this  belief  of  theirs  does  not 
prove  that  what  they  saw  was  objectively  real ;  it  can 
equally  well  have  been  merely  an  image  begotten  of 
their  own  mental  condition."^ 

In  this  article  Professor  Schmiedel  admits  that  '*  the 
followers  of  Jesus  really  had  the  impression  of  having 
seen  him.  To  hold  that  the  alleged  appearances  were 
due  merely  to  legend  or  invention  is  to  deny  not  only 
the  genuineness  of  Paul's  Epistles,  but  the  historicity 
of  Jesus  altogether."^ 

But  in  what  sense  did  the  disciples  believe  they  had 
seen  Jesus  ?  A  comparatively  modern  incident  throws 
a  useful  light  on  this  subject.  When  Joan  of  Arc  was 
asked  at  her  trial  how  she  knew  the  Archangel  Michael 
before  he  had  made  himself  known  to  her,  she  replied  : 
''Because  I  saw  him  with  my  bodily  eyes."^  Her 
visions  were  accompanied  by  words  ;  an  ignorant  peasant 
girl  conversed  with  angels,  and  distinguished  their 
voices.  There  is  better  evidence  for  her  visions  than 
there  is  for  those  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  Joan 
was  of  strong  and  sober  understanding,  and  carried  out 
directions  which  she  believed  to  be  from  heaven  in  a 
way  which,  humanly  speaking,  was  a  series  of  strokes  of 

^  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica,  art.  "  Kesurrection,"  sec.  3.     These  extracts 
deserve  particular  notice. 
2  Ihicl,  sec.  17. 
^  Macan,  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  130. 


86        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

genius.  The  beauty  of  her  character,  and  the  mighty 
work  she  accomplished,  must  always  command  the 
admiration  of  mankind.  But  we  do  not  believe  in  the 
external  reality  of  her  visions  for  all  that.  On  what 
ground  are  we  justified  in  assuming  that  the  visions  of 
the  disciples  had  any  more  objective  character?  It  is 
probable  that,  if  the  Apostles  had  been  rigidly  cross- 
examined,  the  true  character  of  their  experiences  would 
have  been  ascertained. 

The  Jews  of  the  Apostolic  age  were  familiar  with 
miracles,  signs,  heavenly  warnings,  and  communica- 
tions, demons,  dreams,  apparitions.  We  are  familiar 
with  the  perfectly  opposite  ideas  of  law,  cause,  order, 
science.  This  mode  of  thought  finds  no  place  for 
miracles  in  its  system,  but  it  finds  a  place  for  the  belief 
in  miracles.^  And  we  know  that  the  belief  in  miracles 
never  arises  except  where  the  absence  of  knowledge 
furnishes  a  predisposing  condition.  "  Philosophic 
criticism  undertakes  the  attempt,  not  to  explain  a 
Christophany,  but  to  explain  how  what  it  regards  as  a 
vision  could  be  taken  for  a  Christophany — nay,  more, 
must  have  been  so  taken.  For  those  ignorant  of  the 
possible  origin  of  their  visions  the  illusion  has  all  the 
force  of  reality,  and  there  is  indeed  no  subjective 
criterion  by  which  to  distinguish  sensations  which  in 
themselves  are  essentially  alike,  and  only  differ  in  the 
source  whence  they  arise  in  the  centre  of  sensibility."^ 
In  the  case  of  Paul  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should 
ascribe  his  sensation  to  the  conscious  activity  of  his  own 
mind,  or  to  unconscious  cerebral  processes,  or  to  any 
cause  within  himself.  While  hostile  to  the  new  faith, 
he  would  look  upon  the  tragedy  of  Calvary  as  a  divine 

1  Macan,  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  70.  ^  jjf^^  p.  70. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS   87 

judgment  upon  a  daring  reformer.  When  the  mental 
change  had  reached  its  culmination  he  would,  probably 
without  inquiry,  adopt  the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  the 
resurrection,  and  would  then  regard  it  as  a  cancelment 
of  the  judgment  on  Jesus,  and  a  divine  ratification  of 
the  claims  and  promises  made  in  his  name. 

Regarding  the  conversion  of  Paul,  John  Stuart  Mill 
remarks:  "Of  all  the  miracles  in  the  New  Testament 
this  is  the  one  which  admits  of  the  easiest  explanation 
from  natural  causes."^  The  adequacy  of  these  natural 
causes  is  practically  admitted  by  Bishop  Westcott,  when 
he  writes :  "For  us  the  appearance  to  St.  Paul  would 
certainly  in  itself  fail  to  satisfy  in  some  respects  the 
conditions  of  historic  reality — it  might  have  been  an 
internal  revelation — but  for  him  it  was  essentially 
objective  and  outward."^  This  merely  shows  how 
inevitably  the  two  spheres  were  confused  by  even  the 
best  minds  of  the  Apostolic  age.  How  can  we  rely  upon 
the  evidence  of  persons  who  were  unable  to  distinguish 
between  them  ?  Ought  we  to  put  implicit  faith  in 
witnesses  who  allege  divine  inspiration  as  the  immediate 
source  of  their  ideas?  Paul's  vision  rests  upon  the 
previous  visions  of  persons  less  cultured  than  himself, 
and,  if  the  account  of  the  execution  of  Stephen  may  be 
trusted,  it  did  not  take  place  until  the  idea  of  the  risen 
Jesus  had  become  fully  established  in  the  community  of 
which  Paul  became  an  adherent. 

The  incident  of  the  transfiguration  recorded  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  appears  to  have  an  indirect  bearing  on 
the  subject  of  the  resurrection.  Apologists  assure  us 
that  the  physical  organism  of  Jesus  after  his  death  was 
not  identical  with  his  physical  organism  before  death  ; 

^  Three  Essays  on  Eeliglon,  p.  239  (note). 
2  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,  p.  109. 


88        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

that  it  was  not  a  natural  body,  but  a  glorified  or  spiritual 
body.  They  are  unable  to  tell  us  what  a  glorified  or 
spiritual  body  is,  and  bej^ond  the  vague  and  contra- 
dictory statements  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  un verifiable 
speculations  of  Paul,  they  have  no  warrant  whatever  for 
their  positive  assertions.  Evidently  doctrinal  presup- 
positions lie  behind  this  ingenious  theory.  The  Gospel 
writers,  however,  relate  with  their  usual  simplicity  and 
good  faith  that  before  the  death  of  Jesus  his  body 
became  *'  transfigured."  Whatever  be  the  meaning  and 
nature  of  this  incident,  it  is  clear  that  the  companions  of 
Jesus  formed  no  such  conception  of  a  "  spiritual  body  " 
as  later  commentators  have  evolved.  Death  was  not 
needed  in  order  that  the  body  of  Jesus  might  be  "  glori- 
fied ";  the  process  might,  and,  as  the  disciples  (or  at  any 
rate  the  Evangelists)  thought,  did,  take  place  while  the 
natural  body  was  in  existence.  Does  this  indicate  no 
confusion  of  thought  ?  Does  it  render  more  credible  the 
statement  that  after  his  death  the  body  of  Jesus  became 
a  ''spiritual  body"?  Luke  relates  that  the  disciples  had 
fallen  asleep,  and  that,  when  they  awoke,  they  saw 
Moses  and  Elias  talking  with  Jesus.  Had  the  disciples 
then  really  seen  these  prophets,  or  was  it  all  a  dream  ? 
Is  there  no  dogmatic  tendency  in  thus  introducing  Moses, 
the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant,  whose  face  shone  when 
he  came  down  from  the  mountain,  as  being  raised  from 
the  dead  to  converse  with  the  mediator  of  a  new 
covenant,  whose  "  face  did  shine  as  the  sun,"  and  whose 
very  raiment  became  "  white  and  glistering  "?  The 
statements  that  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  were  the 
subject  of  this  conversation,  and  that  Jesus  charged  his 
disciples  to  say  nothing  about  it  till  he  had  risen  from 
the  dead,  plainly  show  the  hand  of  the  editor.  Peter  and 
his  companions  are  said  to  have  been  perplexed  by  this 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        89 

rising  from  the  dead,  though  they  had  just  seen  and 
heard  men  conversing  who  had  been  dead  for  many 
hundreds  of  years !  The  whole  story  is,  of  course, 
without  value  as  history.  Like  the  story  of  the  tempta- 
tion, it  is  a  legend  written  long  afterwards,  designed  to 
represent  by  anticipation  the  coming  heavenly  glory  of 
Jesus,  and  therefore  a  variation  of  the  tradition  which 
honestly  believed  that  after  death  he  was  exalted  to  the 
right  hand  of  God.  Such  actual  ground  of  fact  as  the 
story  may  possess  admits  "very  easily  of  being  regarded 
as  having  taken  place  in  the  inner  consciousness  of 
Jesus. "^  M.Albert  Reville  says :  *' Sufficient  attention 
has  not  been  paid  to  the  close  analogy  which  exists 
between  the  scene  of  the  transfiguration  and  the  visions 
of  the  resuscitated  body."  ^  Such  an  analogy  would  not 
by  itself  prove  that  the  resurrection  was  nothing  more 
than  a  vision ;  but  it  shows,  at  least,  that  the  Gospel 
writers  were  not  capable  of  distinguishing  internal 
visions  from  objective  realities,  and  therefore  that  it  is 
useless  to  look  to  them  for  accurate  accounts  of  facts.  If 
an  internal  consciousness  of  Jesus,  or  Peter,  or  anyone 
else,  has  somehow  become  represented  as  an  external 
event,  it  does  beyond  question  increase  the  probability 
that  the  resurrection  stories  have  undergone  a  similar 
transformation. 

The  story  of  the  transfiguration  is  an  awkward  thing 
for  the  apologists.  Professor  Sanday,  for  instance,  after 
admitting  that  the  account  of  the  temptation  is  sj^m- 
bolical,  states  that  the  transfiguration  reminds  us  of  that 
incident,  and  adds  :  "  Once  again  the  Apostles  hear  words 
which  seem  to  come  from  heaven."  He  concedes  that 
the     account    of     the     baptism     "  underwent     various 

^  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica,  art.  "  Simon  Peter,"  sec.  8. 

■^  Histoire  du  Dogmede  la  Divmite  de  Jesus-Christ,  p.  19. 


90        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 


apoci^phal  modifications  and  adornments."^  Is  it 
likely  that  the  resurrection  stories  did  not  go  through  a 
similar  process  ? 

Weizsiicker  evidently  considers  the  account  of  the 
transfiguration  not  merely  a  legend,  but  a  legend  with 
a  purpose.  It  is  "  exclusively  designed  to  show  Jesus 
transformed  at  this  particular  moment  even  in  his 
earthly  life  into  a  heavenly  form  of  light.  The  only 
possible  inference  is  that  Jesus,  when  he  should  appear 
after  death,  would  do  so  in  such  a  form."  And  it  is  "  an 
important  feature  of  the  narrative  that  he  who  had  been 
rebuked  because  he  could  not  reconcile  himself  to  the 
thought  of  Jesus's  sufferings  was  here  also  reproved  for 
at  first  interpreting  the  appearance  as  material."^  Those 
who  believe  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  must,  on  the 
same  authority,  believe  that  Moses  and  Elijah  also 
returned  temporarily  to  a  kind  of  life  w^hich  enabled 
them  to  use  the  physical  organs  of  speech. 

That  a  strong  presumption  exists  in  favour  of  the 
visionary  character  of  the  manifestations  of  Jesus 
(granting  their  actuality)  is  the  verdict  of  the  most 
advanced  Christian  scholarship. 

"  With  reference  to  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  the  most 
credible  statement  in  the  Synoptics  is  that  of  Matthew 
and  Mark — that  the  first  appearances  were  in  Galilee. 
The  appearance  in  Jerusalem  to  the  two  women  (Matt. 
xxviii.  9)  is  almost  universally  given  up,  not  only 
because  of  the  silence  of  all  the  other  accounts,  but  also 
because  in  it  Jesus  only  repeats  the  direction  which  the 
women  had  already  received  through  the  angel.  If  the 
disciples  had  seen  Jesus  in  Jerusalem,  as  Luke  states,  it 
is  absolutely  incomprehensible  how  Mark  and  Matthew 

1  Hastings^  Dictionary,  art.  "Jesus  Christ." 

2  The  Apostolic  Age  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.,  pp.  15,  IG. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        91 

came  to  require  them  to  repair  to  Galilee  before  they 
could  receive  a  manifestation  of  Jesus.  The  converse, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  very  easy  to  understand ;  Luke 
found  it  inconceivable  that  the  disciples,  who,  according 
to  him,  were  still  in  Jerusalem,  should  have  been  unable 
to  see  Jesus  until  they  went  to  Galilee.  In  actual  fact, 
the  disciples  had  dispersed  at  Gethsemane.  This  Luke 
very  significantly  omits.  Even  Peter,  after  he  had 
perceived,  when  he  denied  his  Master,  the  dangers  he 
incurred,  will  hardly  have  exposed  himself  to  these 
gratuitously  any  longer.  At  the  cross  only  women,  not 
disciples,  were  present.  Whither  these  last  had  betaken 
themselves  w^e  are  not  told.  But  it  is  not  difficult  to 
conjecture  that  they  had  gone  to  their  native  Galilee. 
The  angelic  command,  therefore,  that  they  should  make 
this  their  rendezvous  may  reasonably  be  taken  as  a 
veiled  indication  that  they  had  already  gone  thither. 
The  presupposition  made  both  by  Mark  and  by  Matthew 
that  they  were  still  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the 
Resurrection  is  accordingly  erroneous.  It  was  this  error 
of  theirs  that  led  Luke  to  his  still  more  erroneous 
inversion  of  the  actual  state  of  the  facts. 

"  The  second  element  in  the  Synoptics  that  may  be 
accepted  with  confidence  is  the  statement  that  it  was 
Peter  who  received  the  first  manifestation  of  his  risen 
Master.  All  the  more  surprising  is  it  that  it  is  only 
Luke  who  tells  us  so,  and  that  only  in  passing  (xxiv.  34). 
It  is  the  chief  point  in  the  statement  of  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv. 
1-11).  This  passage  must  be  regarded  as  the  earliest 
account  of  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Jesus  ;  unques- 
tionably it  goes  back  to  the  communications  made  by 
Peter  during  the  fifteen  days'  visit  of  Paul,  three  years 
after  the  conversion  of  the  latter  (Gal.  i.  18). 

"  Not  only  is  it  a  mark  of  inadequacy  in  the  Gospels 


92        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

that  the}'  have  nothing  to  say  about  the  greater  number 
of  the  manifestations  here  recorded ;  it  also  becomes 
necessary  to  withhold  belief  from  what  they  actually  do 
relate  in  addition.  Paul  would  certainly  not  have  left  it 
out  had  he  known  it ;  the  duty  of  bringing  forward  all 
the  available  evidence  in  support  of  the  truth  of  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus,  as  against  the  Corinthian  doubters, 
was  of  the  most  stringent  kind. 

"  Thus,  the  statement  that  Jesus  was  touched,  and 
that  he  ate  (Luke  xxiv.  39-43),  are  seen  to  be  incredible. 
But  these  are  precisely  the  statements  which  make  it 
possible  to  understand  why  the  Evangelists  should  pass 
over  the  mere  appearing  of  Jesus  to  which  the  statements 
of  Paul  are  confined,  inasmuch  as  they  believed  they 
could  offer  proofs  of  a  more  palpable  character."^ 

These  "  incredible "  statements  are  also  precisely 
those  on  which  orthodox  apologists  rely  as  establishing 
the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  is  a  strange  way  of 
dealing  W'ith  evidence  to  bring  forward  details  which  are 
totally  unverifiable,  and  probably  untrue,  as  proof  of  an 
occurrence  itself  absolutely  unprovable.  If  it  is  true 
that  the  disciples  had  left  Jerusalem,  the  accounts  of 
Luke  and  John  are  almost  wholly  fictitious. 

Looking  at  them  as  a  whole,  the  New  Testament 
recitals  of  miraculous  events  "  show  only  too  clearly 
with  what  lack  of  concern  for  historical  precision  the 
Evangelists  write.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that 
even  the  one  Evangelist  w^hose  story  in  any  particular 
case  involves  less  of  the  supernatural  than  that  of  the 
others  is  still  very  far  from  being  entitled  on  that 
account  to  claim  implicit  acceptance  of  his  narrative. 
Just  in  the  same  degree  in  which  those  who  came  after 

1  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica,  art.  "Gospels,"  sec.  138. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        93 


him  have  gone  beyond  him,  it  is  easily  conceivable  that 
he  himself  may  have  gone  beyond  those  who  went  before 
him."i 

Whether  or  not  the  earliest  manifestation  or  vision 
of  the  risen  Jesus  was  an  experience  of  Peter,  it  is 
impossible  to  say  positively.  He  was,  in  a  sense,  the 
chief  man  in  the  first  Christian,  or  rather  Judeo-Christian, 
community,  and  any  assertion  by  him  of  such  an 
experience  would  be  implicitly  accepted.  He  must  have 
been  in  a  state  of  intense  agitation.  Bitter  sorrow  and 
depression  at  the  apparent  failure  of  the  movement 
mingled  with  vague  stirrings  of  hope  that  the  God 
of  Israel  would  yet  somehow  establish  its  triumph. 
Remorse  for  his  cowardice  kept  the  face  of  Jesus  ever 
before  him.  If  it  is  true  that  he  visited  the  tomb,  what 
could  he  have  thought  on  finding  it  empty  ?  What 
explanation  could  present  itself  but  that  the  Lord  had 
risen  ?  Were  not  these  circumstances  enough  to  cause 
a  pious,  ignorant  Jew  of  those  times  to  see  visions  ? 
Jesus  appeared  to  Peter  as  God  of  old  appeared  to 
Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob.  Could  he  deem  those 
visions  unreal  ?  With  perfect  sincerity  he  could  declare 
that  he  had  seen  Jesus — that  Jesus  had  risen  from  the 
dead.  Would  not  other  visions  follow  ?  And  would  not 
a  writer  thirty  or  fifty  years  later  make  the  accounts 
more  definite  ?  The  narrative  in  Acts  x.  9-17  clearly 
reveals  in  Peter  a  visionary  tendency.  According  to  this 
story,  he  actually  "  saw  heaven  opened,  and  a  certain 
vessel  descending  unto  him,"  and  heard  "a  voice" 
directing  him  to  "kill  and  eat."  Of  course,  he  at  first 
refused,  although  expressly  recognising  the  divine  nature 
of   the   command;    this   argumentative   perversity   was 

1  EncijclopcBdia  BiUka,  art.  "  Gospels,"  sec.  138. 


94        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 


invariably  shown,  or  rather  related.  The  significance  of 
the  incident,  however,  lies  in  the  statement  that  the 
senses  of  sight  and  hearing  were  both  impressed.  Yet 
the  incident  was  merely  a  vision,  and  makes  no  claim 
to  be  anything  more.  Peter  was  "  very  hungry,"  and 
*'  fell  into  a  trance,"  a  condition  which  frequently 
accompanies  fasting.^  His  convert  Cornelius  was  also 
about  the  same  time  praying  and  fasting,  and  likewise 
had  a  vision  of  a  "  man  in  bright  clothing,"  who  addressed 
him  in  spoken  language.  People  subject  to  these  trances 
and  visions  are  just  the  sort  of  persons  who  would  relate 
their  experiences  as  if  they  were  physical  facts.  The 
whole  story  is  preposterous  and  incredible.  But  it  stands 
on  the  same  footing  as  the  accounts  of  the  resurrection. 
No  vision  whatever  was  needed  to  incite  Peter  to  make 
Gentile  converts.  According  to  Matthew  xxviii.  19,  he 
had  been  expressly  told  to  do  so  by  Jesus  himself.  Of 
these  two  stories  one  must  be  wrong.  We  may  safely 
say  that  both  are  wrong.  They  are  pious  legends, 
nothing  more. 

A  few  words  with  regard  to  the  ascension  may  fitly 
conclude  this  chapter.  Was  that  also  a  vision  ?  Or  is 
it  a  pure  myth?  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  strange 
that  so  little  is  said  in  the  New  Testament  about  the 
ascension,  and  that  little  unsupported  by  a  single  vestige 
of  evidence.  It  is  true  that  the  event  is  said  to  have 
been  seen  by  eye-witnesses  ;  but  as  these  eye-witnesses 
were  not  the  writers  of  the  Gospels,  and  nowhere  furnish 
any  personal  testimony,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  what 
basis  of  truth  there  is  in  the  tradition.  Even  the  two 
Evangelists  who,  according  to  Luke,  w^ere  present  omit 
all  reference  to  the  event.     If  the  Apostles  passed  on  to 

1  It  is  well  known  that  fasting  causes  abnormal  excitement  of  the 
nerve-centres  of  the  brain. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        95 

the  later  Evangelists  any  account,  either  express  or 
implied,  of  this  incident,  that  simply  shows  the  worthless 
character  of  their  testimony.  They  related  something 
which  never  happened,  and  could  not  have  happened. 
In  opposition  to  those  who  assert  the  ascension,  we  are 
fully  warranted  in  denying  it ;  because  the  grounds  for 
the  denial  are  immensely  stronger  than  those  for  the 
affirmation.  In  the  light  of  modern  knowledge  it  is 
impossible  that  any  living  organism,  whether  wholly  or 
partially  material,  ever  did,  or  ever  could,  set  aside  the 
law  of  gravitation,  mount  into  the  clouds,  and  disappear 
in  the  airless  space  by  which  the  earth  is  surrounded. 
Let  us  not  be  met  by  quibbles  about  a  "  spiritual  body," 
the  nature  of  which  cannot  be  defined.  If  the  body  of 
Jesus  was  sufficiently  material  to  be  capable  of  walking, 
uttering  words  which  could  only  have  proceeded  from  a 
physical  vocal  apparatus,  and  of  eating  material  food, 
that  body  could  not  have  floated  away  into  the  sky  as  is 
represented  by  Luke.  The  alleged  ascension  is  the 
strongest  evidence  we  can  have  that  the  risen  Jesus  was 
a  phantom,  or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  an  imaginative 
creation  resulting  from  a  strong  subjective  impression 
made  on  superstitious  minds.  It  is  Luke  alone  who 
relates  this  phenomenon,  and  his  casual  reference  shows 
that  he  knew  nothing  about  it.  Perhaps  the  most 
astounding  event  in  the  world's  history — an  event  which 
reason  and  science  pronounce  a  sheer  impossibility — is 
related  by  one  writer  only  out  of  all  the  New  Testament 
authors,  that  writer  not  an  eye-witness,  his  work 
anonymous  and  undated,  and  the  original  lost !  Are  we 
not  justified  in  rejecting  the  account?  Probably  few 
Christians  really  believe  it,  and  these  only  at  the  cost 
of  stifling  their  reasoning  faculties.  If  they  are  credulous 
enough  to  believe  it,  they  accept  a  miracle  without  a 


96        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

particle  of  evidence.     That  is  essentially  superstition, 
and  with  such  believers  it  is  hopeless  to  reason. 

Most  apologists  ignore  the  ascension  in  a  way  which 
is  very  significant  of  a  weak  case.  But  is  it  not  a 
necessary  corollary  of  the  resurrection  ?  Some  writers 
have  given  a  direct  affirmative  to  this  question,  alleging 
(with  justice)  that  the  two  events  must  stand  or  fall 
together.  Thus  Neander  says  that  the  ascension 
*'  would  rest  on  firm  grounds  even  apart  from  the  par- 
ticular form  in  which  it  is  represented  in  Luke ;  nay, 
even  if  there  were  not  a  word  about  it  either  in  his 
Gospel  or  in  Acts."  He  maintains  also  that  it  was  a 
supernatural  event,  which  is  "as  certain  as  the  resur- 
rection ;  both  must  stand  or  fall  together."^  Moreover, 
the  ascension  is  to  be  believed  because  it  "  was  necessary 
for  the  conviction  of  the  Apostles  "^ — a  view  which  the 
Apostles  themselves  no  doubt  shared.  This  means  that 
we  are  justified  in  accepting  miracles  without  any 
evidence  whatever.  Before  such  an  exhibition  of  critical 
fatuity  sober  reason  stands  aghast.  Neander  frankly 
avows  his  bias.  He  claims  that  "it  is  necessary  to 
believe  that  the  whole  manifestation  of  Christ  is 
supernatural  before  we  can  believe  in  his  resurrection."^ 
Virtually  this  gives  up  the  case,  for  on  close  exami- 
nation the  theory  of  the  supernatural  breaks  down  at 
every  point  with  striking  completeness.  If  Neander's 
contention  is  correct,  the  matter  is  practically  settled ; 
for  the  reasoning  which  forces  us  to  negative  such  an 
unfounded  miracle  as  the  ascension  involves  denial  of 
the  resurrection  also.  A  chain  is  no  stronger  than  its 
weakest  link.  Can  we  even  be  sure  that  the  resurrection 
and  ascension  are  anything  more  than  two  aspects  of 

^  Neander,  Life  of  Christ,  p.  485. 

^  Ibid,  p.  486.  8  Ibid,  p.  491. 


THEOEY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        97 

one  psychological  experience  ?     That  there  is  something 
in  this  theory  Luke's  Gospel  seems  to  indicate  by  placing 
the  ascension  on  the  same  day  as  the  resurrection,  or 
rather,  as  we  may  believe,  late  in  the  night  following, 
when  all  was  dark.     And  if,  as  we  presume,  no  intelligent 
believer  can  hold  to  the  literal  truth  of  the  ascension 
story,  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for  the  disappearance 
of  Christ's  body  lies  as  heavily  on  those  who  assert  as 
on  those  who  deny  his  resurrection.^     Yet  against  the 
latter  this  difficulty  is  constantly  made  a  stock  argument. 
It  is  extraordinary  that  apologists  should  fail  to  see  that, 
unless  they  are  prepared  to  admit  an  unusual  degree  of 
credulity,  they  are  confronted  by  the  same  perplexity  as 
are  those  who  endeavour  to  seek  a  natural  explanation 
of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection.     ''Are  we  here  on  the 
trace  of  a  primitive  Christian  consciousness  which  did 
not  rigidly   separate   the   Resurrection    and   Ascension 
from  one  another  ?     Paul  puts  the  appearance  to  himself 
after  the  Ascension  in  the  same  class  as  the  appearances 
hefore  the  Ascension  to  others,  and  it  is  very  remarkable 
that  he  omits  all  mention  of  it  just  where  we  should 
expect  it."^     If,  as  Dr.  Sanday  states,  the  ascension, 
not   the   resurrection,    was   the   true   goal    of    Christ's 
mission,  how  came  Paul  to  miss  the  goal  ?     Bearing  in 

1  It  is  clear  to  us  that  the  ascension  is  related  simply  because  it  appeared 
to  the  early  Church  the  most  probable  explanation  of  the  disappearance 
of  the  body.  Professor  Gardner  quotes  the  following  from  Harnack  : 
"  In  some  of  the  oldest  accounts  the  Eesurrection  and  the  sittino-  at  the 
right  hand  of  God  are  taken  as  parts  of  the  same  act  without  mention  of 
any  Ascension  "  {Exploratio  Evamjclica,  p.  260).  The  same  writer  con- 
firms our  surmise  that  an  ascension  was  needed  and  was  therefore  supplied. 
"  Some  account  of  an  Ascension  became  a  necessity  as  soon  as  the  corporeal 
resurrection  from  the  dead  was  accepted "  {Ibid).  Keim  also  has 
remarked  that  the  ascension  is  defended  simply  because,  if  it  did  not 
occur,  "  the  Eesurrection  would  be  without  significance"  {Jesus  of  Nazara, 
vol.  vi.,  p.  382). 

2  Macan,  Eesurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  52. 

H 


98        THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 

mind  the  peculiarities  of  Paul's  theology,  in  which  the 
glorified  Christ  was  the  central  figure,  it  seems  unaccount- 
able that,  if  he  knew  the  ascension  to  be  a  fact,  he  should 
have  said  nothing  about  it.  Equally  strange  is  it  that 
Matthew,  Mark,^  and  John  should  have  done  the  same,^ 
especially  if  two  of  them  were  eye-witnesses,  while 
concerning  themselves  to  relate  events  of  far  less 
importance.  It  cannot,  however,  be  admitted  that  they 
were  eye-witnesses.  Had  they  seen  the  event  they 
would  certainly  have  related  it.  And  at  the  time  when 
Luke  says  they  were  in  Jerusalem  Matthew  implies  that 
they  were  in  Galilee. 

Mr.  Macan  suggests  that  the  story  of  the  ascension 
may  have  been  intended  to  embody  not  historic  but 
religious  truth,  poetically  apprehended.  In  accordance 
with  the  mental  predilections  of  the  Apostles,  they  con- 
cluded that  Jesus  had  ascended  to  heaven  because,  as 
the  spiritual  and  suffering  Messiah,  he  should,  after 
death,  have  been  glorified,  and  must  have  been  exalted 
to   the  "  right  hand  of    God."     If   they  attached    any 

^  Mark  xvi.  19  casually  refers  to  the  ascension,  but  as  the  passage  is 
spurious  it  raises  the  suspicion  that  Luke  xxiv.  51  may  be  spurious  also. 
Dr.  Davidson  candidly  admits  that  it  is  {Introduction  to  New  Testament, 
vol  ii.,  p.  368). 

"^  John,  however,  though  he  says  nothing  of  the  disappearance  into 
the  clouds  (beyond  the  expression  to  Mary  Magdalene,  "  I  am  not  yet 
ascended  "),  makes  a  reference  to  the  popular  idea  of  ascensions  into  heaven 
which  "gives  away"  the  orthodox  case  in  a  startling  manner.  At  the 
beginning  of  his  public  ministry  Jesus  has  a  conversation  with  Nicodemus, 
in  which  no  one  has  ever  yet  discovered  where  the  words  of  Jesus  end  and 
those  of  the  Evangelist  begin.  "No  man,"  it  is  said,  ''hath  ascended 
into  heaven,  but  he  that  descended  out  of  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  Man, 
which  is  in  heaven  "  (John  iii.  13).  So  that,  apart  from  the  contradiction 
of  the  Old  Testament  narratives  of  Enoch  and  Elias,  Jesus  had  already 
ascended  to  and  was  in  heaven  at  the  time  of  the  interview.  If  this  is 
not  a  practical  confession  that  the  visit  of  Nicodemus  is  an  invention  of 
the  Gospel  writer,  criticism  may  as  well  be  given  up  altogether.  It  is 
impossible  to  regard  as  a  historian  a  writer  who  attributes  to  Jesus  words 
which  he  could  not  have  uttered,  and  makes  him  speak  of  a  future  event 
as  if  it  were  past — and  that  event  one  which  never  happened. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS        99 

definite  meaning  to  this  expression,  it  is  more  than  we 
are  able  to  do.  The  early  heretics  (who  were  not  always 
in  the  wrong)/  such  as  the  Manichseans  and  the 
Phantasiastse,  thought  that  Christ's  heavenly  body  was 
phantasmal  or  fictitious,  not  physically  real.  Others 
thought  he  ascended  to  heaven  as  pure  spirit.  The 
Originistse  taught  that  his  body,  as  it  ascended,  went  on 
attenuating  till  it  reached  the  Father,  when  none  was 
left.^  These  curious  speculations  have  no  other  value 
than  that  of  showing  the  ignorance  which  existed  in  the 
early  Christian  communities  as  to  the  real  nature  of  the 
body  and  person  of  their  founder. 

Many  traces  exist  that  both  the  resurrection  and  the 
ascension  were  in  the  first  instance  conceptions  formed 
solely  by  the  spiritual  activities  of  the  first  Christian 
believers.  Professor  Schmiedel  says :  "  The  original 
conception  of  the  Ascension  has  been  preserved  in 
this,  that  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Jesus  occur  after 
he  has  been  received  up  into  heaven ;  the  Resurrection 
and  Ascension  are  a  single  act ;  Jesus  is  taken  up 
directly  from  the  grave,  or  from  the  underworld,  into 
heaven."  It  was  believed  that  "  Jesus  made  his  appear- 
ances from  heaven,  and  that  after  each  appearance  he 
returned  to  heaven."  *'  The  risen  Jesus  never  ate  or 
was  touched.  Flesh  and  bones  Jesus  assuredly  had  not. 
He  really  made  his  appearances,  although  it  is  expressly 
denied  in  Luke  xxiv.  39,  as  spirit,  in  the  sense  in  which 
angels  are  spirits.  On  this  point  the  Jewish  Christians 
most  certainly  agreed  with  Paul."^ 

1  See  Reville's  Histoire  du  Bogme  de  la  Divinite  de  Jesus-Christ,  ch.  4. 

2  Macan,  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  54. 

3  Dr.  Schaff  holds  that  the  appearance  to  Paul  was  an  objective  mani- 
festation "  of  the  ascended  Saviour  coming  down  from  heaven  "  (History 
of  the  Christian  Church,  vol  i.,  p.  313). 


100      THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS 


Again :  "  There  is  to  be  drawn  from  the  various 
accounts  one  deduction  which  goes  very  deep — no  words 
w^ere  heard  from  the  risen  Jesus.  Paul  heard  none ;  in 
his  Epistles  there  is  not  the  sHghtest  countenance  for 
the  belief  that  Paul  heard  words,  although  he  had  the 
strongest  motives  for  referring  to  them  had  he  been 
in  a  position  to  do  so."  ^ 

Evidently  the  resurrection  was  not  in  the  first 
century  the  indubitable  physical  event  which  to  later 
ages  seemed  beyond  question.  That  a  Professor  of 
New  Testament  exegesis  should  feel  compelled,  by 
examination  of  the  accounts  themselves,  to  arrive  at  the 
above  conclusions  is  a  fact  of  the  deepest  significance. 

According  to  the  same  critic,  Clemens  Bomanus, 
Hermas,  Polycarp,  and  Ignatius  make  no  mention  of 
the  ascension  ;  while  the  Didache,  or  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,  a  work  of  the  second  century,  does  not 
refer  to  the  resurrection.  Justin  Martyr,  Irenseus,  and 
Tertullian  appear  to  regard  both  events  as  two  parts  of 
one  act.  The  Apology  oj  Aristides  states  that  after  three 
days  Jesus  rose  again,  and  was  taken  up  into  heaven. 
The  Codex  Bohhiensis  has  an  account  of  angels  coming 
down  from  heaven  and  rising  again  with  Jesus,  after 
darkness  had  come  on  during  the  day.  This  is  inter- 
polated in  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Mark's  Gospel, 
loetween  the  third  and  fourth  verses,  and  its  obvious 
purport  is  to  make  the  resurrection  and  ascension  one 
act.  The  ancient  Gospel  of  Peter  is,  we  believe,  the 
only  work  of  the  kind  which  describes  the  actual 
resurrection,  and  this  is  so  exaggerated  as  to  be  obviously 
legendary.  But  this  document  again  implies  that  the 
ascension  followed  immediately  upon  the  exit  of  Jesus 

1  Above  quotations  from  Encyclopedia  Bihlica,  art.  "  Kesurrection," 
sec.  18. 


THEORY  OF  SUBJECTIVE  IMPRESSIONS       101 

from  the  tomb,  and  adds  the  definite  statement  that  the 
disciples  went  home  to  Galilee,  and  resumed  their 
fishing,  though  it  differs  from  the  fourth  Gospel  as  to 
who  these  disciples  were.^ 

We  may  add  that  the  Jewish  traditions  of  the  dis- 
appearance of  Moses  and  Elijah  may  conceivably  have 
aided  in  the  formation  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus,  a  prophet  whose  mission  transcended  theirs  in 
spirit  and  power,  and  who  could  not  therefore  be  deemed 
less  worthy  of  heavenly  glory.  Woolston  implies  that 
Augustine,  Origen,  St.  John  of  Jerusalem,  St.  Hilary, 
and  St.  Jerome  looked  upon  the  story  of  the  resur- 
rection "  as  emblematical  of  a  spiritual  resurrection."^ 

It  would  ill  become  us  to  regard  the  traditional  con- 
ceptions just  noticed  as  alone  conclusive  against  the 
truth  of  the  resurrection.  What  they  unquestionably 
indicate  is  the  extraordinary  uncertainty  in  which  the 
whole  subject  was  involved  in  the  early  ages  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  the  confused  mingling  of  superstition,  fact, 
and  conjecture  which  then  formed  the  basis  of  its 
doctrinal  system.  All  was  floating,  vague,  intangible, 
and  illogical.  And  from  these  traditional  conceptions 
our  present  Gospel  records  were  in  course  of  time 
constructed. 


1  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica,  art.  "  Eesurrection,"  sec.  5. 
■^  Discourse  on  the  Miracles,  p.  48. 


PAET  II. 

CHRISTIAN  DEFENCES  EXAMINED 


Chapter  I. 

THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

In  the  preceding  section  a  detailed  examination  of  the 
discrepancies  in  the  Gospel  accounts  has  been  dispensed 
with,  partly  because  the  task  has  been  many  times 
performed,  and  partly  because  the  principal  points  will 
arise  in  considering  the  defences  of  the  resurrection 
belief.  The  following  chapters  deal  with  a  few  of  the 
more  prominent  apologists,  who  may  be  taken  as  suffi- 
ciently representing  the  attitude  of  the  Christian 
believer — Dr.  Westcott,  Dr.  Milligan,  and  Mr.  Latham 
standing  for  the  modern  type  of  orthodoxy,  and  Dr. 
Kennedy  for  the  rigidly  supernaturalist  view.  Their 
arguments  comprise  the  principal  reasons  for  holding 
that  the  resurrection  was  a  physical  and  historical  event. 
The  vast  majority  of  modern  apologists  who,  with 
singular  diversities  of  view,  attempt  to  establish  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel  accounts  we  are  compelled  to  leave 
unnoticed.  The  reasonings  of  orthodox  writers^  rest  for 
the  most  part  upon  a  series  of  theological  assumptions, 

1  Of  whom  Gilbert  West,  Chalmers,  Paley,  Candlish,  Edersheim, 
Neander,  Pressens6,  Row,  Macpherson,  Fairbah-n,  Lange,  Salmond,  and 
Farrar  may  be  cited  as  examples. 

103 


104  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 


the  conclusions  drawn  from  which  are  almost  invariably 
implied  in  the  premises.  Their  understanding  of  his- 
torical evidence  suggests  that  the  vaguest  and  most 
undefined  reports  of  a  miracle  are  proof  of  its  actual 
occurrence.  The  more  open-minded  apologists  are  able 
to  arrive  at  only  very  half-hearted  and  inconclusive 
results.  Thus  Professor  Sanday,  while  struggling  to 
keep  within  the  orthodox  fold,  is  compelled  to  admit 
that,  though  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  arose  imme- 
diately and  suddenly,  "  when  we  come  to  details  it 
would  seem  that  from  the  first  there  was  a  certain 
amount  of  confusion  which  was  never  wholly  cleared 
up"i — an  admission  with  which  vanishes  the  positive 
value  of  his  affirmations.  "Whichever  way  we  turn, 
difficulties  meet  us  which  the  documents  to  which  we 
have  access  do  not  enable  us  to  remove."  In  spite  of 
this,  he  holds  that  "  no  difficulty  of  weaving  the  separate 
incidents  into  an  orderly,  well-compacted  narrative  can 
impugn  the  unanimous  belief  of  the  Church  which  lies 
behind  them,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the 
dead  and  appeared  to  the  disciples."^  To  us  it  is  a 
truism  that  no  sober  reasoner  can  or  ought  to  believe  a 
miracle  on  evidence  which  he  perceives  to  be  imperfect 
and  conflicting.  Nor  is  it  by  any  means  a  fact  that  the 
belief  of  the  early  Christians  was  ''  unanimous."  The 
circumstance  that  there  is  an  *'  ascending  scale  "  in  the 
alleged  appearances  is  regarded  by  Professor  Sanday  as 
evidence  of  their  reality.  Is  it  not  more  consistent  with 
the  idea  of  legendary  growth  ? 

In  reference  to  the  Vision  Theory,  we  may  briefly  note 
Professor  Sanday's  conclusion.  "  This  is  the  least 
that  must    be  asserted :   A  belief   that  has  had   such 

1  Hastings^  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "  Jesus  Christ." 
'-^  Ibid. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  105 


incalculably  momentous  results  must  have  had  an  adequate 
cause.  No  apparition,  no  mere  hallucination  of  the 
senses,  ever  yet  moved  the  world.  But  we  may  doubt 
whether  the  theory,  even  as  Keim  presents  it,  is  adequate 
or  really  conclusive.  It  belongs  to  the  process  of  so 
trimming  down  the  element  that  we  call  supernatural  in 
the  Gospel  narratives  as  to  bring  them  within  the  limits 
of  everyday  experiences.  But  that  process  we  must 
needs  think  has  failed.  The  facts  are  too  obstinate,  the 
evidence  for  them  is  too  strong ;  and  the  measures  which 
we  apply  are  too  narrow  and  bounded.  It  is  better  to 
keep  substantially  the  form  which  a  sound  tradition  has 
handed  down  to  us,  even  though  its  contents  in  some 
degree  pass  our  comprehension."^ 

Truly  a  "  most  lame  and  impotent  conclusion."  The 
Vision  Theory  may  not  be  "  really  conclusive,"  but  it  is 
far  more  nearly  so  than  a  tradition  the  soundness  of 
which  has  to  be  assumed.  Unless  Professor  Sanday  can 
show  that  religious  enthusiasts  in  the  credulous  first 
century  could  reason  as  we  do  in  the  twentieth,  and  that 
they  had  the  materials  for  reasoning  which  we  possess, 
he  can  hardly  ask  us  to  accept  the  soundness  of  all  their 
traditions.  If  any  should  be  accepted,  reason  must 
determine  which.  For  every  human  belief  an  adequate 
cause  exists  in  its  prior  conditions.  There,  if  at  all,  the 
cause  is  to  be  discovered.  If  it  cannot  be  found,  we  still 
have  no  logical  right  to  invoke  the  supernatural  because 
our  knowledge  of  the  conditions  is  imperfect.  And  one 
may  ask  whether  the  "  incalculably  momentous  "  results 
of  Buddhism  and  Mohammedanism  do  not  justify  a  sub- 
stantially similar  plea.  The  resurrection-belief  we 
regard  as  a  convincing  proof  that  an  "  hallucination  of 

1  Hastings^  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "Jesus  Christ." 


106  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

the  senses  "  has  moved  the  world — or  at  least  a  part  of 
it — but  only,  of  course,  in  conjunction  with  other  forces, 
which  the  apologist  prudently  leaves  out  of  account. 
The  "  trimming  down  "  of  supernatural  relations  origi- 
nating in  ancient  times  needs  not  to  be  excused ;  it  is 
a  necessity  for  mental  progress.  The  facts  are  not 
"obstinate,"  for  no  one  can  state  with  certainty  what 
they  were.  The  evidence  for  the  resurrection  is  not 
"  strong,"  but  weak,  exhibiting  almost  every  defect  which 
it  is  possible  for  evidence  to  possess.  Finally,  a  mere 
tradition  of  past  miraculous  events  which  we  can  neither 
verify  nor  comprehend  is  an  absolutely  unsafe  support 
for  an  alleged  variation  of  natural  law. 

The  tendency  of  Professor  Sanday's  thought  is  shown 
by  his  acceptance  in  some  vague  sense  of  the  legend  of 
the  ascension,  for  which,  as  we  maintain,  no  evidence 
whatever  exists.  *'  The  overarching  sky  is  a  standing 
symbol  for  the  abode  of  God,  and  the  return  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father  was  naturally  represented  as  a  retreat 
within  its  blue  recesses,  the  ethereal  home  of  light  and 
glory.  It  is  sometimes  necessary  that  a  symbol  should 
be  acted  as  well  as  written  or  spoken.  The  disciples 
were  aware  of  a  vanishing,  and  they  knew  that  their 
Lord  must  be  where  his  Father  was."  If  the  goal  of 
the  mission  of  Jesus  was  not  his  resurrection,  but,  as 
Professor  Sanday  states,  his  return  to  the  Father  in 
triumph,  it  is  unaccountable  that  the  fact  was  not  made 
a  little  more  clear.  We  are  content  to  say  that  if  the 
ascension  was,  as  this  extract  implies,  purely  spiritual, 
as  much  a  symbol  as  the  sky  to  which  Jesus  rose,  we  are 
willing  to  interpret  the  New  Testament  account  in  that 
sense.     Must  we  not,  then,  so  interpret  the  resurrection? 

All  this  limping  apologetic  proceeds  on  the  assumption 
that  a  particular  book  must  be  entirely  true  or  entirely 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  107 

false ;  in  other  words,  that  the  critic  is  not  entitled  to 
discriminate  between  its  parts,  or  to  accept  its  credible 
elements  unless  he  swallows  its  incredible  elements  also. 
A  method  so  absurd  would  never  be  applied  to  any  other 
book  than  the  Bible.  If  it  is  wonderful  that  the  Bible 
has  withstood  the  assaults  of  its  "  enemies,"  it  is  still 
more  wonderful  that  it  has  survived  the  defences  of  its 
friends. 

Bishop  Westcott  makes  the  astonishing  statement  that 
"  the  existence  of  a  Christian  society  is  the  first  and  (if 
rightly  viewed)  the  final  proof  of  the  historic  truth  of  the 
miracle  on  which  it  was  founded."^  This  is  an  argu- 
ment which  may  obviously  be  held  to  justify  the  divine 
origin  of  every  faith  under  the  sun,  good,  bad,  or  indif- 
ferent, from  the  monotheism  of  the  Jew  to  the  cosmogony 
of  the  Fiji  Islander. 

Evidently  the  Bishop  does  not  mean  that  all  belief 
proves  the  facts  on  which  it  rests,  for  that  would  imply 
that  belief  is  equivalent  to  knowledge,  and  that  the 
knowledge  of  many  persons  can  be  contradictory,  yet  at 
the  same  time  true.  His  exorbitant  claim  is  judiciously 
confined  to  his  own  faith.  He  must  mean  that  the  par- 
ticular belief  in  the  resurrection  is  of  such  a  character  that 
it  could  not  have  come  into  existence  unless  the  resurrec- 
tion had  been  a  fact.  But  to  arrive  at  this  result  we 
must  discriminate  between  beliefs.  We  must  know  why 
and  how  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  arose.  And  if 
we  discriminate  between  beliefs,  we  are  committed  to  a 
strict  investigation  of  their  origin,  in  the  course  of  which 
differences  of  opinion  inevitably  arise. 

Dr.  Westcott,  however,  presently  adds  a  qualification 

^  Gospel  of  the  Besurrection,  p.  104. 


108  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

which  renders  his  dictum  a  little  less  eccentric.  *'  Unless 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  origin  of  the  Apostolic  belief  in 
the  Resurrection,  with  due  regard  to  the  fulness  of  its 
characteristic  form  and  the  breadth  and  rapidity  of  its 
propagation,  can  be  satisfactorily  explained  on  other 
grounds,  the  belief  itself  is  a  sufficient  proof  of  the 
fact."^  This  at  once  carries  us  from  the  belief  to  the 
grounds  of  the  belief,  from  the  province  of  faith  to 
the  province  of  reason.  It  is  impossible  to  determine 
the  rightness  of  any  belief  without  knowledge  of 
the  whole  of  the  facts  on  which  it  purports  to  be 
founded.  But  the  whole  of  the  facts  relating  to  the 
resurrection  are  not  known  to  anyone.  Are  we,  then,  to 
shut  our  eyes  to  all  possibilities  of  explanation,  to  leave 
out  of  sight  the  conditions  under  which  the  belief  arose, 
and  accept  its  supernatural  origin  without  even  attempt- 
ing to  find  a  natural  basis  for  it  ?  Such  a  course  may 
be  congenial  to  the  believer.  But  the  reasoner  speedily 
finds  that,  though  he  does  not  know  all  the  facts,  he  can 
sufficiently  explain  the  "origin  of  the  Apostolic  belief " 
without  resort  to  the  precarious  supposition  of  miracle. 
Of  the  miracle  itself  Dr.  Westcott  offers  no  '*  proof " 
whatever. 

Referring  to  the  objection  that  the  Christian  Church 
was  founded,  not  on  the  fact  that  Jesus  rose  from  the 
dead,  but  on  the  belief  that  he  did  so,  Bishop  Westcott 
observes:  "Belief  expressed  in  action  is,  for  the  most 
part,  the  strongest  evidence  which  we  can  have  of  any 
historic  event. "^  What  is  meant  by  the  phrase,  "  for 
the  most  part"?  If  there  are  exceptions  to  the  rule, 
how  do  we  know  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  is 
not  one  of  them  ?    We  need  to  be  convinced  that "  belief 

*  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection.  2  jn^^ 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DUEHAM  109 

expressed  in  action"  is  always  infallible  before  we  can 
accept  it  as  guaranteeing  a  supernatural  event.  Belief, 
when  strongly  held,  always  does  express  itself  in  action. 
Does  that  prove  it  to  be  true?  Then  the  visions  of 
Joan  of  Arc  prove  that  St.  Michael  and  St.  Catherine 
actually  appeared  to  her ;  Mohammed's  journey  to 
Jerusalem  on  the  winged  horse  Borak  was  not  a  flight 
of  imagination,  but  a  physical  reality ;  the  visions  of 
innumerable  saints  and  martyrs  are  true  because  these 
persons  expressed  their  various  beliefs  in  action  by  dying 
for  them.  And  the  tenaciously  held  beliefs  of  Ana- 
baptists, Muggletonians,  Southcottians,  Shakers,  Agape- 
monites,  Zionists,  Jezreelites,  the  thousand  and  one 
opposing  sects  of  the  Middle  Ages,  to  say  nothing  of 
those  of  the  numerous  non-Christian  faiths — all  these 
are  true  likewise  ! 

It  is  not  necessarily  the  fact,  however,  that  *'  belief 
expressed  in  action"  is  *' the  strongest  evidence  which 
we  can  have  of  any  historic  event."  Nothing  is  more 
likely  to  warp  and  perturb  the  sobriety  of  the  untutored 
judgment  than  a  belief  which,  by  its  very  fervour, 
translates  itself  into  practical  activity.  And  in  no  other 
sphere  is  this  so  common  as  in  that  of  religion,  where 
the  perversion  of  judgment  by  emotion  is  so  common 
that  it  passes  unnoticed.  Innumerable  are  the  instances 
in  which  the  strength  of  a  conviction  depends,  not  on 
conscious  and  rational  antecedents,  but  on  psychical 
characteristics  which  are  not  consciously  present  to  the 
mind.  The  grim  theology  which  believed  in  predes- 
tination and  everlasting  hell  is  now  discredited  by  the 
diffusion  of  wider  conceptions.  Yet  for  hundreds  of 
years  it  was  so  dominant  that  none  but  the  boldest 
minds  were  even  disposed  to  question  its  conclusions. 
Who  would  now  bring  forward  the  belief  in  hell  as  proof 


110  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

that  hell  is  a  reality?  And  who  will  deny  that  with 
thousands  of  good  men  that  belief  has  been  a  strong 
incentive  to  action  ? 

The  belief  in  the  resurrection  rests  on  a  similar  footing. 
It  is  still  held  with  tenacity,  but  is  being  shifted  from  a 
physical  to  a  spiritual  objective.  The  weakness  of  the 
evidence  is  practically  admitted  by  the  present  tendency 
of  Christian  thought  to  lay  the  stress  of  belief,  not  on  a 
past  occurrence,  but  on  a  present  manifestation  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  in  the  soul  of  the  believer.  It  is,  in  fact, 
the  emotional  vividness  of  a  belief  rather  than  its  intel- 
lectual cogency  which  leads  to  its  being  "  expressed  in 
action."  This  diminishes  the  probability  of  the  belief 
being  the  result  of  any  such  process  of  reasoning  as  would 
guarantee  its  accuracy.  Fervent  faith  scorns  the  prosaic 
operations  of  inductive  reasoning ;  strong  emotion  almost 
always  perturbs  the  intellectual  balance.  A  *'  revivalist  " 
preacher,  holding  a  firm  conviction  of  the  reality  of  hell, 
will,  in  proportion  to  the  intensity  of  his  faith,  be  stimu- 
lated to  the  most  earnest  efforts  towards  saving  other 
persons  from  perdition.^  Yet,  in  spite  of  his  belief  being 
*'  expressed  in  action,"  it  is  a  revolting  falsity.  At  the 
best,  belief  in  hell  is  now  carried  to  a  "  suspense 
account."^  It  seems,  then,  that  the  belief  which  most 
readily  issues  in  practical  activity  is,  in  religion,  as 
likely  as  not  to  be  erroneous  belief.  All  history  shows 
that  complete  religious  sincerity  may  co-exist  with 
intellectual  error,  and  often,  indeed,  promotes  error  by 
disdaining  the  aid  of  mental  cultivation.  Think  of 
the  long  series  of  Christian  dogmas  which  have  grown 

1  The  well-known  revivalist  Mr.  Moody  once  said :  "  If  I  did  not 
believe  in  hell  for  ever,  would  I  come  here  to  preach  night  after  night?" 
{Moodifs  Sermo7is). 

2  E.  Clodd,  Huxley,  p.  183. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DUEHAM  111 

up  not  only  in  disdain  of  reason,  but  with  little  or  no 
support  in  the  very  writings  which  are  thought  to 
sanction  them.  The  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  deity 
of  Jesus,  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  immacu- 
late conception  of  Mary,  her  perpetual  virginity,  her 
"motherhood  of  God";  Papal  infallibility;  the  strict 
observance  of  the  Sabbath — all  these  are  the  result  of 
dogmatic  prepossessions  scarcely  distinguishable  from 
those  to  which  the  defenders  of  a  physical  resurrection 
are  logically  committed. 

What,  then,  is  *'  the  strongest  evidence  we  can  have 
of  any  historic  event"?  Our  reply  must  take  into 
account  both  the  character  of  the  event  and  the  character 
of  the  evidence  available.  A  consistent  and  natural 
account  of  any  occurrence,  confirmed  by  independent 
testimony  which  does  not  violate  logic  and  probability, 
is  the  best  evidence  to  later  times  of  the  truth  of  any 
event  in  history.  This  may  not  be  "  belief  expressed  in 
action  ";  it  is  something  more  reliable — it  is  the  effort 
of  intellectually  qualified  persons  to  relate  the  truth  as 
completely  as  it  is  known  to  them.  The  religious  enthu- 
siast may  be  sober  and  reliable  in  other  respects,  and  a 
valuable  member  of  society  ;  but  he  is  seldom  capable 
of  that  intellectual  breadth  of  view,  that  judicial 
balancing  of  opposite  conclusions,  which  are  so  essential 
to  the  historian. 

With  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  event,  we  need 
scarcely  repeat  the  truism  that  an  occurrence  which  is 
in  conformity  with  experience  is  necessarily  of  a  different 
order  from  an  occurrence  which  is  in  conflict  with 
experience.  The  one,  if  not  actually  proved,  is  suscep- 
tible of  proof ;  the  other  lies  always  beyond  the  scope  of 
proof.  If  we  are  told  that  a  sick  man,  who  had  been 
given  up  by  his  physician,  has  afterwards  recovered,  we 


112  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

have  no  difficulty  in  believing  it,  partly  because  his  death 
was  not  a  certainty,  but  an  inference,  and  partly  because 
similar  recoveries  are  by  no  means  infrequent.  But  if  we 
were  told  that  the  patient  had  actually  died  and  been 
buried,  and  afterwards  returned  to  life,  we  should  at 
once  assume  an  error  rather  than  a  miracle.  The  resur- 
rection cannot  be  proved  by  the  evidence  which  proves 
the  death  of  Julius  Cnesar.  It  is  not  a  very  uncommon 
thing  for  a  ruler  to  be  assassinated.  But  if  it  were 
claimed  that  he  returned  to  life,  no  one  could  rationally 
believe  it  without  vastly  greater  evidence  than  that 
which  sufficiently  attests  his  death.  Yet,  in  the  case  of 
Jesus,  instead  of  having  this  greater  evidence,  we  have 
less  evidence  for  his  resurrection  than  we  have  for  his 
death  ;  we  have  not  even  testimony  which  fulfils  the 
elementary  requirements  of  agreement,  completeness, 
and  probability. 

"  No  one  probably,"  says  Bishop  Westcott,  "  will  deny 
that  the  Resurrection  was  announced  as  a  fact  imme- 
diately after  the  Passion.  Nothing  else  will  explain  the 
origin  of  the  Christian  Church."^  Here  we  have  a 
specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  the  apologist  endeavours 
to  squeeze  concessions  out  of  his  opponents.  The  Bishop 
must  have  been  well  aware  that,  if  the  evidence  does  not 
justify  the  denial  in  question,  it  equally  fails  to  justify 
his  assertion.  We  do  not  know  that  the  accounts  trans- 
mitted are  those  of  eye-witnesses.  Even  if  they  are, 
the  evidence  of  eye-witnesses  belonging  to  that  particular 
age  must  be  received  with  the  greatest  caution.  In  point 
of  fact,  the  gravest  doubt  exists  whether  the  resurrection 
ivas  "  announced  as  a  fact  immediately  after  the  passion." 
The  earliest  Gospel  gives  no  account  of   it.     It   gives 

1  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,  p.  110. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  113 

merely  a  statement  attributed  to  an  *'  angel ";  and,  as  we 
cannot  put  the  angel  into  the  witness-box,  the  statement 
cannot  be  received  as  evidence  of  any  value  whatever. 
The  Gospel  next  in  date  gives  an  obviously  legendary 
account  of  an  appearance  which  it  is  impossible  to  verify, 
or  even  to  connect  with  any  other  incident  in  the  records. 
The  third  Gospel  contains  numerous  entirely  fresh 
details,  which  indicate  that  the  appearances  may  have 
been  of  a  visionary  character.  The  fourth  relates  a 
further  set  of  incidents  of  which  the  other  three  make 
no  mention.  It  is  clear  that  the  story  has  grown  in  the 
telling — that  the  later  details  have  been  added  by  pious 
tradition.  The  chroniclers  related  not  what  did  happen, 
but  what  they  thought  ought  to  have  happened.  And 
the  earliest  of  their  accounts  appeared  more  than  a 
generation  after  the  time  of  the  supposed  events.  The 
question  of  the  competence  of  the  Evangelists  as  historians 
— the  question  whether  they  did  or  did  not  share  the 
superstitions,  the  ignorance,  and  the  strange  interpreta- 
tions of  the  Jewish  scriptures  common  to  their  age — 
becomes  of  the  greatest  importance.  In  examining  their 
narratives  we  are  not  dealing  with  facts  probable  in 
themselves  and  universally  acknowledged  ;  we  are  dealing 
with  an  extremely  vague  tradition  of  facts  which  have 
from  the  first  been  disputed. 

That  nothing  but  the  ''  fact "  of  the  resurrection 
**  will  explain  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church  "  is 
surely  a  rash  statement  for  even  a  Christian  advocate  to 
put  forward.  Primd  facie,  a  miracle  is  not  necessary  to 
the  establishment  of  a  great  religious  system — especially 
one  which  makes  many  appeals  to  human  credulity  and 
weakness,  as  well  as  to  the  human  desire  for  goodness, 
happiness,  and  the  craving  for  immortal  life.  Other 
great  systems  have  been  successfully  established  without 

I 


114  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

a  similar  miracle.  Why  should  we  believe  the  truth  of 
the  resurrection  story  essential  to  the  Christian  religion  ? 
Because,  it  is  said,  the  first  Christians  believed  it.  It  is 
therefore  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  which  really 
explains  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church.  But  that 
the  belief  proves  the  fact  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
admitted.  Ample  reasons  have  already  been  adduced  to 
show  that  the  first  Christians,  in  spite  of  the  instructions 
said  to  have  been  given  them  by  Jesus,  were  undoubtedly 
mistaken  on  several  important  questions.  They  may 
have  formed  erroneous  conceptions  with  regard  to  the 
resurrection  also.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  we 
are  in  reality  ignorant  of  the  true  nature  of  their  original 
belief.  Probability  favours  the  modern  critical  view  that 
this  belief  was  based,  not  on  the  actual  reappearance  of 
the  resuscitated  body  of  Jesus,  but  on  strong  preconcep- 
tions and  supposed  visionary  appearances  from  heaven — 
a  view  which  finds  some  support  in  the  narratives  of  the 
third  and  fourth  Gospels.  It  is  to  Bishop  Westcott 
incredible  that  the  disciples  should  have  been  deceived  ; 
the  empty  tomb^  and  the  widely  extended  manifestations 
of  Jesus  being  treated  as  historic  certainties.  Moreover, 
*'  Christ  was  with  his  disciples  for  forty  days."^  We 
should  say  that  the  disciples  were  precisely  the  kind  of 
persons  to  be  deceived  in  a  matter  appealing  so  strongly 
to  their  religious  sympathies,  and  that  they  would  be 
likely  to  receive  without  close  examination  reports  which 
appeared  to  confirm  their  interpretations  of  the  alleged 
prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  writers.    Whether  or 


1  "  The  empty  tomb  is  beyond  question  "  (Professor  James  Orr,  Christian 
Vieiv  of  God  and  the  World,  p.  514).  "  The  empty  tomb  on  the  third  day 
can  by  no  means  be  regarded  as  a  historical  incident"  (Harnack,  History 
of  Dogma,  vol.  i.,  p.  85).  j 

2  Gospel  of  the  Eesurrection,  pp.  111-12. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  115 

not  this  was  so,  it  is  an  extreme  claim  to  urge  on  behalf 
of  any  body  of  men,  especially  of  men  living  in  a  remote 
and  credulous  age,  that  they  were  incapable  of  being 
deceived.  Would  Dr.  Westcott  admit  the  argument  if 
used  in  support  of  a  faith  alien  to  his  own  ?  A  precisely 
similar  claim  has  been  urged,  and  with  a  more  direct 
cogency,  on  behalf  of  Mormonism.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  we  have  not  the  testimony  of  the  original 
disciples  themselves,  and  do  not  know  what  they  thought, 
believed,  or  preached.  We  have  merely  statements 
attributed  to  them  by  later  writers,  whose  accuracy  we 
are  compelled  by  their  own  statements  to  suspect.  As 
to  the  empty  tomb,  the  whole  episode  is  pronounced  by 
the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica  to  be  unhistorical.  The  mani- 
festations of  Jesus  may  have  been  reported  as  *'  widely 
extended."  The  question  is,  did  they  occur  at  all  ? 
Contradictory  accounts  afford  little  presumption  in  favour 
of  their  historical  reality.  And  to  say  that  Jesus  was 
"  with  his  disciples  for  forty  days,"  when  not  one  of  the 
Gospels  makes  such  a  statement,  and  two  of  them 
exclude  it,  is  to  bring  rational  belief  to  close  quarters 
with  irrational  credulity.  The  forty  days'  fast  in  the 
wilderness,  and  the  forty  days'  post-resurrection  life  of 
Jesus,  are  the  Christian  analogies  with  the  legendary 
forty  days'  fast  of  Moses  in  the  mount,  the  new  dispen- 
sation being  made  to  correspond  with  the  old  by  virtue 
of  those  arbitrary  prepossessions  of  which  we  find  so 
many  traces  in  the  New  Testament  records. 

"  There  was  no  predisposition,"  says  Bishop  Westcott, 
"  among  the  Christians  to  believe  in  a  Resurrection,  nor 
among  the  Jews."^  The  truth  of  this  statement  may 
easily  be    tested.      According  to  the   accounts  in  the 

1  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,  p.  114. 


116  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

fourteenth  chapter  of  Matthew  and  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Mark,  the  very  first  thought  of  Herod  when  he  heard  of 
Jesus  was  that  John  the  Baptist  had  returned  to  life. 
The  natural  assumption  that  another  popular  preacher 
had  appeared  does  not  even  occur  to  him.  He  does  not 
merely  surmise  that  possibly  a  supernatural  intervention 
had  taken  place,  but  at  once  jumps  to  the  positive 
conclusion  that  a  man  whose  head  he  had  struck  off  had 
reappeared  with  it  on  his  shoulders :  "  It  is  John,  whom 
I  beheaded;  he  is  risen  from  the  dead."^  Does  this 
indicate  no  predisposition  to  believe  not  merely  in  the 
possibility,  but  in  the  actual  occurrence,  of  resurrections 
from  the  dead  ?  Such  things,  in  the  view  of  the 
Evangelist,  present  so  little  difficulty  to  Herod  that  they 
do  not  even  arouse  astonishment,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
appear  to  him  the  most  natural  explanation.  If  a 
monarch  could  form  such  an  absurd  idea,  what  must 
have  been  the  popular  conceptions  of  the  time  ? 

Herod,  however,  could  not  have  been  so  foolish  as 
Matthew  and  Mark  represent.  Another  Gospel  writer 
gives  an  account  of  the  same  circumstance  which  has  a 
far  stronger  claim  to  probability.  Luke  relates  that  "  it 
was  said  by  some  that  John  was  risen  from  the  dead  " — a 
supposition  clearly  rejected  by  Herod  himself,  for  he 
says:  ''John  have  I  beheaded:  but  who  is  this?"^ 
Obviously  the  credulity  which,  without  even  a  moment's 
examination,  assumes  that  a  dead  man  has  returned  to 
life  is  to  be  charged  not  against  Herod,  but  solely  against 
the  two  Gospel-writers.  And  if  these  writers  would 
think  it  perfectly  natural  that  John  the  Baptist  should 
rise  from  the  dead,  would  they  not  have  a  far  stronger 
predisposition  to  believe  in  the  reported  resurrection  of 
their  Master  ? 

1  Matt.  xiv.  2  ;  Mark  vi.  16.  2  Lute  ix.  7.9. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  117 

The  suppositions  mentioned  in  Matt.  xvi.  14,  Mark  viii. 
28,  and  Luke  ix.  19,  that  Jesus  was  really  John  the 
Baptist,  or  Elijah,  or  Jeremiah,  or  one  of  the  prophets, 
exhibit  the  same  readiness  to  believe  that  a  dead  man 
can  return  to  life.  The  question  said  to  have  been  put 
to  John  by  the  Jews,  ''Art  thou  Elias?"^  further 
shows  the  widespread  existence  of  this  particular  form  of 
credulity.  According  to  Matt.  xi.  14,  Jesus  expressly 
declared  that  John  was  Elias,  though  John  himself  as 
distinctly  said  he  was  not.  Very  probably  these  accounts 
are  all  inaccurate,  but  they  clearly  evidence  the  super- 
stition of  the  Gospel-writers,  if  not  that  of  the  Jews. 
Yet  the  apologist  is  hardy  enough  to  declare  that  there 
was  no  predisposition  among  either  to  believe  in  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.  If  Dr.  Westcott  is  right,  the 
Gospel  accounts  are  not  worthy  of  the  smallest  credence 
as  histories. 

Jesus  is  reported  to  have  raised  three  persons  to  life — 
the  daughter  of  Jairus,  the  widow's  son  at  Nain,  and 
Lazarus.^  On  the  supposition  that  these  reports  origi- 
nated while  the  first  disciples  were  still  alive,  could  they 
possibly  imagine  that  a  person  whom  they  held  to  be 
divine,  who  had  proved  his  power  to  bring  the  dead  back 
to  life,  would  be  unable  to  exert  this  power  in  his  own 
case?  No ;  to  them  *'  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should 
be  holden  "  of  death.  In  John  vi.  40,  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  promised  that  he  would  at  the  last  day  raise  up 
those  who  believed  in  him.  If  he  made  such  a  claim, 
would  it  not  create  in  those  who  accepted  it  a  pre- 
disposition to  believe  that  he  would  himself  be  raised  ? 
Even  his  disciples  are  said  to  have  been  endowed  by  him 

1  John  i.  21. 

'^  Little  weight  can  be  attached  to  these  accounts,  because  they  may  be 
quite  unhistorical. 


118  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

with  the  power  not  only  to  heal  the  sick,  but  to  raise  the 
dead.^ 

Beyond  all  this  we  have  the  repeated  predictions  of 
Jesus  to  his  followers  that  he  actually  would  return  to 
life  after  being  put  to  death.  These  predictions  are 
reported  in  such  precise  terms  that,  if  delivered, 
stupidity  itself  could  not  fail  to  understand  them,  for  the 
circumstances  would  stamp  them  indelibly  upon  the 
memory  of  his  hearers.^  Why  do  modern  apologists  tell 
us  that  the  disciples  knew  nothing  of  these  prophecies  ? 
They  were  either  made  or  not  made.  If  the  former,  it  is 
simply  incredible  that  they  could  have  been  forgotten  by 
the  friends  of  Jesus,  yet  remembered  by  his  enemies.  If 
they  were  not  made,  the  Gospel-writers  who  assert 
that  they  were  solemnly  and  emphatically  delivered  by 
Jesus  are  self-convicted  of  flagrant  error,  and  cannot  be 
trusted  in  the  simplest  statements.  If  these  predictions 
were  made,  they  must  of  necessity  have  created  an  expec- 
tation that  they  would  be  fulfilled.  Even  if  the  actual 
words  were  forgotten,  the  idea  must  have  remained 
present  to  the  minds  of  the  disciples.  If  the  predictions 
were  not  made,  words  have  been  deliberately  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Jesus  which  he  did  not  utter.  Men  who 
would  do  that  deserve  little  credit  when  they  relate 
miracles.  Whether  or  not  the  Evangelists  were  con- 
sciously fraudulent  need  not  be  discussed,  since  we  do 
not  know  who  they  were  ;  but  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 
assume  that  their  language  merely  illustrates  the  later 
tendency  to  clothe  Jesus  with  the  attribute  of  divinity, 
and  consequently  of  superhuman  power  and  superhuman 
foreknowledge  of  the  future.     Writing  not  from  personal 

'  Matt.  X.  8. 

'•^  Matt.  xvi.  21,  xvii.  23,  xx.  19  ;  Mark  viii.  31,  ix.  31,  x.  34  ;  Luke 
ix.  22  ;  xviii.  33. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  119 

knowledge,  but  merely  handling  a  confused  body  of 
traditions,  the  Gospel- writers  attributed  to  Jesus  all,  and 
more  than  all,  the  characteristics  which  they  believed 
the  Messiah  must  have  displayed.  A  passage  in  Hosea 
expresses  in  Oriental  imagery  the  conviction  that  divine 
power  will  restore  believers  from  depression  to  spiritual 
favour  :  "  After  two  days  will  he  revive  us  ;  in  the  third 
day  he  will  raise  us  up,  and  we  shall  live  in  his  sight."  ^ 
Curiously  enough,  this  saying,  though  comparatively 
explicit,  is  nowhere  quoted  in  the  New  Testament,  but 
appears  to  be  referred  to  in  the  vague  expressions 
"  according  to  the  scriptures,"  ''  he  opened  to  us  the 
scriptures,"  which  afford  some  latitude  for  fanciful 
exegesis.  The  passage  is  not  a  prophecy  of  Christ's 
resurrection,  or  of  any  event  in  the  distant  future.  So 
with  the  quotation  from  Psalm  xvi. :  "  Thou  wilt  not 
leave  my  soul  in  hell,  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  holy 
one  to  see  corruption."^  In  saying  this  was  spoken  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ  Peter  simply  perverts  the 
original  meaning.  Persons  accustomed  to  something 
like  exactitude  of  thought  find  great  difQculty  in  even 
understanding  a  mental  tendency  which  sees  a  definite 
prediction  in  an  irrelevant  analogy,  and  unconsciously 
misleads  by  asserting  as  facts  what  are  nothing  but  the 
naive  explanations  of  ignorance. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  it  is  impossible  to 
admit  Bishop  Westcott's  contention  that  no  predisposition 
to  belief  in  a  resurrection  existed  among  the  disciples  of 
Jesus.  If  the  records  are  accurate,  a  very  strong 
expectation  to  this  effect  must  have  been  formed  among 
his  followers.  If  no  such  expectation  existed,  the 
Gospels  are  seriously  inaccurate  in  stating  that  Jesus 

1  Hosea  vi.  2.  2  ^cts  ii.  27, 


120  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

had  on  several  occasions  distinctly  foretold  his  rising 
from  the  dead,  and  on  many  other  occasions  implied  its 
possibility.  It  must  be  added  that  to  us  it  appears  a 
series  of  clumsy  devices  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelists 
to  relate  that  the  alleged  prediction  recurred  to  the 
memory  of  the  disciples  only  after  the  death  of  Jesus ; 
to  put  into  his  mouth  a  promise  that  this  should  be  done 
by  extra-natural  agency ;  and,  in  addition,  to  attribute 
to  the  disciples  such  incredible  stupidity  that  when  the 
prediction  was  uttered  for  the  second  time  they  questioned 
among  themselves  as  to  '*  what  the  rising  from  the  dead 
should  mean."  They  could  not  have  disputed  about  a 
conception  which  was  perfectly  familiar  to  them,  which 
is  represented  as  an  obvious  reflection  to  the  non-believing 
Herod,  and  which  finally  they  had  themselves  seen  their 
Master  illustrate  on  two  distinct  occasions.-^  All  they 
could  have  been  perplexed  about  was  the  application  of 
the  idea  to  their  Master,  though  his  words  were  distinct. 

The  last  point  in  Bishop  Westcott's  argument  which 
calls  for  notice  relates  to  the  alleged  appearance  of  Jesus 
to  &Ye  hundred  persons.  This  incident  is  commonly 
treated  as  if  it  were  fully  established,  and  the  circum- 
stances fully  known,  thus  affording  a  complete  and  final 
answer  to  all  objections.  "It  is,"  says  the  Bishop, 
"  unintelligible  that  there  should  be  simultaneous 
perception  by  many  persons  of  an  alleged  phenomenon 
unless  it  was  objective."^  This  assumes,  first,  the  truth 
of  the  story;  second,  the  impossibility  of  the  same 
subjective  experience  actuating  a  number  of  persons  at 
the  same  time.  We  shall  bring  forward  grounds  for 
thinking  the  Bishop  in  error  on  each  point. 

Apologists  are  in  the  habit  of  confusing  the  issue  by 

^  Matt,  ix.;  Mark  v.;  Luke  vii.  and  viii. 
2  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection^  p.  111. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  121 

using  the  term  "  testimony "  in  two  different  senses. 
They  invariably  treat  the  report  of  an  unknown  person's 
testimony  as  of  equal  value  with,  and  of  precisely  the 
same  purport  as,  the  direct  testimony  of  such  person — 
assuming  he  could  be  produced.  Nothing  could  be  more 
fallacious  or  less  justifiable.  A  distinction  must  be 
drawn  between  a  person's  statements  and  their  reproduc- 
tion by  someone  else.  "  Never  mind  what  the  soldier 
said,"  objects  the  judge  in  Pickwick;  "the  soldier's 
statement  is  not  evidence."  The  distinction  is  certainly 
just.  Secondhand  testimony  to  the  supernatural  can 
never  be  safely  treated  as  firsthand  testimony ;  both 
because  it  cannot  be  dissected  or  supplemented,  and 
because  of  the  ever-increasing  liability  to  error  which 
affects  transmitted  statements. 

It  cannot,  in  fact,  be  conceded  that  this  manifestation 
to  five  hundred  persons  ever  happened.  We  have  not 
the  testimony  to  that  effect  of  any  one  of  their  number. 
The  only  New  Testament  writer  who  mentions  it  is 
Paul,  and  he  does  so  in  such  vague  terms  that  no  clear 
conception  can  be  got  out  of  them.  He  does  not  state 
when,  or  where,  the  manifestation  took  place.  He  does 
not  name  the  witnesses,  or  any  of  them,  or  give  the 
faintest  clue  to  their  identity.  The  incident  is  entirely 
unconfirmed  by  the  writers  of  the  four  Gospels — surely 
an  "unintelligible"  supposition  if  they  had  ever  heard 
of  the  most  convincing  of  all  the  alleged  appearances. 
Paul  nowhere  claims  that  he  personally  was  one  of  these 
five  hundred  w^itnesses.  We  are  therefore  compelled  to 
conclude  that  he  merely  refers  to  a  report  current  at  the 
time.  And  it  may  be  suspected  that  Paul  is  not  referring 
to  a  physical  event,  but  to  a  spiritual  "revelation" 
similar  to  his  own  ;  in  which  case  he  would  be  treating  the 
total  number  of  believers  as  testifiers  to  an  experienced 


122  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

fact  of  the  inner  life.  He  does  not  state  that  he  took 
any  pains  to  verify  the  report,  and  we  can  from  his 
own  writings  form  an  opinion  as  to  whether  he  was 
likely  to  have  done  so.  "  Since  it  is  impossible  to 
believe  that  so  important  an  appearance  could  have  been 
omitted  by  those  who  wrote  professedly  on  the  subject, 
if  they  believed  it,  it  follows  that  Paul  adopted  a  story 
which  they  disbelieved  or  neglected,  and  consequently 
that  he  was  far  from  rigid  in  investigating  the  historical 
basis  of  the  accounts  of  the  return  of  Jesus." ^  If  belief 
in  such  an  appearance  was  current  when  Paul  wrote,  it 
must  have  ceased  to  be  so  before  any  of  the  Gospels 
appeared.  This  is  a  clear  presumption  of  its  unreality. 
Ought  one  to  accept  without  a  fragment  of  evidence  the 
truth  of  a  mere  report  of  an  occurrence  absolutely 
opposed  to  universal  experience  ?  It  is  said  that  Paul 
would  not  have  made  such  a  statement  had  it  been 
erroneous,  because  he  appealed  to  a  number  of  then 
living  witnesses  who  could  have  exposed  any  error. 
How  do  we  know  that  they  did  not  do  so  ?  That  no 
writings  in  contradiction  of  Paul's  words  have  come 
down  to  us  is  no  proof  that  there  never  were  any ;  for 
we  know  that,  in  later  ages  of  the  Church,  writings 
which  savoured  of  "  heresy "  were  systematically 
destroyed.  But  assuming  that  Paul's  statements  were 
never  challenged,  they  are  not  thereby  shown  to  be  true. 
Can  we  imagine  that  the  Corinthian  believers  under  the 
spell  of  the  Apostle's  powerful  personality  would  have 
questioned  his  assertions  unless  they  had  grave  reasons 
for  disputing  his  authority  ?  Can  we  suppose  that  they 
would  have  sent  from  Greece  to  Judasa  in  order  to  verify 
what,  as  Christians,  they  were  willing  to  accept  as  one 

*  C.  C.  Hennell,  Inquiry  into  the  Origins  of  Christianity,  p.  189. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  123 

of  their  principal  doctrines  ? — that  they  would,  in  a 
manner  totally  foreign  to  the  tendencies  of  the  age, 
have  taken  the  trouble  to  ascertain  the  names  and 
addresses  of  a  number  of  persons,  and  to  sift  their 
evidence  with  judicial  impartiality  ?  Such  a  proceeding 
would  probably  not  have  occurred  to  them.  Yet,  in 
spite  of  this  improbability,  have  we  any  right  to  assert 
that  they  did  not  take  these  steps?  If  they  did,  the 
result  is  absolutely  unknown ;  but,  judging  from  the 
fact  that  doubts  as  to  a  general  resurrection  existed 
among  Paul's  Corinthian  converts,  it  is  by  no  means 
impossible  that  his  previous  verbal  teaching  on  this 
subject  (of  which  the  passage  in  his  Epistle  seems  to  be 
a  recapitulation)  had  been  examined  and  found  in  some 
degree  unsatisfactory. 

This  argument  that  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
ought  to  be  accepted  because,  so  far  as  we  know,  they 
were  not  contradicted,  is  a  strangely  precarious  support 
for  accounts  of  supernatural  occurrences.  What  we 
want  to  ascertain  is  the  intrinsic  credibility,  the  eviden- 
tial value,  of  Paul's  statement.  Two  lines  of  bald  asser- 
tion cannot  be  deemed  to  establish  the  reality  of  an 
event  at  variance  with  universal  experience. 

We  do  not  insinuate  that  Paul  propagated  a  report 
which  he  knew  to  be  false.  But  was  he  capable  of  the 
rational  discrimination  which  in  our  own  time  a  sober 
reasoner  would  bring  to  bear  on  such  a  question?  The 
mind  of  his  age  revelled  in  the  supernatural,  and,  though 
he  was  probably  less  superstitious  than  the  majority,  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  able  to  avoid  mingling 
impressions  derived  from  objective  realities  with  impres- 
sions which  had  no  more  than  a  subjective  and  idealistic 
basis. 

Was  the  appearance  to  the  ^we  hundred  of  a  visionary 


124  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

character  analogous  to  that  experienced  by  Paul  at  his 
conversion  ?  To  Dr.  Westcott  such  an  explanation 
appears  incredible.  Yet  it  is  none  the  less  a  fact  that 
equally  strange  psychical  phenomena  are  on  record. 

Constantino  the  Great  is  said  to  have  had  a  vision  of 
the  cross  which  encouraged  him  in  his  military  opera- 
tions. According  to  Eusebius,  "  at  mid-day,  when  the 
sun  was  beginning  to  decline,  he  saw  with  his  own  eyes 
the  trophy  of  a  cross  of  light  in  the  heavens,  above  the 
sun,  bearing  the  inscription,  By  this  conquer;  he  himself, 
and  his  whole  army  also,  being  struck  with  amazement."^ 
Eusebius  states  that  this  account  was  given  to  him  by 
the  Emperor  himself,  so  that  here  we  have  the  testimony 
of  the  original  witness  handed  down  by  a  known  author, 
the  first  of  which  conditions  is  absent  from  Paul's  state- 
ment. Yet  who  would  be  so  foolish  as  to  believe  in  the 
reality  of  Constantino's  vision,  though  beheld  by  a  ''whole 
army,"  numbering  many  times  five  hundred  persons? 
If  Eusebius  had  made  a  similar  statement  regarding  the 
resurrection,  every  Christian  apologist  in  Europe  would 
treat  it  as  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact. 

In  his  Letters  on  Demonology  and  Witchcraft  Sir  Walter 
Scott  makes  the  following  judicious  observations  : — 

Even  in  the  field  of  death,  and  amid  the  mortal  tug  of 
combat  itself,  strong  belief  has  wrought  the  same  wonder 
which  we  have  hitherto  mentioned  as  occurring  in  soli- 
tude and  amid  darkness ;  and  those  who  were  themselves 
on  the  verge  of  the  world  of  spirits,  or  employed  in 
despatching  others  to  these  gloomy  regions,  conceived 
they  beheld  the  apparitions  of  those  beings  whom  their 
national  mythology  associated  with  such  scenes.  In  such 
moments  of  undecided  battle,  amid  the  violence,  hurry, 
and  confusion  of  ideas  incident  to  the  situation,  the 
ancients  supposed  that  they  saw  their  deities  Castor  and 

1  Quoted  in  The  Non-Christian  Gross,  by  J.  D.  Parsons,  p.  67. 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  125 

Pollux,  fighting  in  the  van  for  their  encouragement ;  the 
heathen  Scandinavians  beheld  the  choosers  of  the  slain  ; 
and  the  Catholics  were  no  less  easily  led  to  recognise  the 
warlike  St.  George  or  St.  James  in  the  very  front  of  the 
strife,  showing  them  the  way  to  conquest.  Such  appari- 
tions, being  generally  visible  to  a  multitude,  have  in  all  times 
been  supported  by  the  greatest  strength  of  testimony.  When 
the  common  feeling  of  danger,  and  the  animating  burst 
of  enthusiasm,  act  on  the  feelings  of  many  men  at  once, 
their  minds  hold  a  natural  correspondence  with  each 
other,  as  it  is  said  is  the  case  with  stringed  instruments 
tuned  to  the  same  pitch,  of  which,  when  one  is  played,  the 
chords  of  the  others  are  supposed  to  vibrate  in  unison  with 
the  tones  produced.  If  an  artful  or  enthusiastic  indi- 
vidual exclaims,  in  the  heat  of  action,  that  he  perceives 
an  apparition  of  the  romantic  kind  which  has  been  inti- 
mated, his  companions  catch  at  the  idea  with  emulation, 
and  most  are  willing  to  sacrifice  the  conviction  of  their 
own  senses,  rather  than  allow  that  they  did  not  witness 
the  same  favourable  emblem,  from  which  all  draw  confi- 
dence and  hope.  One  warrior  catches  the  idea  from 
another ;  all  are  alike  eager  to  acknowledge  the  present 
miracle,  and  the  battle  is  won  before  the  mistake  is  dis- 
covered. In  such  cases  the  number  of  persons  present, 
which  would  otherwise  lead  to  the  detection  of  the  fallacy, 
becomes  the  means  of  strengthening  it. 

These  remarks  are  specially  pertinent  to  the  alleged 
appearances  of  Jesus  after  his  death  to  many  persons 
simultaneously.  Various  causes  must  at  that  crisis  have 
combined  to  arouse  a  contagious  enthusiasm  which 
leaped,  like  an  electric  spark,  from  breast  to  breast.  We 
have  first  the  impress  of  Jesus's  personality,  which 
resulted  in  the  conviction  of  his  disciples  that  he  was  the 
Messiah,  victorious  over  sin,  destined  to  be  also 
victorious  over  death ;  then  the  temporary  eclipse  of  that 
idea ;  then  its  rapid  revival,  stimulated  by  feelings  of 
deep  personal  affection,  by  shame  at  their  desertion  of  a 
righteous  leader,  by  the  impression  that  they  must  have 


126  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

failed  to  grasp  the  spiritual  purport  of  his  teachings. 
We  have  then  the  dominance  of  the  idea  that  definite 
predictions  of  his  death  and  resurrection  must  have 
existed  in  the  Old  Testament  (where  they  were  accord- 
ingly found),  combined  with  a  strong  conviction  that  God 
would  not  allow  his  cause  to  end  in  shameful  defeat.  As 
action  is  followed  by  reaction,  intense  disappointment 
often  gives  birth  to  abounding  hope.  The  death  of  Jesus 
was  viewed  as  his  entrance  on  a  higher  life — a  belief 
which  W'Ould  soon  be  thought  to  involve  a  rising  from  the 
dead,  at  first  spiritually,  afterwards  physically.  We 
have  the  ignorance  of  all  natural  processes  and  critical 
methods  which  necessarily  results  in  ready  acceptance  of 
the  marvellous,  in  angels,  heavenly  visions,  and  other 
divine  manifestations.  We  have  the  powerful  sentiment 
of  fellowship  which  knits  together  a  small  company  of 
faithful  believers,  and  is  kindled  into  fervour  by  the  very 
unpopularity  of  their  cause  with  the  wealthy  and  official 
classes.  It  would  be  to  disregard  all  rules  of  reason  and 
probability  to  hold  that  these  considerations  did  not 
materially  aid  in  producing  in  the  followers  of  Jesus  a 
strong  disposition  to  accept  the  reports  of  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  their  own  subjective  experiences,  as  conclusive 
proof,  where  modern  minds  would  find  such  evidence 
totally  insufficient. 
Scott  proceeds  : — 

Of  this  disposition  to  see  as  much  of  the  supernatural 
as  is  seen  by  others  around,  or,  in  other  words,  to  trust 
to  the  eyes  of  others  rather  than  to  our  own,  we  may 
take  the  liberty  to  quote  two  remarkable  instances. 

The  first  is  from  the  Historia  Verdadera  of  Don  Bernal 
Diaz  del  Castillo,  one  of  the  companions  of  the  celebrated 
Cortez  in  his  Mexican  conquest.  After  having  given  an 
account  of  a  great  victory  over  extreme  odds,  he  mentions 
the  report  inserted  in  the  contemporary  Chronicle  of 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  127 

Gomara,  that  Saint  lago  had  appeared  on  a  white  horse 
in  van  of  the  combat,  and  led  on  his  beloved  Spaniards 
to  victory.  It  is  very  curious  to  observe  the  Castilian 
cavalier's  internal  conviction  that  the  rumour  arose  out 
of  a  mistake,  the  cause  of  which  he  explains  from  his 
own  observation,  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  does  not 
venture  to  disown  the  miracle.  The  honest  Conquestador 
owns  that  he  himself  did  not  see  this  animating  vision ;  ^ 
nay,  that  he  beheld  an  individual  cavalier,  named 
Francisco  de  Morla,  mounted  on  a  chestnut  horse,  and 
fighting  strenuously  in  the  very  place  where  St.  James 
is  said  to  have  appeared.  But,  instead  of  proceeding  to 
draw  the  necessary  inference,  the  devout  Conquestador 
exclaims :  "  Sinner  that  I  am,  what  am  I  that  I  should 
have  beheld  the  blessed  Apostle  ?" 

The  other  instance  of  the  infectious  character  of  super- 
stition occurs  in  a  Scottish  book ;  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  refers,  in  its  first  origin,  to  some  uncommon 
appearance  of  the  aurora  borealis,  or  the  northern  lights, 
which  do  not  appear  to  have  been  seen  in  Scotland  so 
frequently  as  to  be  accounted  a  common  and  familiar 
atmospherical  phenomenon  until  the  beginning  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  passage  is  striking  and  curious, 
for  the  narrator,  Peter  Walker,  though  an  enthusiast, 
was  a  man  of  credit,  and  does  not  even  affect  to  have 
seen  the  wonders,  the  reality  of  which  he  unscrupulously 
adopts  on  the  testimony  of  others,  to  whose  eyes  he 
trusts  rather  than  to  his  own.^  The  conversion  of  the 
sceptical  gentleman  of  whom  he  speaks  is  highly  illus- 
trative of  popular  credulity  carried  away  into  enthusiasm 
or  into  imposture  by  the  evidence  of  those  around,  and 
at  once  shows  the  imperfection  of  such  a  general  testi- 
mony, and  the  ease  with  which  it  is  procured,  since  the 
general  excitement  of  the  moment  impels  even  the  more 
cold-blooded  and  judicious  persons  present  to  catch  up 
the  ideas  and  echo  the  exclamations  of  the  majority, 
who  from  the  first  had  considered  the  heavenly  pheno- 
menon as  a  supernatural  weapon-schaw,  held  for  the 
purpose  of  a  sign  and  warning  of  civil  wars  to  come. 

^  Compare  the  similar  avowal  in  Matt,  xxviii.  17. 
^  Precisely  the  case  with  the  Gospel  writers. 


128  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 


"In  the  year  1686,  in  the  months  of  June  and  July," 
says  the  honest  chronicler,  "  many  yet  alive  can  witness  ^ 
that  about  the  Crossford  Boat,  two  miles  beneath  Lanark, 
especially  at  the  Mains,  on  the  water  of  Clyde,  many 
people  gathered  together  for  several  afternoons,  where 
there  were  showers  of  bonnets,  hats,  guns,  and  swords, 
which  covered  the  trees  and  the  ground  ;  companies  of 
men  in  arms  marching  in  order  upon  the  waterside ; 
companies  meeting  companies,  going  all  through  other, 
and  then  all  falling  to  the  ground  and  disappearing; 
other  companies  immediately  appeared,  marching  the 
same  way.  I  went  there  three  afternoons  together,  and, 
as  I  observed,  there  were  two-thirds  of  the  people  that 
were  together  saw,  and  a  third  that  saw  not ;  and,  though 
I  could  see  nothing,  there  was  such  a  fright  and  trembling 
on  those  that  did  see  that  was  discernible  to  all  from 
those  that  saw  not.  There  was  a  gentleman  standing 
next  to  me  who  spoke  as  too  many  gentlemen  and  others 
speak,  who  said :  *  A  pack  of  damned  witches  and  war- 
locks that  have  the  second  sight !  The  devil  ha't  do  I 
see  ';  and  immediately  there  was  a  discernible  change  in 
his  countenance.  With  as  much  fear  and  trembling  as 
any  woman  I  saw  there,  he  called  out :  *  All  you  that  do 
not  see  say  nothing ;  for  I  persuade  you  it  is  matter  of 
fact,  and  discernible  to  all  that  is  not  stone-blind.'  And 
those  who  did  see  told  what  locks  the  guns  had,  and 
their  length  and  wideness  ;  and  what  handles  the  swords 
had,  whether  small  or  three-barr'd,  or  Highland  guards  ; 
and  the  closing  knots  of  the  bonnets,  black  or  blue; 
and  those  who  did  see  them  there,  whenever  they  went 
abroad,  saw  a  bonnet  and  a  sword  drop  in  the  way." 

If  a  similar  story  appeared  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
we  should  be  assured  that  it  was  divinely  inspired,  that 
its  details  could  not  be  explained  except  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  their  truth,  and  that  the  conversion  of  the  scoffer 
could  not  possibly  be  an  invention.  Obviously,  if  the 
military  apparition  had  been  real,  it  must  have  been 

1  Compare  Paul's  expression,  "  Of  whom  the  greater  part  remain 
until  now." 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  129 

seen,  not  by  some  only,  but  by  all,  of  those  present. 
The  candid  admission  that  all  did  not  see  it,  while 
sufficient  warrant  for  the  narrator's  honesty,  is  so  far 
from  establishing  the  truth  of  his  account  that  it  forms 
one  of  the  chief  reasons  for  denying  the  objective  reality 
of  the  incident. 

These  stories  cast  some  light  on  the  Gospel  narratives 
of  the  resurrection,  for  they  show  how  large  a  part  the 
subjective  element  plays  in  each,  and  how  completely 
this  subjective  factor  is  determined  by  the  mental  con- 
ditions of  a  particular  age.  They  show  how  a  relation 
of  supposed  events  may  be  given  by  a  person  of  good 
faith  and  general  sobriety  of  judgment,  may  be  dressed 
up  in  a  number  of  apparently  convincing  details,  yet  be 
utterly  unworthy  of  credit  by  persons  living  in  such 
times  as  our  own.  That  in  their  substantial  features 
there  is  a  close  analogy  between  these  stories  and  those 
of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  hardly  open  to  doubt. 
Indeed,  in  all  of  them  the  subjective  process  is  the 
same ;  and  if  the  Gospel  incidents  possess  a  superior 
importance  and  dignity,  their  attestation  is  much  less 
clear  and  direct  than  their  significance  demands.  In  the 
narratives  cited  we  have  the  detailed  and  particular  testi- 
mony of  a  known  observer  then  on  the  spot,  who,  while 
believing  in  the  supposed  miracle,  candidly  avows  that 
it  was  not  presented  to  his  bodily  senses.  This  testi- 
mony, superior  though  it  is  to  the  bald  and  anonymous 
testimony  of  the  Gospels,  is  yet  altogether  too  feeble  to 
upset  our  belief  in  the  invariability  of  natural  sequences. 

Professor  Schmiedel,  in  his  article  on  the  "  Resur- 
rection "  in  the  EncyclopcEcUa  Bihlica,  mentions  that 
Steude,  a  recent  upholder  of  the  actual  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  has  quite  given  up  the  argument  that  it  is  impos- 
sible for  many  persons  to  have  a  simultaneous  vision. 

K 


180  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

Ample  evidence  exists  to  prove  that  visions  have  been 
seen  by  many  in  the  cases  of  Thomas  a  Becket,  Savona- 
rola, the  Spanish  General  Pacchi,  ind  several  of  the 
Crusaders,  days  and  even  months  after  their  deaths. 
Similar  occurrences  are  recorded  in  the  cases  of  a  body 
of  eight  hundred  French  soldiers ;  of  the  Camisards  in 
1686-1707  ;  of  the  followers  of  a  Roman  Catholic  priest 
named  Poschl,  in  Upper  Austria,  between  the  years 
1812  and  1818  ;  the  ''  preaching  sickness  "  and  "  reading 
sickness "  in  Sweden  about  the  middle  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  other  abnormal  phenomena.-^  Such 
instances  do  not  prove  that  the  incident  mentioned  by 
Paul  was  of  a  similar  character,  but  they  do  prove  the 
possibility  that  it  may  have  been  so,  in  spite  of  apologetic 
denials.  Professor  Schmiedel  states  :  "  That  in  circum- 
stances of  general  excitement  and  highly-strung  expec- 
tation visions  are  contagious,  and  that  others  easily 
perceive  that  which  at  first  had  been  seen  by  only  one, 
is,  in  view  of  the  accumulated  evidence,  a  fact  not  to  be 
denied."^ 

"  Taking  all  the  evidence  together,"  concludes  Bishop 
Westcott,  "it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  there  is  no 
single  historic  incident  better  or  more  variously  supported 
than  the  Resurrection  of  Christ.  Nothing  but  the  ante- 
cedent assumption  that  it  must  be  false  could  have 
suggested  the  idea  of  deficiency  in  the  proof  of  it."^ 

Now,  this  clearly  is  too  much  to  say.  The  claim  can 
only  mean  that  the  Gospel  record  fulfils  the  conditions 

1  EncyclopcBdia  Biblica,  art.  "  Resurrection,"  sec.  36. 

^  Ibid.  In  the  lleport  of  the  International  Congress  of  Psychology, 
hold  in  Paris  in  1889,  no  less  than  ninety-five  of  these  collective  hallu- 
cinations are  recorded  in  recent  times  (F.  Podmore,  Studies  in  Psychical 
liesearch,  p.  261). 

'  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,  p.  133.  Of  a  similar  claim  Harnack 
remarks:  "One  does  not  know  whether  he  should  marvel  more  at  its 
falseness  or  its  unbelief  "  {History  of  Dogma,  vol.  i.,  p.  85). 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  131 

of  historical  accuracy.  This  of  necessity  implies  a 
liability  to  error,  and  justifies  the  application  of  critical 
tests.  Let  the  apologists  settle  among  themselves  how 
far  the  tests  can  be  complied  with.  It  would  be  much 
more  justifiable  to  retort  that  "nothing  but  the  ante- 
cedent assumption  "  that  the  resurrection  must  be  true 
could  lead  anyone  to  mistake  bad  evidence  for  good. 
Apologetic  extravagance  may  be  confronted  with  the 
verdict  of  a  great  Biblical  critic:  "Looking  at  it 
historically,  as  an  outward  event,  the  Eesurrection  of 
Jesus  has  not  the  very  slightest  foundation.  Barely  has 
an  incredible  fact  been  worse  attested,  or  one  so  ill- 
attested  been  more  incredible  in  itself."^ 

"Taking  all  the  evidence  together"!  What  extra- 
ordinary notions  of  evidence  some  clerical  apologists 
seem  to  have !  The  very  least  we  are  entitled  to  ask 
for  is  that  a  miraculous  event  shall  be  vouched  by  the 
direct  testimony  of  competent  eye-witnesses.^  In  the 
case  of  the  resurrection  we  do  not  possess  this  testimony. 
The  claim  that  no  historic  incident  is  better  supported  is 
not  in  accordance  with  the  facts.  The  implication  that 
the  return  of  a  dead  man  to  life  is  itself  a  historic 
incident  cannot  be  admitted.  That  the  evidence  is 
inferential,  obscure,  and  incomplete  is  not  an  opinion, 
but  a  certainty.  But  the  obscurity  of  the  evidence 
should  teach  the  necessity  of  caution  to  those  who  put 

1  D.  F.  Strauss,  The  Old  Faith  and  the  Neio,  p.  82. 

^  To  prevent  misapprehension,  we  candidly  avow  that  we  should  not 
believe  a  miracle  on  such  evidence.  So  many  "  miracles "  have  been 
thus  proved  that  they  make  upon  us  no  impression  beyond  showing  the 
necessity  for  scepticism.  Those  wrought  at  the  tomb  of  Deacon  Paris 
and  at  the  Grotto  of  Lourdes  have  been  sworn  to  by  numerous  witnesses. 
Yet  the  Protestant  believes  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  while  rejecting 
far  better  attested  marvels.  Is  it  not  obvious  that,  if  the  evidence  for 
the  resurrection  fails  to  supply  the  minimum  of  cogency,  it  is  an 
absurdity  to  suppose  it  complete  ? 


182  THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM 

forward  positive  explanations.  That  being  the  state  of  the 
case,  it  is  reasonable  that,  if  we  must  have  an  explanation, 
it  should  be  of  a  probable  rather  than  an  improbable 
character.  And  the  probable  explanation  is  that  among 
the  ignorant  and  superstitious  Galileans,  filled  with 
Messianic  expectations  and  proneness  to  the  marvellous, 
the  subjective  visions  of  one  or  more  of  them  gave  rise 
to  hopes  and  convictions  which  long  afterwards  were 
expressed  with  traditional  accretions  in  a  narrative 
form.  Such  a  view  is  not  far-fetched  or  artificial ;  it  is 
not  only  a  necessary  result  of  criticism,  it  is  counte- 
nanced by  dozens  of  expressions  in  the  New  Testament 
itself.  Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  does  it  clear  up  all 
difficulties.  The  records  left  by  the  Gospel  writers  and 
Paul  are  far  too  meagre  for  any  hypothesis  to  be  free 
from  difficulty.  Yet,  in  spite  of  these  manifest  defects, 
the  force  of  which  has  been  so  felt  by  many  of  the  clergy 
that  they  have  abandoned  the  belief  in  the  resurrection 
in  its  traditional  form,  the  Bishop  of  Durham  declares 
that  only  determined  bias  can  perceive  any  deficiency  in 
the  evidence.  Surely,  there  are  none  so  blind  as  those 
who  will  not  see. 

The  Bishop,  however,  must  consider  the  evidence 
badly  in  need  of  supplement,  or  he  would  not  indulge  in 
such  aberrations  of  reason  as  the  following  : — 

If  a  single  experience  can  show  that  the  conditions  of 
the  present  life  are  not  destroyed,  but  suspended,  as  far 
as  we  observe  them,  or  modified  by  the  action  of  some 
new  law ;  that  what  seems  to  be  a  dissolution  is  really  a 
transformation ;  that  the  soul  does  not  remain  alone  in  a 
future  state,  but  is  still  united  with  the  body — that  is,  with 
an  organism  which  in  a  new  sphere  expresses  the  law 
which  our  present  body  expresses  in  this — then  reason 
will  welcome  the  belief  in  our  future  personality  no  less 
than  instinct.     Such  a  fact  is  the  resurrection.     In  one 


THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  DURHAM  133 

sense  natural,  in  another  sense  it  is  beyond  nature, 
because  it  is  the  revelation  of  a  new  life  and  issues  in  the 
ascension.i 

In  other  words,  assertion  is  as  good  as  proof,  assump- 
tion is  to  do  duty  for  argument,  and  pious  speculation  is 
equivalent  to  ascertained  fact.  It  is  sufficient  to  say 
that  no  "  single  experience  "  has  yet  shown  the  truth  of 
the  Bishop's  views  about  a  future  state,  and  the  resur- 
rection does  not  seem  a  very  promising  *'  fact  "  for  that 
purpose. 

In  one  respect  the  Bishop  is  correct.  The  resurrec- 
tion does  issue  in  the  ascension ;  or  rather  the  idea  of 
the  first  is,  from  the  Christian  point  of  view,  inseparably 
connected  with  the  idea  of  the  second.  Now,  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  ascension  has  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of 
rational  evidence  in  its  favour.  Yet  Bishop  Westcott 
believes  that  it  took  place. ^  Any  person  who  will 
believe  one  miracle  on  no  evidence  will  believe  another 
on  inadequate  evidence. 

And  these  miserable  evasions,  these  tortuous  sophis- 
tries and  facile  hypotheses,  are  deemed  necessary  to 
support  an  accumulation  of  so-called  "  evidence "  in 
which  there  is  no  "deficiency,"  and  which  is  meant  to 
confirm  an  expectation  rooted  in  "  instinct  "  ! 


^  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,  p.  153. 

2  Professor  Denney  appears  to  think  he  is  defending  the  ascension 
when  he  states  :  "  No  kind  of  objection  lies  against  the  Ascension  which 
does  not  lie  also  against  the  Resurrection."  (Hastings'  DictionarT/  of 
the  Bible,  art.  "Ascension.") 


Chapter  II. 

''THE   RESURRECTION   OF   OUR  LORD,"  BY 
PROFESSOR  W.  MILLIGAN,  D.D. 

The  resurrection  may  be  viewed  in  two  aspects — (1)  as 
a  historical  fact ;  (2)  as  involving  a  spiritual  relationship 
between  Jesus  and  the  believer.  Obviously  the  latter 
cannot  find  a  safe  support  unless  the  former  be  proved. 
The  older  school  of  apologists  laid  the  stress  of  their 
defence  on  the  historical  evidence,  and  seldom  said  any- 
thing about  the  divine  life  of  the  risen  Saviour  being 
manifested  in  that  of  the  modern  believer.^  To-day  the 
process  is  to  a  great  extent  reversed ;  the  historical 
evidence  is  less  dwelt  on,  while  the  spiritual  affinity  is 
emphasised.  As,  however,  some  basis  of  fact  is  necessary 
to  the  validity  of  a  doctrine  purporting  to  have  been 
originated  by  fact,  apologists  maintain  the  absolute 
completeness  of  that  evidence  which  to  many  inquirers 
is  unaccountably  deficient  as  a  basis  for  transcendental 
doctrine.  The  two  aspects  are  not  necessarily  opposed. 
If  the  first  were  true,  the  second  would  follow  from  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  second  need  not  involve  the  first. 
Special  conditions  might  give  rise  to  belief  in  the  fact  in 
the  absence  of  the  fact.  Professor  William  Milligan  is  a 
theologian  who  thinks  this  could  not  have  happened. 
The  evidential  part  of  his  work.  The  llcsurrcction  of  Our 
Lord,  is  vitiated  by  strong  theological  prepossessions, 
and  is  quite  subordinate  to  the  devotional  element. 

1  As  an  example,  see  Gilbert  West's  elaborately  futile  Observations  on 
the  History  and  Evidence  of  tlic  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

134 


«  THE  EESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD  "       135 

Professor  Milligan  states  that  it  is  not  his  intention  to 
appeal  to  those  whose  views  ''  exclude  the  possibility  of 
miracles."^  This  possibility  need  not  be  discussed  here, 
but  those  who  deny  it  are  probably  rare.  As  Professor 
Huxley  many  times  pointed  out,  the  question  of  miracles 
is  not  one  of  possibilities,  since  we  have  neither  the 
knowledge  nor  the  capacity  to  determine  the  limits  of 
natural  operations,  which  are  still  very  imperfectly 
known.  The  question  of  miracles  is  purely  a  question 
of  evidence. 

Professor  Milligan  illustrates  the  difficulty  in  which 
the  apologist  finds  himself  when  he  attempts  to  reconcile 
incompatible  ideas.  He  admits  that  all  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  and  the  Apostles  meant  the  resurrec- 
tion in  a  literal  sense,  and  that  their  opponents  so  under- 
stood them ;  ^  that  is,  that  the  person  who  had  been 
crucified  was  believed  to  have  risen  with  the  same  body 
from  the  tomb.  Such,  indeed,  is  the  meaning  of  the 
term  "resurrection,"  which  distinctly  implies  a  rising 
again,  a  return  to  life  of  that  which  had  died.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  "  cannot  be  successfully  maintained  "  that 
"the  very  body  which  hung  upon  the  cross  rose  again 
from  the  dead."^  Here,  then,  is  an  admission  that  we 
cannot  believe  the  resurrection  in  the  sense  held  by  the 
Apostles  and  Evangelists.  In  other  words,  the  modern 
believer  rejects  the  view  formed  by  those  who  were  most 
likely  to  know  the  facts,  and  who  are  supposed  to  have 
been  eye-witnesses  of  them.  The  logical  result  of  this 
free  interpretation  of  the  records  is  that  the  testimony  of 
the  earliest  witnesses  cannot  be  relied  upon,  and  that 
belief  in  the  resurrection  should  be  abandoned.  In  this 
dilemma  there  is  evolved  the  idea  of  a  "  spiritual  body," 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  2.  2  j^j^-f^  p.  9.  s  j^j^^  p_  n. 


13G      ''THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

which  is  thought  to  harmonise  with  the  New  Testament 
idea  of  a  physical  resurrection,  yet  at  the  same  time  not 
to  violate  the  conception  that  the  law  of  physical  death 
is  inflexible.  "  The  fundamental  proposition  of  the 
present  lectures,"  says  Dr.  Milligan,  *'  is  that  the  body 
with  which  our  Lord  rose  from  the  grave,  though  still  a 
true  body,  was  not  the  same  as  that  with  which  he 
died."^  This  is  presumably  held  to  explain  why,  though 
the  body  exhibited  the  marks  of  the  wounds  caused  by 
his  crucifixion,  it  was  yet  able  to  pass  through  closed 
doors,  to  appear  and  vanish  instantaneously,  and,  finally, 
to  transcend  the  law  of  gravity  by  ascending  beyond  the 
clouds. 

Now,  do  the  statements  in  the  Gospels  (which  must, 
of  course,  be  estimated  with  due  regard  to  their  origin) 
really  form  adequate  evidence  of  this  theory — a  theory 
in  itself  so  improbable  that  nothing  but  the  most  positive 
reasons  can  even  recommend  it  ?^  As  proof  of  a  miracu- 
lous interruption  of  natural  law  we  are  offered  an  unin- 
telligible proposition,  supported  by  no  other  evidence 
than  assertions  !  It  may  be  said  that  this  idea,  though 
incapable  of  complete  explanation,  is  evidently  implied 
by  many  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in 
particular  by  Paul's  statement  that  "  there  is  a  spiritual 
body."  So  it  is;  but,  as  for  Paul's  statement,  we  have 
not  an  atom  of  evidence  in  favour  of  its  truth,  and  no 
weight  can  be  attached  to  bare  assertion  in  proof  of  the 
supernatural.  As  for  the  remaining  passages,  Professor 
Milligan  has  himself  put  them  out  of  court  by  admitting 
that  we   cannot   accept   the  resurrection   in   the   sense 

*  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  31. 

2  Another  Christian  writer  admits  that  the  theory  "  is  a  purely  specula- 
tive one,  and  rests  on  no  historical  evidence  whatever  "  (Professor  G.  T. 
Purves,  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  p.  14). 


''THE  EESUREECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"      137 

understood  by  the  New  Testament  writers.  What  other 
evidence  is  there?  There  is  none  whatever.  A  body 
which  is  a  "  true  body"  must  be  material,  or  it  could 
not  be  a  body ;  it  must  be  composed  of  particles  of 
matter  in  an  organic  unity  and  perceptible  by  the  senses. 
Yet  an  unvarying  experience  assures  us  that  all  bodies 
are  subject  to  the  laws  of  gravitation.  We  need  not 
deny  the  possibility  that  these  laws  can  be  transcended 
by  the  intervention  of  a  power  superior  to  them.  But 
we  ask,  not  for  evidence  of  this  possibility,  but  for 
evidence  showing  that,  in  a  particular  case,  this  inter- 
vention was  exerted,  and  the  law  of  gravitation  actually 
set  aside.  Does  the  explanation  explain  ?  Would  it  not 
be  well  to  prove  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  tomb  at  all, 
before  taking  refuge  in  speculations  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  body  which  are  themselves  as  unprovable 
as  the  circumstance  they  are  intended  to  support?^ 

The  term  "spiritual  body"  is,  in  fact,  nothing  more 
than  an  attempt  to  blend  two  contradictory  ideas.  Body 
we  know;  but  of  "spirit,"  as  itself  an  entity,  we  can 
form  no  rational  conception.  No  one,  so  far  as  we  know, 
has  ever  seen  a  "spiritual  body";  no  one  is  able  to 
define   its   essential   nature.^      We    cannot    accept    an 

^  A  recent  writer  assures  us  that  "  there  was  nothing  in  the  Old 
Testament,  or  anywhere  else,  to  suggest  such  a  resurrection  "  as  that 
assumed  by  the  idea  of  the  spiritual  body,  "which  could  not,  therefore, 
have  been  put  forward  by  impostors  "  (Major  W.  H,  Turton,  The  Truth 
of  Christianity,  p.  144).  But  a  higher  and  equally  Christian  authority 
refers  to  this  theory  as  "  merely  a  stone  which  lay  ready  to  hand  in  the 
beliefs  of  the  time,"  and  adds  that  "the  notion  of  a  spiritual  body,  as 
opposed  to  the  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  is  one  which  exists  almost  every- 
where among  peoples  at  a  lower  range  of  civilisation,  as  well  as  sometimes 
among  more  advanced  schools  "  (Dr.  Percy  Gardner,  A  Historic  Vieio 
of  the  Neiv  Testament,  p.  223). 

2  To  examine  the  claims  of  modern  spiritualism  and  the  mass  of 
phenomena  collected  by  the  Society  for  Psychical  Kesearch  would  carry 
us  beyond  the  limits  of  a  discussion  which  is  concerned  principally  with 
historical  evidence.     Here  it  need  only  be  said  that,  while  many  striking 


138      "THE  KESURRECTION  OF  OUB  LORD" 

incomprehensible  idea  as  a  solution  of  other  incompre- 
hensible ideas.  If  we  are  to  have  a  miracle  at  all,  we 
may  as  well  have  the  miracle  of  a  purel}^  physical 
organism  being  reanimated  after  death,  and  transcending 
all  natural  laws,  as  attempt  to  minimise  the  marvel  by 
unintelligible  limitations  of  divine  power.  We  venture 
to  think  that  an  investigator  has  no  right  to  put  forward 
a  '*  fundamental  proposition  "  which  is  purely  negative, 
adds  nothing  to  our  knowledge,  and  is  incapable  of 
verification.^ 

It  may  here  be  proper  to  remark  that  the  extra- 
ordinary divergences  of  opinion  which  existed  in  the 
early  Church  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  body  afford 
conclusive  evidence  that  the  truth  concerning  it  was  not 
known.  Alike  in  fact  and  doctrine,  the  utmost  doubt 
and  uncertainty  prevailed.  Conflicting  opinions  on  this 
subject  are  not  peculiar  to  modern  times;  we  find  them 
confronting  us  at  the  very  sources  of  the  historical  record. 
They  must  therefore  have  arisen  at  an  even  earlier  date. 
Modern  criticism  warrants  us  in  holding  that  there  are 
undoubted  traces  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  influence 
of  the  Gnostic  idea  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  but 
a  phantom,  and  that  the  accounts  of  his  speaking  and 
eating  represent  efforts  to  rebut  that  conception.  If  this 
criticism  is  well  founded,  the  probability  that  the  Gospel 
narratives  of  the  resurrection  are  legendary  embodiments 
of    visionary   experiences    is    greatly    increased.       Dr. 

and  extraordinary  incidents  have  been  related,  it  docs  not  appear  that 
natural  explanations  of  them  are  impossible  ;  that,  in  any  case,  the 
disputable  nature  of  these  phenomena  precludes  dogmatic  interpretation 
of  them  ;  and,  finally,  that  the  resurrection  stories  appear  to  have  so  close 
an  analogy  with  experiences  known  to  be  of  subjective  origin  as  to 
render  unlikely  the  intervention  of  supernormal  agency. 

1  Many  orthodox  writers — Langc,  for  instance — deny  that  there  was  any 
essential  change  in  the  body  of  Jesus  between  the  resurrection  and  the 
ascension. 


"THE  RESUEEECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"      139 

Milligan  does  not  explain  how,  if  the  risen  body  was  not 
the  body  that  died,  it  could  have  exhibited  the  marks  of 
wounds,  one  of  them  being  so  large  that  a  man's  hand 
could  have  been  thrust  into  it.  It  is  not  easy  to  suppose 
either  that  in  a  glorified  body  such  ghastly  evidences  of 
agony  should  have  remained  unhealed,  or  that  a  simula- 
crum of  them  should  have  been  supernaturally  produced 
in  order  to  convince  the  disciples  of  their  master's 
identity.  Such  details  were  manifestly  the  product  of 
pious  tradition  working  into  doctrinal  shape  a  very 
meagre  and  imperfectly  known  basis  of  fact.  But  if  the 
details  of  the  Gospel  narratives  cannot  be  trusted,  how  is 
it  possible  to  prove  the  resurrection?  The  essential 
contradictions,  the  unaccountable  laciuice,  of  the  story 
render  its  composite  character  self-evident. 

In  answer  to  the  objection  that  Jesus,  in  order  to 
prove  the  reality  of  his  resurrection,  should  have  shown 
himself  to  other  persons  than  his  own  disciples,  Dr. 
Milligan  has  nothing  more  than  a  singularly  weak 
rejoinder.  He  tells  us  (on  what  authority  we  know  not) 
that  such  a  course  "  was  not  possible."  "  To  have  done 
so  would  have  been  to  arouse  misunderstanding,  to 
create  false  impressions  " — of  what  nature  is  left  unde- 
fined. It  would  have  been  to  renew  his  "passion,"  his 
"burden,"  and  his  "suffering."  From  the  nature  of 
the  case,  he  could  come  into  contact  only  with  disciples 
— with  those  in  whom,  instead  of  finding  cause  for  a 
renewal  of  his  pain,  he  might  "  see  of  the  travail  of  his 
soul  and  be  satisfied."  If  his  resurrection  was  the 
beginning  of  his  glory,  it  would  have  been  a  reversal  of 
the  whole  plan  of  our  redemption,  a  confounding  of  the 
different  steps  of  the  economy  of  grace,  had  he,  "  after 
his  passion,"  presented  himself  alive  to  any  but  disciples.^ 
1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  34. 


140   "  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD  " 

Solemn  trifling  like  this  hardly  deserves  serious  con- 
sideration. But  we  would  point  out  that  it  involves  a 
number  of  theological  assumptions  which,  judging  from 
the  records,  were  never  clearly  stated  by  Jesus  himself, 
and  certainly  formed  no  part  of  his  public  teaching.  If 
he  came  to  announce  a  divinely-ordained  scheme  for  the 
redemption  of  mankind,  it  seems  only  fair  that  he 
should,  in  plain  terms,  have  declared  its  nature  to  those 
for  whose  benefit  it  was  intended.  If  the  salvation  of 
the  world  was  at  stake,  would  it  not  have  been  worth 
the  renewal  of  his  suffering  ?  Considering  that  no 
"plan  of  our  redemption"  had  been  formulated  to 
mankind  in  general  by  Jesus  before  his  death,  what 
more  effectual  means  could  have  been  adopted  than  to 
repair  the  omission  after  his  resurrection  had  established 
his  authority,  and  so  clear  up  all  doubt  and  uncertainty  ? 
To  show  conclusively,  before  hostile  witnesses,  the 
reality  of  his  triumph  over  death  was  the  only  way  of 
proving  the  divinity  of  his  mission,  and  of  saving  future 
generations  from  infinite  difficulties  and  perplexities. 
Professor  Milligan  is  in  a  position  to  say  that  to  divine 
power  this  was  impossible.  To  any  less  partisan  spirit 
his  reasons  must  appear  inadequate  to  justify  so  rash  an 
assertion.  He  does  not  fully  explain  in  what  manner 
the  "passion"  of  Jesus  would  have  been  renewed,  and 
we  are  therefore  left  to  conjecture  that  he  considers  it 
probable  Jesus  would  have  been  a  second  time  crucified. 
This,  however,  is  doubtful  in  the  extreme,  for  a  being 
who  had  proved  his  divinity  by  rising  from  the  dead 
would  surely  have  had  a  better  chance  of  making  known 
his  "plan  of  redemption"  than  a  reforming  preacher 
who  never  even  proclaimed  it.  We  are  told  that  he 
would  have  been  misunderstood.  Again,  is  this  a 
certainty  or  a  mere  conjecture?    Does   not  the   actual 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"      141 

evidence  for  the  resurrection  afford  room  for  the  greatest 
possible  variety  of  opinion  ?  And  was  not  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  both  ethical  and  theological,  repeatedly  mis- 
understood, not  merely  by  his  enemies,  but  by  his  own 
followers  ?  If  the  mission  of  Jesus  was,  as  he  is  said  to 
have  declared,  confined  to  *'  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
of  Israel,"  why  was  it  not  completely  fulfilled  by  at  least 
a  general  conversion  of  the  Israelitish  people  ?  It  seems, 
indeed,  that  much  misunderstanding  and  doubt  would 
have  been,  and  could  only  have  been,  removed  by  a 
public  manifestation.  The  argument  recalls  an  expres- 
sion attributed  to  Jesus  himself :  "If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded 
if  one  rise  from  the  dead."^  It  indicates  some  mental 
confusion  to  put  the  vague  and  inconclusive  "  prophe- 
cies "  of  Old  Testament  writers  on  the  same  evidential 
level  as  the  actual  return  of  a  dead  person  to  life.  Let 
us  be  certain  that  such  a  miracle  actually  takes  place 
before  we  assert  that  it  can  have  no  effect  on  human 
obduracy.  Why,  indeed,  were  any  miracles  supposed  to 
be  wrought,  if  the  recital  was  not  intended  to  convince 
the  sceptical  and  persuade  the  wavering?  If  the  object 
of  Jesus  was  the  salvation  of  the  world,  why  should  he 
have  concealed  from  the  world  the  divine  ratification  of 
his  claims  ?  Why,  in  fact,  was  Christianity  proclaimed 
at  all  ? 

The  fact  that  no  one  saw  Jesus  rise  from  the  tomb 
presents  no  difficulty  to  Professor  Milligan.  "  What  of 
that?  A  friend  has  been  absent  on  a  journey,  and  no 
one  witnessed  his  return.  Would  any  member  of  his 
family  dream  for  a  moment  of  urging,  when  he  is  found 
in  his  own  room,  that  it  was  not  himself?"^    A  more 

^  Luke  xvi.  31.  2  Eesurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  55. 


142       "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

complete  instance  of  **  begging  the  question  "  by  a  false 
analogy  could  hardly  be  hit  upon.  The  point  is :  Have 
we  good  evidence  that  Jesus  did  return  ?  If  we  were 
in  the  position  of  those  who  behold  with  their  bodily 
senses  the  return  of  their  friend,  we  should,  of  course, 
have  the  best  possible  evidence.  But  we  ourselves  are 
not  eye-witnesses,  and  we  are  without  the  testimony 
of  any  persons  who  were  eye-witnesses.  If  such 
persons  ever  saw  Jesus  after  he  returned  to  life, 
they  have  omitted  to  record  any  clear  declaration  to 
that  effect.  Moreover,  the  return  of  a  person  to 
life  after  his  death  demands  a  very  different  degree 
of  testimony  from  the  return  of  a  person  who  has 
been  on  a  journey.  The  one  is  ijrimd  facie  incredible, 
because  it  conflicts  with  universal  experience.  The 
other  is  an  everyday  occurrence,  which,  being  within 
the  experience  of  all,  there  is  not  the  slightest  difficulty 
in  believing.  The  first  violates  the  evidence  of  our 
senses,  the  second  strictly  conforms  to  it.  Yet  Dr. 
Milligan  puts  both  on  the  same  level  of  probability. 

"It  is  denied  by  no  one,"  says  Dr.  Milligan,  ''  that 
through  all  the  evidence  afforded  by  our  witnesses  there 
runs  the  one  decided  conviction  that  their  risen  Lord 
had  manifested  himself  to  them  or  others."-^  Whether 
the  *'  others  "  referred  to  in  this  saving  clause  passed  on 
to  the  Evangelists  their  experience  of  an  objective  fact 
or  merely  their  ''decided  conviction"  that  it  had 
happened,  or  a  few  vague  impressions,  or,  in  fact,  any- 
thing at  all,  makes  a  good  deal  of  difference  to  the 
argument.  The  modern  inquirer  wants  to  know  the 
grounds  on  which  the  conviction  was  first  formed.  The 
original  eye-witnesses  render  no  direct  testimony;  and 

^  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  57. 


"THE  RESUEEECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"      143 

reports  as  to  its  character  emanating  from  a  credulous 
age  cannot,  and  ought  not  to,  receive  imphcit  cred- 
ence. 

Dr.  Milligan  objects  to  the  Evangelists  being  treated 
as  witnesses  in  a  court  of  law.  "  In  those  days  men  did 
not  need  to  have  every  great  fact  of  the  Christian  faith 
proved    to    them    by   historical    narrative   before   they 

believed The  first  stirrings  of  faith  were  awakened 

by  the  general  tradition  of  the  Church."^  This  is 
perfectly  true.  But  we,  who  live  so  many  generations 
afterwards,  have  to  depend  upon  historical  narrative  for 
our  knowledge  of  the  "  great  facts  of  the  Christian 
faith."  If  the  historical  narrative  were  unimpeachable, 
we  should  have,  at  any  rate,  a  presumption  that  the 
alleged  facts  were  true  facts.  But  a  historical  narrative 
which  is  not  the  account  of  eye-witnesses,  which  is 
vitiated  by  the  most  surprising  contradictions  and 
omissions,  necessarily  renders  doubtful  the  facts  them- 
selves, whatever  may  have  been  their  nature.  Historians 
who  display  an  undue  readiness  to  accept  the  super- 
natural, and  who  neither  furnish  the  sources  of  their 
information  nor  investigate  its  details,  may  intend  to 
relate  nothing  but  the  truth,  but  they  cannot  be  relied 
upon  to  do  so.  The  *'  general  tradition  of  the  Church  " 
was  no  doubt  sufficient  attestation  for  the  Evangelists, 
but  we  have  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  that  tradition. 
The  "general  tradition  of  the  Church"  testifies  to 
innumerable  miracles  since  Apostolic  times ;  but  what 
sensible  man  believes  them  ?  Something  more  than 
tradition  is  required.  For  a  miracle  the  evidence  should 
be  even  better  than  legal  evidence.  If  human  salvation 
depends  upon  belief  in  Jesus  Christ,  no   pains  should 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  58. 


144       "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

have  been  too  great  to  establish  by  irrefutable  evidence 
the  reality  of  the  "  great  facts  of  the  Christian  faith." 

**Each  Gospel  writer,"  we  are  told,  "selected  what 
was  most  approjDriate  to  his  object.  He  was,  to  a  certain 
extent,  indifferent  to  its  bond  of  connection  with  what  he 
was  not  concerned  to  relate."^  Probably  this  was  so. 
The  selection,  however,  could  not  have  been  the  result  of 
deliberation  between  the  writers,  for  we  cannot  be  sure 
that  the  compilers  of  the  nucleus  of  each  existing 
Gospel  either  knew  each  other  or  were  actually  the 
reputed  authors.  None  of  the  Evangelists  (unless  it  be 
the  fourth)  tells  us  what  his  object  was,  or  what  was  the 
principle  of  selection  he  adopted.  Certainly  they  have 
not  managed  to  put  together  a  probable  or  coherent 
story,  which,  had  they  been  liars,  they  would  have  been 
careful  to  do.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Evangelists 
consulted  together  and  came  to  a  mutual  arrangement  as 
to  what  portion  of  the  facts  each  one  should  relate.  As 
the  Gospels  appeared  at  different  times  and  in  different 
localities,  there  is  the  strongest  presumption  that  each 
purported  to  be  an  independent  and  complete  narrative 
of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Why,  then, 
should  important  parts  of  the  Gospel  facts  have  been 
omitted,  without  the  slightest  hint  that  they  might 
possibly  be  found  in  another  version,  to  be  issued  at 
some  time  and  in  some  other  place  by  some  other 
writer  ?  It  seems  evident  that  each  writer  must  have 
related  the  whole  Gospel  tradition  so  far  as  it  was  known 
to  him,  but  that  he  did  not  know  all. 

If  this  explanation  of  Dr.  Milligan's  is  sound,  how  are 
we  to  explain  the  fact  that  of  four  writers,  all  fully  aware 
of  the  extraordinary  and  miraculous  manner  in  which 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  59. 


"THE  RESUERECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"       145 

Jesus  was  supposed  to  have  left  this  earth,  only  one 
mentions  it,  and  that  in  the  most  casual,  matter-of-fact 
way  possible  ?  Why  was  it  "  appropriate  "  for  Luke  to 
do  this,  but  not  for  Matthew  or  John  ?  On  what  prin- 
ciple of  selection  do  they  leave  it  out,  while  all  four  give 
detailed  accounts  of  the  trial  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus  ? 
The  object  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  manifestly  to  present 
Jesus  as  in  some  sense  an  incarnation  of  deity.  For 
such  a  purpose  no  more  "  appropriate  "  incident  than 
the  ascension  could  have  been  conceived ;  it  was  the 
fitting  climax  to  the  scene  on  the  shore  of  Galilee,  when 
the  farewell  injunction  to  Peter  w^as  given.  Yet  the 
Fourth  Gospel  (supposed  by  many  to  have  been  written 
by  an  eye-witness  of  the  event)  gives  no  account  what- 
ever of  this  w^onderful  circumstance  of  the  ascension. 

One  may  also  ask  why  the  Synoptic  Gospels  convey 
no  hint  of  the  long  discourses  attributed  to  Jesus  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel.  We  entirely  fail  to  understand  how  it 
could  have  been  "appropriate  to  their  object"  to  omit 
from  their  records  injunctions  of  such  great  importance, 
and  delivered  at  a  time  of  such  solemnity.  The  earliest 
tradition,  that  of  Papias,  relates  that  it  was  Matthew's 
object  to  put  together  the  discourses  or  words  of  Jesus.-^ 
Yet  Matthew  not  merely  fails  to  report  these  discourses 
— he  does  not  even  in  the  most  distant  manner  refer  to 
their  having  been  uttered  ;  indeed,  his  narrative  seems, 
on  the  face  of  it,  to  allow  no  time  for  them,  and  they 
certainly  interrupt  the  narrative  of  John  himself  in  a 
very  surprising  way.  If  they  were  delivered,  it  is  to  us 
entirely  incredible  that  three  out  of  four  Evangelists 
should  say  nothing  whatever  about  them.  It  is  said 
that  Mark  compiled  his  Gospel  from  information  supplied 

^  Dr.  Giles,  Hebrew  and  Christian  Records,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  116  and  154. 

L 


116      "THE  RESUERECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

by  the  Apostle  Peter  himself;  and  Eusebius  expressly 
states  that  the  Evangelist  "  took  forethought  of  one 
thing — not  to  leave  out  anything  of  what  he  heard,  or  to 
make  a  mistake  about  anything."^  Peter  is  said  to  have 
heard  these  discourses — the  most  important  that  Jesus 
ever  uttered — yet  he  told  Mark  nothing  about  them  ! 

According  to  Dr.  Milligan,  the  object  of  Matthew  is  to 
give  an  account  of  the  Galilean  appearances  which 
assumed  "  supreme  importance  in  his  eyes."^  How  is 
it,  then,  that  he  entirely  omits  to  relate,  or  even  notice, 
the  most  important  of  them — that  detailed  in  the  last 
chapter  of  John?  Nor  does  the  exclusion  by  Luke  of 
these  appearances  receive  any  elucidation.  It  can  only 
be  inferred  from  Matthew's  bald  and  unsatisfactory 
account  that  he  failed  to  carry  out  his  object.  Li  the 
closing  words  of  Mark  ''  we  find  particulars  and  words  of 
the  risen  Lord  which  at  once  recall  to  us  that  mighty 
march  of  his  power  with  which  we  have  been  made 
familiar  by  the  Gospel  as  a  whole." ^  Why  is  the  argu- 
ment obscured  by  meaningless  rhetoric  ?  That  we  are 
familiar  with  certain  conceptions  derived  from  the 
"  Gospel  as  a  whole  "  is  no  evidence  that  every  part  of  it 
is  true.  And  why  should  Dr.  Milligan  assume  that  the 
concluding  portion  of  Mark  gives  the  ''  words  of  the 
risen  Lord,"  when,  as  he  admits,^  that  concluding  portion 
was  added  to  Mark's  original  Gospel  by  a  later  and 
unknown  hand  ? 

Luke,  we  are  told,  by  representing  Jesus  as  eating 
with  his  disciples,  emphasises  the  universality  of  his 
mission  of  forgiveness.  This  is  nothing  more  than  a 
fanciful  interpretation  of  an  extremely  doubtful  incident — 


^  Ecclesiastical  History,  Book  iii.,  chap.  39. 

^  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  60. 

'  Ibid,  pp.  60-61.  ■*  I&i 


4  Ibid,  p.  60. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"      147 

an  interpretation  which  Luke  himself  does  not  appear  to 
have  had  in  his  mind.  If  Jesus  intended  his  mission  to 
he  universal,  how  much  simpler  it  would  have  heen  to 
have  said  so  before  his  death,  instead  of  forbidding  his 
followers,  as  Matthew  records,  to  enter  "into  any  city  of 
the  Samaritans." 

With  regard  to  John,  he,  according  to  Professor 
Milligan,  fixes  upon  those  details  which  illustrate  the 
manifestation  of  the  glory  of  Jesus  and  the  triumph  of 
faith  over  unbelief.-^  In  other  words,  John  writes  with  a 
definite  theological  purpose  in  view,  and  it  is  precisely 
this  difference  of  standpoint  which  makes  it  impossible 
to  harmonise  the  narrative  of  John  with  that  of  the 
Synoptics.  Can  we  be  sure  that  John  did  not  mould  his 
materials  in  accordance  with  this  theological  purpose  ? 
Judging  from  his  first  chapter,  which,  it  is  well  known, 
embodies  speculations  derived  from  other  than  Christian 
sources  ;  judging  also  by  the  wrangles  of  Jesus  with  the 
Jews,  and  the  mystical  discourses  already  referred  to,  we 
should  say  that  John  did,  beyond  doubt,  handle  the 
existing  traditions  with  remarkable  freedom.  One  could 
hardly  expect  an  apologist  to  make  any  detailed  reference 
to  the  doubts  which  exist  as  to  the  authorship  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel ;  but  it  is  none  the  less  a  fact  that  a  very 
large  number  of  Christian  critics  hold  that,  in  its  present 
form  at  least,  it  could  not  have  been  written  by  the 
Apostle.  Even  if  we  concede  that  the  evidence  for  and 
against  its  Johannine  authorship  is  evenly  balanced,  the 
inevitable  doubt  precludes  any  very  firm  reliance  upon 
its  statements. 

We  may  also  point  out  that  all  this  variety  in  the 
objects   of    the   Evangelists    (these    objects   not    being 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  61. 


148       "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

declared  by  themselves,  but  left  to  be  inferred)  not  only 
greatl}'  perplexes  the  inquirer  who  wishes  to  get  at  the 
truth  of  the  matter,  but  is  surely  presumptive  evidence 
against  the  theory  that  they  were  divinely  inspired  to 
announce  it.  Apologists  constantly  remind  us  that  all 
human  testimony  is  fallible  and  varying — that  no  two 
persons  relate  a  fact  in  precisely  the  same  language,  and 
so  forth.  At  the  same  time,  they  assert  that  the  Gospels 
are  not  human  testimony,  but  divine.  Where,  then,  is 
the  analogy  ?  In  human  testimony  we  look  for  imper- 
fection. Divinely  inspired  testimony  ought  to  be  clear, 
explicit,  coherent,  and  true. 

"  The  peculiarities  of  the  Lord's  Resurrection  body 
must,"  Dr.  Milligan  states,  "be  kept  distinctly  in  view; 
and  when  they  are  so  it  is  impossible  to  produce  the 
faintest  shadow  of  evidence  that,  before  the  Christian 
Church  came  into  existence,  there  was  any  preparation 
for  such  an  idea  in  the  minds  of  men."^  How  is  it 
possible  to  keep  "  distinctly  in  view  "  that  of  which  it 
is  not  possible  to  form  any  distinct  conception  ?  On  this 
point  the  apologist  gives  no  information  whatever,  doubt- 
less because  he  has  none  to  give.  He  does  not  say 
what  the  "peculiarities"  in  question  are,  or  in  what 
way  knowledge  of  them  can  be  gained.  Dr.  Milligan 
really  claims  that  blind  faith  is  to  take  the  place  of  critical 
examination.  To  many  minds  such  a  process  is  entirely 
satisfactory.  To  those  who  hold  that  historical  facts 
must  be  ascertained  by  historical  methods,  it  is  very 
much  the  reverse. 

What  does  Dr.  Milligan  mean  by  "preparation  for 
such  an  idea"?  Apparently  he  refers  to  the  idea  of 
forming    a    separate     Christian    Church,    though    his 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  64. 


"THE  RESUERECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"      149 

language  is  not  very  clear.  One  would  gather  from  it 
that  the  idea  of  a  Church  was  almost  unknown  before 
Apostolic  times,  and  that  it  sprang  immediately  into 
existence  as  a  consequence  of  the  resurrection.  An 
implication  so  misleading  must  be  exposed. 

By  "preparation  for  an  idea"  we  understand  the 
prior  existence  of  certain  external  facts  and  internal 
tendencies  without  which  the  idea  could  not  be  formed. 
The  Apostles  found  the  external  facts  in  the  then 
existing  Jewish  Church ;  the  internal  tendencies  were 
supplied  by  their  own  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  their 
Master,  and  their  inferences  from  that  belief.  The  first 
Christian  assemblies  were  modelled  on  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogues, and  the  reason  why  they  became  separate  congre- 
gations was  that  the  bulk  of  the  people  rejected  their 
specific  doctrine  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  For  some 
years  the  Apostles  did  not  come  to  any  decisive  rupture 
with  the  Jewish  Church.  They  worshipped  and  taught 
in  the  synagogues;^  regarded  the  Jewish  law  as  still 
binding  upon  all  but  Gentile  converts  ;  ^  and  claimed  no 
distinctive  sectarian  title.  There  was  at  first  no  idea  of 
forming  such  a  separate  ecclesiastical  body  as  we  under- 
stand by  the  term  "Church";  and  it  w^as  at  least  ten 
years  before  the  disciples  were  termed  Christians,  and 
then  in  another  country.^  It  is  evident,  from  the  book 
of  Acts,  that  the  original  disciples  at  first  regarded  them- 
selves as  reforming  Jews,  differing  from  other  Jews  only 
in  their  recognition  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  It  was 
mainly  b}^  the  exertions  of  one  who  was  not  personally 
known  to  Jesus  that  they  were  ultimately,  and  after 
strenuous  opposition  from  the  Apostles,  formed  into  non- 
Jewish  communities. 

^  Acts  iii.  1,  xiii.  14,  xiv.  1,  xvii.  2  and  17,  xviii.  4,  etc. 
2  Acts  XV.  28  and  29.  3  ^cts  xi.  26. 


150   "  THE  RESURRECTION  OP  OUR  LORD  " 


A  Christian  writer,  Mv.  Ilomersham  Cox,  states  that 
the  **  constitution  of  the  early  Christian  Church  strongly 
resemhled  that  of  the  coeval  Jewish  synagogues."^  He 
gives  some  instances  of  this  resemblance.  "  The  practice 
of  baptising  proselytes  existed  among  the  Jews  before 
the  birth  of  Christ."^  *' xhe  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  so  closely  connected  with  the  Passover  that  it 
is  impossible  to  understand  the  history  of  the  Christian 
rite  without  some  knowledge  of  the  Jewish  festival."^ 
**  The  presumption  that  the  first  Christians,  in  ordering 
the  worship  of  the  Church,  would  have  regard  to  the 
model  of  the  synagogue  and  Temple  amounts  almost  to 
certainty."'^  ''The  resemblances  of  Christian  prayers 
to  those  of  the  Jews  arise  from  a  natural  process  of 
development.  The  first  Christians  adopted  in  modified 
forms  various  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies."^  ''  The 
arrangements  and  furniture  of  the  first  Christian  places 
of  assembly  resembled  the  Jew^ish  model. "^  "The 
practice  of  antiphonal  singing  was  undoubtedly  bor- 
rowed from  the  Jewish  ritual."''  "The  Christians 
w^ashed  their  hands  before  prayer  ;  in  this  respect  also 
following  a  Jewish  practice."^  "  The  ministry  of  the 
synagogue  and  that  of  the  early  Church  closely  resembled 
each  other.  In  both  there  were  presbyters,  deacons, 
and  readers."^  "  The  appointment  and  ordination  of 
presbyters  in  the  synagogue  and  the  Church  were 
similar. "^^  In  addition  to  this,  evidence  is  quoted  from 
Eusebius  and  Epiphanius  that  the  Apostles  John  and 
James  both  wore  "  the  iMalum,  or  golden  mitre  plate, 

^  The  First  Century  of  Chrutianity ,  vol.  ii.,  p.  46. 
2  Ibid,  p.  71.         3  Ibid,  p.  90.         ^  ij^i^^  p.  230.         ^  lUd,  p.  231. 
6  Ibid,  p.  258.       7  ma,  p.  262.       »  Ibid,  p.  265.         »  Ibid,  p.  266. 

JO  Ibid,  p.  267. 


"THE  RESUKEECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"       151 

which  had  been  the  distinctive  ornament  of  the  Jewish 

priests."^ 

We  have  ah'eady  seen  that  the  idea  of  Messiahship, 
which  was  the  distinctive  feature  of  the  Christian  body, 
was  quite  familiar  to  the  disciples ;  it  was  merely  in  the 
application  of  it  to  Jesus  that  they  differed  from  the 
bulk  of  their  countrymen.  The  idea  of  resurrection 
from  the  dead  was  also  a  well-known  conception.     "In 

great  pity  He  raiseth  the  dead Blessed  be  the  Lord 

who  restoreth  life  to  the  dead,"  are  expressions  from  the 
Shemoiieh  Esreh,  or  Eighteen  Benedictions,  which  were 
composed  before  the  Christian  era.^  Here,  again,  it  is 
not  the  prevalence  of  an  idea  which  can  be  called  in 
question.  The  Jews  merely  disbelieved  that  which  the 
Christians  believed  had  been  illustrated  in  the  return  of 
Jesus  to  life. 

Here,  then,  we  have  all  the  elements  which  were 
required  for  the  formation  of  a  reformed  religious  faith, 
the  stimulus  and  motive-power  being  supplied  by  the 
belief  of  the  disciples  that  in  Jesus  the  expected  Messiah 
had  been  found,  and  that,  by  virtue  of  his  divine  power, 
he  had  "  loosed  the  bonds  of  death,  because  it  was  not 
possible  that  he  should  be  holden  of  it." 

Presumably  Dr.  Milligan  knows  all  these  facts.  Yet 
he  can  say  that,  when  we  keep  "  distinctly  in  view  "  the 
"  peculiarities  of  the  Lord's  Resurrection  body "  (in 
other  words,  have  a  correct  appreciation  of  something 
we  know  nothing  about),  "it  is  impossible  to  produce 
the  faintest  shadow  of  evidence "  that  there  was  any 
preparation  for  the  idea  of  a  Christian  Church.  It 
seems,  on  the  contrary,  impossible  that,  if  the  disciples 
retained   their   faith    in   Jesus,   they   should   not    have 

^  The  First  Century  of  Christianitij,  vol.  ii. ,  pp.  268  and  2G9. 
2  Ibid,  p.  224. 


152      "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 


formed  the  idea  of  setting  up  an  organisation  similar  to 
the  Church  to  which  they  ah'eady  belonged,  with,  of 
course,  the  addition  of  the  belief  on  which  that  Church 
was  at  issue  with  them. 

It  may  be  pointed  out  that,  if  the  records  are  accurate, 
Jesus  himself  established  his  Church  during  his  life. 
The  passage  in  Matthew — "If  he  refuse  to  hear  them 
(the  witnesses),  tell  it  unto  the  Church"^ — may,  of 
course,  relate  to  the  Jewish  Church ;  but  if  Jesus 
uttered  these  words  we  have  direct  proof  that  the  idea  of 
a  Church  could  not  have  been  strange  to  the  original 
disciples.  It  is  generally  admitted,  however,  that  the 
passage  is  not  genuine. 

We  now  come  across  an  astonishing  feat  of  apologetics. 
"  The  first  Christians  must  have  been  satisfied  that  those 
who  proclaimed  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  had  ample 
evidence  of  it.  They  must  have  questioned  them 
regarding  it  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  has  been  told 
us."^  This  means  that  our  faith  rests  on  that  of  the 
first  Christians,  and  that  of  the  first  Christians  on  that 
of  the  persons  who  proclaimed  the  resurrection.  What 
the  faith  of  these  persons  rested  on  is  not  known,  and, 
in  the  absence  of  their  own  testimony,  is  never  likely  to  be 
made  known.  The  argument  is  constructed  on  the  lines 
of  the  nursery  story  about "  The  House  that  Jack  Built." 
To  put  it  forward  as  evidence  shows  an  incapacity  to 
appreciate  what  evidence  is.  And  to  proclaim  it  as 
perfectly  strong  and  satisfactory  evidence  is  sheer  pre- 
sumption. The  first  Christians  were  satisfied — therefore 
we  should  be  satisfied.  What  guarantee  have  we  that 
the  first  Christians  were  competent  investigators  of 
evidence  ?      Why,   they   never   thought   of   demanding 

^  Matt,  xviii.  17.  ^  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  65. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OP  OUR  LORD"      153 

any.     If    they   had,    they    would   certainly   have   been 

satisfied  with  evidence  which  would  fail  to  convince  the 

reasoners  of  to-day.     It  may  be  replied  that  Peter  and 

Paul  were  not  at  once  convinced  of  the  truth  of   the 

resurrection.     But  we  have  seen  that  the  details  of  the 

book  of  Acts  cannot  be  relied  upon.     We  have  not  the 

direct  statements  of  Peter  himself;    but,  judging  from 

the   expressions   attributed    to   him    by   the   writer    of 

Acts,  he  must  have  been  an  extremely  credulous  man, 

who    experienced   visions,    and    had    an    extraordinary 

way  of  interpreting  the  Jewish  scriptures.     How  is  it 

possible  to  rely  upon  the  accounts  by  later  writers  of 

what  such  a  man  believed  ?     Can  we  be  sure  that  their 

reasoning  faculties  were  more  highly  developed  than  his 

own  ?     The  passages  indicating  the  first  disbelief  of  the 

Apostles  have  a  suspicious  air  of  having  been  introduced 

to  repel  later  charges  of  credulity.     Paul's  evidence  we 

have  examined  ;  it  is  but  a  very  doubtful  support  that 

he  lends  to  the  view  of  a  bodily  resurrection. 

The  second  sentence  of  the  last  quotation  is  a  practical 
admission  that  evidence  which  once  existed,  or  was 
assumed  to  have  existed,  does  not  exist  now.  How, 
then,  can  it  be  taken  into  account?  We  cannot  examine 
or  estimate  the  worth  of  evidence  which  has  been  lost. 
That  it  has  been  lost  is  no  fault  of  the  modern  critic. 
He  can  only  deal  with  the  evidence  actually  available. 
In  any  case,  Dr.  Milligan's  argument  puts  wholly  out  of 
court  any  theory  of  inspiration  as  guaranteeing  the 
accuracy  of  the  records.  It  is  out  of  the  question  to 
suppose  that,  if  Christianity  were  a  divinely  ordained 
system,  all  necessary  means  would  not  have  been  taken 
to  preserve  the  evidence  in  order  that  future  ages  might 
be  in  a  position  to  judge  of  the  truth  of  its  claims. 
Professor  Milligan  is  unable  to  account  for  the  faith  of 


154      ''THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD'* 

the  first  Christians  unless  "the  Lord  actually  rose." ^ 
History  is  so  full  of  instances  of  faith  having  appeared 
under  the  most  adverse  conditions  that  it  seems  the 
extremity  of  rashness  to  postulate  the  supernatural 
origin  of  the  Christian  faith  because  we  are  not  fully 
acquainted  with  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
originated.  Even  the  Gospel  records  make  it  fairly 
clear  that  the  beginnings  of  that  faith  are  to  be  traced 
in  pre-Christian  times — in  the  growth  of  the  Hebrew 
monotheism  of  which  it  was  the  offshoot,  and  its  modi- 
fication by  other  influences. 

*'  It  is  in  the  fact  first,  in  the  idea  afterwards,  that  the 
vast  importance  of  the  Resurrection  of  our  Lord  is  to  be 
found.  Before  we  can  be  influenced  by  it  we  must  be 
convinced  by  distinctly  historical  evidence  that  it  actually 
took  j)lace."^  It  is  no  doubt  difficult  to  gather  from  the 
Gospel  accounts  the  i3roper  sequence  of  the  ideas 
involved ;  but,  as  they  repeatedly  state  that  it  was 
necessary  the  Christ  should  suffer  and  rise  again  in 
order  "  that  the  scriptures  might  be  fulfilled,"  it  seems 
probable  that  the  idea  of  the  resurrection  gave  rise  to 
the  "  fact."  And  we  may  fairly  ask  whether  the  process 
of  belief  is  at  the  present  time  as  represented  by  Pro- 
fessor Milligan.  Almost  invariably  we  find  that  the 
persons  who  most  fervently  believe  in  the  resurrection 
do  so  before,  not  after,  a  study  of  the  historical  evidence. 
The  popular  revivalist  would  not  dream  of  examining  it, 
and  many  would  look  upon  the  mere  desire  to  do  so  as 
an  indication  of  latent  scepticism  and  suppression  of  the 
*' Holy  Spirit."  If  an  earnest  pietist  investigates  the 
question  at  all,  he  is  content  to  read  defences  of  the 
resurrection,  which  are  doubtless  convincing  as  long  as 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  71.  ^  Ibid,  p.  74, 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OP  OUR  LORD"      155 

all  hostile  criticism  is  carefully  avoided.  Many  good 
people  look  with  suspicion  upon  Christian  evidences. 
And  they  are  quite  right.  Christian  advocates  have 
many  times  ere  now  directed  inquirers  into  the  pathway 
of  scepticism,  and  those  who  are  content  with  faith  had 
better  let  the  intellectual  supports  of  faith  severely 
alone. 

Referring  to  the  changed  characters  of  the  Apostles 
after  the  resurrection,  Dr.  Milligan,  in  common  w'ith 
many  other  apologists,  seems  to  find  a  strong  argument 
in  the  fact  that  "  the  men  who  had  not  only  quailed 
before  the  authorities  when  their  Lord  was  seized,  but 
had  forsaken  him  in  his  hour  of  utmost  need,  now  face 
without  hesitation  the  highest  tribunal  in  the  land,  and 
openly  defy  it."^  Such  phenomena  are  far  from  un- 
common in  the  annals  of  religious  enthusiasm.  Many  a 
martyr,  yielding  to  human  weakness,  has  at  first  shrunk 
from  the  fiery  ordeal  over  which  the  exaltation  of  faith 
has  afterwards  enabled  him  to  triumph.  Cranmer 
recanted,  but  afterwards,  it  is  said,  held  in  the  flames 
the  hand  which  had  written  the  surrender  until  it  was 
slowly  consumed.  Are  we  not  told  that  Jesus  himself, 
whose  nature  was  divine,  who  was  strengthened  by 
supernatural  aid,^  yet  shrank  from  the  doom  he  foresaw, 
and  prayed  that  the  cup  might  pass  from  him  ?  Yet  he 
bore  with  brave  and  dignified  resignation  the  ordeal  of 
rejection,  ignominy,  and  death.  So  it  was  with  his 
disciples.  Their  unquestioning  belief  in  his  mission 
gave  them  a  courage  and  a  power  which  they  could  not 
previously  have  shown.  We  have  already  given  reasons 
for  holding  that  portions  of  the  book  of  Acts  have 
received  a  heightened  colouring  in  the  light  of  tradition  ; 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  47.  ^  Luke  xxii.  43. 


156       "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 


it  would  not,  therefore,  be  proper  to  place  implicit  reliance 
on  its  accounts  of  the  conduct  of  the  Apostles  before 
"  the  highest  tribunal  in  the  land."  These  accounts 
ma}^,  however,  be  fairly  accurate  in  substance ;  for,  if 
the  Apostles  had,  on  whatever  grounds,  formed  a  strong 
conviction  that  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead,  they 
could  not  well  do  otherwise  than  preach  boldly,  regard- 
less of  ill  consequences  to  themselves.  A  similar  con- 
stancy has  been  found  in  the  adherents  of  every  creed. 

With  regard  to  Paul,  the  effect  produced  upon  him  by 
his  vision  of  the  risen  Jesus  is  given  as  one  reason  for 
believing  in  the  truth  of  his  statements.  It  would  be 
more  reasonable  to  draw  an  opposite  conclusion.  A 
highly- wrought  state  of  religious  excitement  such  as 
Paul  was  in  before  his  supposed  vision  is  one  of  the 
least  favourable  conditions  for  the  discernment  of 
prosaic  facts  by  the  laws  of  evidence.  To  the  mystic  a 
critical  investigation  of  his  faith  is  not  only  impious, 
but  impossible.  According  to  Dr.  Milligan,  the  Apostle 
Paul  is  as  excellent  in  logic  as  in  faith ;  he  gives  his 
testimony  in  such  a  way  "that  the  most  skilful  counsel 
in  a  modern  court  of  law  will  scarcely  venture  to  think 
that,  were  the  Apostle  now  before  him,  it  would  be  in 
his  power  to  shake  it  by  any  cross-examination  which  he 
could  conduct,"^ 

We  wonder  whether  Dr.  Milligan  has  ever  been  inside 
a  modern  court  of  law,  and  heard  a  cross-examination 
conducted.  He  actually  supposes  that  a  skilful  counsel 
would  not  insist  on  eliciting  from  Paul  a  detailed 
account  of  the  circumstances  under  which  he  had  seen 
Jesus;  would  not  find  out  whether  the  Damascus  incident 
was  fact  or  fiction;  would  not  ascertain  from  what  source 

^  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  45. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"       157 

Paul  derived  his  information  as  to  the  appearances  to 
Peter,  to  James,  to  the  twelve  Apostles,  to  the  five 
hundred  persons  ;  would  not  demand  dates,  places,  and 
names  of  witnesses  in  respect  of  each  allegation.  As 
long  as  Paul  confined  himself  to  the  mere  statement  that 
he  had  ''  seen  Jesus,"  it  might  be  difficult  to  "  shake  " 
such  "  testimony."  But  who  can  imagine  a  "  skilful 
counsel  "  simple  enough  to  remain  content  with  a  bare 
and  unsupported  assertion  ?  If  he  could  not  disprove 
Paul's  evidence,  he  would  very  soon  have  it  most 
materially  supplemented.  Dr.  Milligan  should  have 
taken  ''counsel's  opinion"  before  making  his  statement. 
And  if  he  claims  that  Paul  w^ould  stand  cross-examina- 
tion, w^hy  does  he  imply  that  the  Gospel  writers  would 
not? 

Dr.  Milligan  reminds  us  that,  although  "  the  members 
of  the  Corinthian  Church  wdth  whom  Paul  reasons  denied 
the  possibility  of  their  own  resurrection,  they  did  not 
deny  the  resurrection  of  Christ."  ^  This  negative  argu- 
ment in  no  w^ay  strengthens  his  evidence,  for  it  is  not 
disputed  that  the  Christian  Churches  generally  believed 
that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,  and  the  addition  to  their 
number  of  a  community  residing  at  a  great  distance  who 
had  few  means  of  verifying  their  belief  does  not  affect 
the  question  of  historical  evidence.  If  the  Corinthians 
believed,  they  could  have  had  no  better  evidence  than  the 
assertions  of  others,  whereas  we  have  to  investigate  the 
facts  on  which  those  assertions  were  based.  The  signifi- 
cant thing,  however,  is  that  any  Christian  Church  should, 
even  in  Apostolic  times,  have  had  any  doubts  at  all  upon 
the  subject.  Paul  recognises  these  doubts  by  his 
emphatic  statements  that  Jesus  was  seen  by  a  number 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  67. 


158      "THE  EESUERECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

of  persons  (including  himself)  after  he  had  been  put  to 
death  and  buried.  The  Apostle  meets  an  implied 
demand  for  evidence  by  giving  the  best  evidence  in  his 
power.  This  evidence  was  merely  hearsay,  as  regards 
the  other  persons ;  in  his  own  case  it  consisted  of  an 
inward  experience,  and  he  implies  that  the  experience  of 
the  other  witnesses  was  of  a  similar  nature. 

Dr.  Milligan  leaves  entirely  out  of  sight  Paul's  assur- 
ance that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  the  general 
resurrection  of  believers  stand  on  precisely  the  same 
level  of  probabilit}^,  so  that,  logically,  disbelief  of  the  one 
involves  disbelief  of  the  other.  If  Christ  is  not  raised, 
the  faith  of  the  Corinthians  in  their  own  resurrection  is 
"  vain."  This  conception  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  as 
a  guarantee  of  that  of  human  beings  has,  in  all  ages  of 
the  Christian  Church,  been  held  as  sound,  though,  in 
truth,  there  must  be  a  wide  difference  between  the  return 
to  life  of  a  divine  being  who  saw  no  corruption,  and  that 
of  human  beings  whose  bodies  rot  in  the  grave.  But  if 
the  Corinthians  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
without  regarding  it  as  any  guarantee  of  their  own,  they 
must  have  been  Christians  w^ho,  after  the  personal 
teaching  of  the  greatest  Christian  Apostle,  had  failed  to 
grasp  the  first  principle  of  the  Christian  system — namely, 
the  revelation  of  personal  immortality  by  and  through 
their  redeemer. 

As  Paul's  evidence  is  admitted  on  both  sides  to  be 
important,  we  may  in  this  place  fitly  consider  the  argu- 
ments of  another  apologist  in  connection  with  those  of 
Dr.  Milligan.  "  It  is  well,"  says  the  Hon.  and  Rev. 
James  Adderley,  "  to  study  carefully  St.  Paul's  argu- 
ments in  1  Cor.  xv.  And,  first,  note  that  St.  Paul  is  not 
arguing  with  people  who  denied  Christ's  Resurrection  ; 
he  is  arguing  with  people  who  were  beset  with  doubts  as 


"THE  EESUKRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"       159 

to  whether  anyone  could  rise  from  the  dead.  This  is 
most  important.  I  have  met  people  who  completely 
missed  the  point  of  his  argument,  because  they  thought 
he  was  arguing  to  prove  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead. 
He  takes  for  granted  that  his  readers,  '  ordinary 
Christians,'  all  believed  that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead. 
Then  he  proceeds  to  argue  that,  because  they  believed 
that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,  they  ought  not  to  find 
any  difficulty  in  believing  that  human  beings  may  rise 
also.  That  this  is  his  argument  no  one  can  doubt  who 
reads."! 

Adopting  Mr.  Adderley's  recommendation,  we  have 
''  studied  carefully  St.  Paul's  arguments."  Here  they 
are : — 

*'  Now  if  Christ  is  preached  that  he  hath  been  raised 
from  the  dead,  how  say  some  among  you  that  there  is 
no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ?  But  if  there  is  no  resur- 
rection of  the  dead,  neither  hath  Christ  been  raised : 
and  if  Christ  hath  not  been  raised,  then  is  our 
preaching  vain,  your  faith  also  is  vain.  Yea,  and 
we  are  found  false  witnesses  of  God ;  because  we  wit- 
nessed of  God  that  he  raised  up  Christ :  whom  he  raised 
not  up,  if  so  be  that  the  dead  are  not  raised.  For  if  the 
dead  are  not  raised,  neither  hath  Christ  been  raised  : 
and  if  Christ  hath  not  been  raised,  your  faith  is  vain ; 
ye  are  yet  in  your  sins.  Then  they  also  which  are 
fallen  asleep  in  Christ  have  perished.  If  in  this  life 
only  we  have  hoped  in  Christ,  we  are  of  all  men  most 
pitiable."^ 

If  Paul  was  arguing,  not  ''  that  Christ  rose  from  the 
dead,"  but  that  human  beings  did  so,  we  can  only  say 
that   he   conducted   his   argument   with  a  disregard  of 

^  Religious  Doubts  of  Democracy,  p.  91.  ^  i  Cor.  xv.  12-19. 


160      ''  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD  " 

logical  reasoning  which  is  a  little  stupefying.  Instead 
of  trying  to  prove  the  possibility  of  human  resurrection 
because  Jesus  rose,  the  Apostle  does  exactly  the  reverse. 
He  uses  the  supposed  fact  that  human  beings  ivill  rise  in 
order  to  show  that  Jesus  did  rise  ;  he  postulates  an 
uncertain  and  future  event  as  establishing  the  truth  of 
his  preaching  of  a  past  event.  The  last  three  verses  of 
the  quotation,  especially  taken  in  conjunction  with  the 
preceding  and  following  paragraphs,  seem  to  imply  that 
Paul  is  seeking  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
though  Mr.  Adderley  does  not  think  so.  The  passage, 
indeed,  contains  expressions  which  favour  both  interpre- 
tations, and  Paul  does  not  clearly  separate  them. 

Assuming,  however,  that  the  Apostle  is  trying  to 
convince  his  converts  that  they  will  rise  from  the  dead, 
what  arguments  does  he  use  ?  If  Paul  could  have 
appealed  to  a  known  historical  fact  possessing  a 
clear  analogy  with  the  circumstance  he  was  trying  to 
establish,  he  might  have  made  out  a  strong  case.  But 
he  assumes  his  fact  on  the  testimony  of  others  ;  he 
implies  that  it  may  have  arisen  from  vivid  mental 
impressions ;  and  he  fails  to  show  that  it  has  any 
definite  relation  to  that  which  he  seeks  to  prove.  He 
goes  on  to  assume  that,  because  he  preached  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  it  must  have  taken  place.  Evidently 
with  Paul  the  preaching  of  the  resurrection  proved  the 
fact  of  the  resurrection.  What  evidence  can  that  be  to 
later  ages  ?  Paul  seems  to  have  had  no  idea  that  it 
would  have  been  advisable  to  draw  some  sort  of  dis- 
tinction between  the  assertion  of  a  fact  and  the  fact 
itself. 

The  Apostle  may,  of  course,  have  been  arguing  in  the 
sense  assumed  by  Mr.  Adderley;  but,  if  so,  he  was 
unfortunate   in   his    expressions.     He    repeatedly    and 


''THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"       161 

emphatically  puts  the  argument  "  the  other  way  round." 
^^ If  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead,  neither  hath  Christ 
been  raised.''  This  makes  the  truth  of  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  depend  on  the  probability  of  the  resurrection 
of  human  beings.  The  Apostle  thus  reduces  the  resur- 
rection of  Jesus  to  the  level  of  probability  which  exists 
for  that  of  his  followers.  According  to  Paul,  therefore, 
denial  of  their  own  resurrection  by  the  Corinthians 
carried  with  it  denial  of  that  of  Jesus.  Mr.  Adderley 
says  they  did  not  deny  the  latter.  Paul  strongly  urges 
that  both  stand  or  fall  together — that  what  the  Corin- 
thians accepted  is  dependent  on  the  truth  of  what  they 
denied.  According  to  Mr.  Adderley' s  argument,  Paul  in 
this  passage  is  seeking  to  prove  the  future  resurrection 
of  men.  Yet  he  treats  the  conception  he  is  seeking  to 
establish  as  an  even  greater  certainty  than  something 
which  had  been  divinely  revealed  to  him.  He  aims  to 
show  that  an  idea  which  the  Corinthians  already  held  is 
dependent  on  another  idea  which  they  denied.  Could 
any  reasoning  be  more  futile  ?  Paul  had  the  strongest 
reason  for  showing  that  Jesus  rose  bodily  from  the  dead, 
if  he  knew  that  to  be  a  real  event.  But  he  does  not  even 
make  the  attempt — beyond  vaguely  saying  "  Jesus  was 
seen." 

Observe  the  curious  deduction  made  by  the  Apostle. 
The  Christian  faith  becomes  vain  if  there  was  no  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  He  would  be  a  false  witness,  because 
he  "  witnessed  of  God  that  he  raised  up  Christ,  ichom  he 
raised  not  up  if  so  he  that  the  dead  are  not  raised.''  For 
the  second,  and  again  for  the  third,  time  Paul  positively 
labours  to  make  this  clear:  ^^ For  if  the  dead  are  not 
raised,  neither  hath  Christ  been  raised."  This  repeated 
and  dogmatic  resting  of  a  past  event  on  a  future  con- 
tingency  is,  to  our  mind,  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the 

M 


162      "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

Apostle's  belief  in  the  reality  of  the  bodily  resurrection 
of  Jesus.  Paul's  reasoning  is,  no  doubt,  extraordinary  ; 
but  he  could  not  have  argued  in  this  way  if  he  had  been, 
as  some  apologists  declare,  an  eye-witness  to  a  fact  of 
history. 

The  Apostle's  words  are  consistent  only  with  the  idea 
of  a  strong  internal  conviction  which  a  visible  appearance 
of  Jesus  to  him  had  no  share  in  producing.  Surely  Mr. 
Adderley  must  have  felt  a  little  uncomfortable  when 
wa'iting  a  paragraph  which  is  seriously  misleading. 

The  moral  aspect  of  Paul's  argument  cannot  be  entirely 
left  out  of  sight.  We  find  in  it  no  perception  of  one  of 
the  commonest  facts  of  life — that  a  man  holding  strong 
convictions  may  be  honestly  mistaken.  Of  this,  history 
affords  numberless  illustrations,  from  Augustine's  belief 
in  a  never-ending  hell  of  ph^^sical  anguish  to  John 
Wesley's  conviction  of  the  reality  of  witchcraft.  Paul 
tells  his  converts  that  if  Christ  was  not  raised  they  are 
still  in  their  sins.  In  other  words,  purity  of  life  is  a 
delusion  unless  guaranteed  by  the  prospect  of  eternal 
reward.  Such  a  conception  is  radically  unsound.  We 
may  hope  that  righteousness  avails  in  a  future  life ;  we 
hioiD  that  it  avails  in  this.  No  protest  can  be  too  strong 
against  the  false  and  pernicious  idea  that  moral  goodness 
is  of  no  use  unless  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  and  assured 
men  of  immortality.  Yet  the  only  conclusion  which 
Paul  can  come  to  is  that,  "  if  the  dead  are  not  raised,  let 
us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die." 

One  more  ''  argument  "  of  the  Apostle  deserves  to  be 
noticed:  ''Else  what  shall  they  do  which  are  baptised 
for  the  dead'?  If  the  dead  are  not  raised  at  all,  why  then 
are   they  baptised  for  them?"^    In  other  words,  there 

1  1  Cor.  XV.  29. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD"      163 

must  be  a  resurrection,  or  it  is  useless  to  "baptise  for 
the  dead."  If  we  adopt  Paul's  belief  why  should  we  not 
adopt  his  logic?  The  notion  that  the  baptism  of  a  living 
person  as  proxy  for  a  dead  one  will  ensure,  or  help  to 
ensure,  the  latter's  salvation  is  so  evidently  superstitious 
that  it  has  been  disregarded  by  the  Christian  Church  for 
many  ages.  Yet  we  find  Paul  referring  to  it  as  if  it  were 
an  obviously  true  conception,  and  a  weighty  argument  for 
the  resurrection.  It  is  impossible  to  admit  that  a 
writer  who  could  adduce  such  a  practice  as  confirming 
what  he  thought  was  a  central  fact  of  religion  had  an 
adequate  conception  of  the  nature  of  evidence. 

One  would  much  like  to  know  whether  the  Corinthians 
regarded  Paul's  reasoning  as  conclusive.  That  they 
possessed  and  exercised  some  powers  of  criticism  is 
probable  from  the  pains  taken  by  the  Apostle  to  impress 
his  view  upon  them  ;  and,  if  they  were  sceptical  enough 
to  doubt  their  own  resurrection,  it  seems  inevitable  that 
they  should  have  doubted  also  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
which  Paul  declares  to  possess  no  higher  probability. 

"Men,"  says  Dr.  Milligan,  "  had  not  yet  learned,  like 
us,  to  glory  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  The  Resurrection 
dissipated  the  shame." -^  If  the  speeches  of  Peter  are 
accurately  reproduced  in  the  book  of  Acts,  it  seems  clear 
that  this  idea  of  glorying  in  the  cross  of  Christ  had  been 
formed  by  the  Apostles  at  a  very  early  date.  It  is 
possible,  indeed,  that  in  the  revulsion  of  feeling  which 
followed  the  crucifixion,  when  the  idea  of  a  spiritual 
Messiahship  rushed  in  all  its  force  into  the  minds  of  the 
disciples,  the  conception  of  a  spiritual  resurrection  was 
eagerly  seized  upon,  and  contributed  greatly  to  the  rapid 
spread  of  the  belief  in  the  supposed  reanimation  of  the 

^  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  68. 


164      "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 

body  of  Jesus. ^  Minds  of  a  spiritual  tendency  would 
find  in  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  revivification  ample  food 
for  the  highest  flights  of  religious  zeal.  More  matter- 
of-fact  minds  would  at  a  later  date  add,  in  good  faith, 
details  of  material  appearances.  The  very  form  of 
Jesus's  death  w-ould,  to  a  non-believer,  disprove  his 
claim  to  be  the  Messiah  ;  while  those  devoted  to  him 
W'Ould  be  thrown  back  upon  a  spiritual  interpretation  of 
his  mission. 

Dr.    Milligan    remarks    that    the    enemies    of    Paul 

"cannot  have  considered  visions  a  sign  of  weakness 

They  must  have  argued  against  him  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  too  few,  rather  than  too  many,  visions."^  The 
"enemies  of  Paul"  appear  to  have  been  the  Judaising 
section  of  the  Church,  who  represented  the  orthodox 
Christianity  of  their  time  ;^  and,  if  they  were  so  fond  of 
visions  as  to  make  them  a  test  of  religious  truth,  they 
could  have  had  no  adequate  conception  of  historical 
evidence.  Dr.  Milligan  admits  the  general  predisposi- 
tion to  these  subjective  phenomena  which  is  sometimes 
denied  ;  but  it  is  difficult  for  anyone  who  is  not  an 
apologist  to  see  how  the  prevalence  of  this  peculiarity 
adds  any  weight  to  the  statements  of  a  person  who, 
though  possibly  less  affected  by  it  than  his  "  enemies," 
was  evidently  disposed  to  pay  greater  regard  to  visionary 
tendencies  than  seems  justifiable  to  ourselves. 

In  order  to  save  the  "miracle"  of  Paul's  conversion, 
Dr.  Milligan  seeks  to  minimise  the  mental  conflict  which 
he  admits  Paul  must  have  experienced.     The  indications 

1  It  seems  to  us  probable  that  the  Pentecost  incident  simply  expressed 
in  the  supernaturalist  terms  of  the  age  the  power  and  reality  of  this  great 
conviction  that  Jesus  was  still  alive,  though  in  a  spiritual  sense,  and  may 
thus  embody  the  first  manifestation  of  the  belief. 

^  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  90. 

8  Supernatural  Eeligioii,  pp.  319,  320. 


''  THE  KESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD  "       165 

of  the  Apostle's  character  which  are  to  be  gathered 
from  his  Epistles  point  to  internal  agitation  of  unusual 
intensity.  And  Dr.  Milligan  admits  that  it  is  "  not  at 
all  impossible  that  there  may  have  been  some  struggle";^ 
"  there  must  have  been  in  the  persecutor's  mind  a  deep 
sense  of  guilt  long  incurred,  remonstrances  of  conscience 
long  silenced,  the  thought  of  injury  long  done  to  the 
Redeemer  against  his  own  better  judgment."^  Here, 
indeed,  we  find  the  genesis  of  Paul's  conversion — in  the 
doubts  of  the  justice  of  his  conduct  as  a  persecutor  which 
must  have  arisen  in  a  mind  so  active  and  sincere.  We 
have  no  safe  warrant  in  assuming  a  miraculous  origin 
for  his  change  of  belief.  His  own  words,  "  When  it 
pleased  God  to  reveal  his  son  in  (or  within)^  me,"  imply 
a  purely  psychological  change.  The  author  of  the  book 
of  Acts  possibly  shared  the  view  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Milligan,  that  Paul  had  too  few  visions,  and  thought  his 
conversion  required  a  supernatural  setting  to  make  it 
intelligible  to  the  general  body  of  believers. 

Dr.  Milligan  says  that  "  no  belief  was  stronger  in  the 
Church  than  that  of  the  second  coming  of  Jesus,  yet  it 
led  to  no  vision."'*  The  paucity  of  the  records  hardly 
warrants  this  assertion.  Can  we  be  sure  that  Paul's 
alleged  vision  was  not  itself  the  result  of  this  belief? 
It  is  true  that  the  New  Testament,  with  this  possible 
exception,  gives  no  accounts  of  such  visions  regarded  as 
facts  of  experience,  though  we  must  remember  that  in 
the  Christian  apocalyptic  books  similar  phenomena  are 
not  infrequent,  and  that  until  the  Canon  was  completed 
no  distinction  seems  to  have  been  drawn  between 
"inspired"  and   uninspired   writings.     Why,  however, 

1  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  93.  2  jUci^  p,  92. 

^  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  iii.,  p.  8. 
^  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  p.  99. 


166      "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  OUR  LORD" 


does  Dr.  Milligan  make  no  reference  to  the  book  of 
Revelation,  \Yhicli  there  is  some  warrant  for  attributing  to 
the  Apostle  John?  It  is  largely  occupied  with  visions  of 
Jesus,  and  three  times  in  the  last  chapter  the  promise, 
*'  I  come  quickl}^"  is  given  as  the  utterance  of  Jesus 
himself.  And  if  Stephen  could  have  a  vision  of  the 
glorified  Christ  after  his  ascension,  it  is  natural  to 
suppose  that  others  had  visions  of  him  before  the  ascen- 
sion. 

The  apparently  sudden  cessation  of  visions  is  con- 
sidered by  some  writers  a  serious  bar  to  any  natural 
explanation.  But  surely  the  visions  would  cease  when 
the  excitement  which  gave  rise  to  them  could  no  longer 
be  sustained  at  fever-heat.  And  the  time  during  which 
Jesus  could  be  seen  would  be  limited  to  the  conventional 
period  of  forty  days,  though  possibly  the  visions  lasted 
longer.  The  point  is  this  :  the  reports,  whatever  they 
were,  were  not  put  into  their  present  literary  form  till 
long  afterwards.  Many  visions  of  Jesus  have  since  been 
experienced,  even  in  modern  times,  which  visions  Dr. 
Milligan  doubtless  regards  with  the  same  incredulity  that 
may  well  be  felt  with  regard  to  Paul's  vision.  And  it  is 
significant  that  the  Apostle's  own  belief  in  the  second 
coming  proved  utterly  erroneous. 


Chapter  III. 

"  THE    RISEN   MASTER,"  BY   REV.  HENRY 

LATHAM 

Mr.  Latham's  book  offers  a  refreshing  contrast  to  the 
majority  of  apologetic  efforts.  Its  modest  and  benignant 
tone,  and  its  absence  of  dogmatism,  almost  disarm 
criticism  ;  while  its  attractive  style,  if  it  fails  to  command 
assent  to  all  the  author's  conclusions,  is  calculated  to 
awaken  the  sympathy  of  the  reader  with  his  aims.  Yet 
we  cannot  but  hold  that  the  evidential  value  of  the  book 
is  weakened  by  a  number  of  assumptions  which  are  not 
warranted  by  the  facts,  so  far  as  these  are  known. 

Mr.  Latham's  leading  idea  is  that  the  absolutely 
undisturbed  condition  of  the  grave-clothes,  with  the 
spices  lying  within  their  folds,  and  the  head-napkin 
lying  in  a  place  by  itself,  indicates  that  the  body  of 
Jesus  had  been  removed  from  the  tomb  by  other  than 
human  agency.-^ 

Now,  it  must  be  admitted  that  this  view,  whatever 
may  be  said  for  it,  is  an  extremely  slender  basis  on 
which  to  assume  a  miracle.  It  is  merely  an  assumption 
based  on  ignorance.  If  the  grave-clothes  were  found 
exactly  as  Mr.  Latham  supposes,  we  are  not  entitled  to 
conclude  that  only  supernatural  agency  could  have  left 
them  in  that  position.  The  fourth  Gospel  merely  states 
that  on  entering  the  tomb  Peter  found  the  clothes  lying 
there,  "  and  the   napkin  that  was  about  his  head  not 

1  The  Eisen  Master,  p.  12. 
167 


168  "  THE  EISEN  MASTER  " 


lying  with  the  linen  clothes,  but  wrapped  together  in  a 
place  by  itself."-^  If  a  cultured  believer  of  the  present 
day  can  assume  a  miracle  on  such  vague  evidence  as 
this,  we  cannot  be  surprised  if  an  Apostle  was  similarly 
impressed.  This  apparently  insignificant  detail  may 
indeed  have  formed  one  of  the  germs  of  the  resurrection 
belief.  But,  if  John  or  Peter  thought  the  resurrection 
proved  by  the  position  of  the  grave-clothes,  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  why  neither  gave  clear  testimony  to  the 
precise  facts. 

An  incidental  and  vague  expression  in  a  book  of 
unknown  date  and  authorship,  but  certainly  coming 
from  an  extremely  superstitious  age,  thus  becomes,  in 
the  hands  of  the  apologist,  an  important  link  in  the 
evidence  for  a  miracle.  Mr.  Latham,  it  is  true,  sees  in 
these  particulars  the  relation  of  an  eye-witness.  This, 
of  course,  does  not  follow,  for  particularity  of  details  is 
not  confined  to  accounts  which  are  true,  nor  does  an 
eye-witness  invariably  give  an  accurate  recital  of  what 
he  has  seen.  But  the  "  eye-witness  "  is  pure  assump- 
tion. We  do  not  know  that  the  writer  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  an  eye-witness,  or  even  that  any  of  the 
traditions  embodied  in  his  account  were  handed  down 
by  an  eye-witness.  Where  a  miracle  is  alleged  we  are 
entitled  to  require  that  the  minimum  amount  of  evidence 
supplied  shall  beyond  doubt  be  the  statements  of  actual 
observers.  This  lowest  possible  degree  of  evidence  the 
Gospels  nowhere  convey,  and  the  apologetic  school  seem 
to  think  the  deficiency  is  made  up  by  generous  assump- 
tion and  ingenious  inference.  It  is  clear  that  much  has 
been  omitted,  and  in  these  omitted  portions  it  may 
reasonably  be  concluded  that  grounds  for  natural  expla- 
nations   originally  existed.     No   one   knows   the    truth 

1  John  XX,  7. 


''THE  RISEN  MASTER"  169 

about  the  removal  of  the  body  of  Jesus.  It  may  have 
been  effected  by  human  agency,  and  in  that  case  we 
cannot  suppose  it  was  impossible  for  the  unknown 
agents  to  have  arranged  the  grave-clothes  with  such 
degree  of  neatness  as  the  Evangelist's  words  may  imply. 
Or  the  body  may  never  have  been  removed  at  all. 

That  the  Gospels  contain  suspicious  indications  that 
human  agency  may  have  effected  the  removal  of  the 
body  (if  it  was  removed)  can  hardly  be  denied.  All  the 
Evangelists  speak  of  unknown  visitants  to  the  tomb, 
terming  them  sometimes  "angels,"  sometimes  "men." 
People  to-day  find  it  impossible  to  believe  in  angels. 
The  probabilities  are  that  these  unknown  visitants  were 
really  men.  Who  were  these  men?  An  incidental 
remark  of  Mr.  Latham  implies  that  they  may  have 
belonged  to  that  sect  of  the  Essenes  with  whom  the  early 
Christians  seem  to  have  had  such  close  affinity.  In 
Luke  ix.  49  we  read  of  a  person  who  carried  on  inde- 
pendently of  Jesus,  but  in  his  name,  a  somewhat  similar 
mission.  In  Mark  xiv.  51  there  is  a  reference  to  a  young 
man  (not  apparently  one  of  the  Apostles)  whose  cloth- 
ing, a  linen  garment,  was  torn  from  his  body  at  the 
apprehension  of  Jesus.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
Essenes  clothed  themselves  in  garments  of  white  linen, 
and  it  is  not  impossible  that  Jesus  himself  was  in  closer 
relations  with  that  body  than  the  Gospels  disclose.^ 
How  do  we  know  that  Essene  friends  of  Jesus,  unknown 
to  the  Gospel  writers,  did  not  eft'ect  the  removal  of  the 
body?  Mr.  Latham's  remark  is:  "More  than  once  I 
have  called  attention  to  the  existence  at  Jerusalem  of  a 
body  of  disciples  who  stood  somewhat  apart  from  the 

1  See  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  by  E.  P.  Meredith,  ch.  7,  sec.  10,  and 
E.  P.  Nesbit's  Christ,  Christians,  and  Christianity,  for  evidence  on  this 
point.     The  latter  author  contends  that  Jesus  was  an  Essene. 


170  "  THE  KISEN  MASTER  " 

Galilean  company.  I  suppose  that  the  young  man 
*  having  a  linen  cloth  cast  about  him,'  who  followed 
our  Lord  at  the  time  of  his  apprehension,  may  have 
been  of  this  number."^ 

It  must  be  admitted  that  all  this  is  nothing  more  than 
conjecture.  But  the  incompleteness  of  the  Gospel 
narratives  makes  conjecture  of  some  kind  a  mental 
necessity,  and  it  is  reasonable  to  put  forward  any 
natural  conjecture  rather  than  to  assume  a  miracle  on 
totally  insufficient  evidence.  Our  contention  is  that,  in 
the  absence  of  the  actual  facts,  all  positive  explanations 
rest  on  a  precarious  footing. 

Mr.  Latham  maintains  that  Jesus  did  not  return  to 
the  natural  life,  as  Lazarus  did,  and  quotes  in  support  a 
passage  from  Bishop  Westcott's  Revelation  of  the  Risen 
Lord,  which  runs  as  follows  :  "  This  fact  seems  to  me  to 
involve  the  essence  of  the  whole  revelation  of  the  Risen 
Christ.     If    the    Lord   had    been   raised   again   to   our 
present  life,  subject  to  death,  there  would  have  been  no 
pledge  of  a  new  human  life.     The  chasm  between  the 
seen    and    the    unseen    world    would    have    remained 
unbridged......If  the  post-resurrection  life  of  Jesus  was 

really  like  our  own — carried  on,  that  is  to  say,  in  a  body 
provided  with  heart  and  lungs  and  other  organs  perform- 
ing their  functions  as  ours  do — then  the  Resurrection 
would  tell  us  nothing  whatever  about  another  life,  or 
about  a  spiritual  existence  of  a  different  order  from  our 
own."^ 

The  cultured  Christian  thought  of  modern  times,  there- 
fore, puts  forward  the  suggestion  that  the  body  of  the 
risen  Jesus  must  have  possessed  certain  unknown  quali- 
ties, because  the  desire  for  a  future  life  requires  those 
qualities  to  be  assumed  as  a  guarantee  for  its  fulfilment. 

^  The  Risen  Master,  p.  402.  2  j^j^^  pp,  67-68. 


"THE  RISEN  MASTER"  171 

As  evidence  of  a  theory  of  such  moment  as  that  of  a 
future  state  the  suggestion  is  not  worth  discussion.  But 
no  one  can  be  surprised  if  the  credulous  mind  of  the  first 
century  stated  the  claim  in  a  somewhat  cruder  form. 
The  Gospels  themselves  show  that  the  writers  looked 
upon  the  resurrection  as  a  necessity,  both  as  a  proof  of 
their  own  immortality  and  as  an  inevitable  result  of 
supposed  divine  predictions.  But  such  a  priori  con- 
siderations cannot  fairly  be  termed  evidence  of  a 
historical  fact.  Historical  investigation  the  apologists 
themselves  challenge,  and  where  supernatural  events  are 
in  question  they  must  expect  it  to  be  rigidly  applied. 
The  resurrection  being  an  occurrence  absolutely  unique 
(leaving  aside  the  analogies  of  pagan  myths)  and  con- 
flicting with  a  known  law  of  universal  validity,  we  claim 
that  absolutely  perfect  evidence  must  be  produced  before 
it  can  be  accepted  as  a  real  event.  All  evidence  derived 
from  the  existence  of  the  Christian  Church  and  the 
remarkable  faith  of  its  first  members  is  purely  inferential 
evidence,  and  therefore  inadequate  to  prove  a  variation 
of  natural  law. 

So  far  from  the  longing  for  a  future  life  proving  that  a 
future  life  will  be  bestowed  on  man,  it  is  rather  to  be 
viewed  with  suspicion,  as  implying  the  erroneous  notion 
that  human  desires  are  the  measure  of  their  own  fulfil- 
ment. A  strong  desire  that  the  resurrection  should  be 
proved  a  fact  naturally  lessens  that  scrupulous  care  to 
see  that  the  evidence  is  unassailable  which  only  the 
impartial  mind  can  employ.  Emotional  bias  usually 
magnifies  the  evidence  with  which  the  apologist  is  in 
sympathy,  and  minimises  that  to  which  he  is  opposed. 
Even  the  ablest  defenders  of  the  resurrection  overlook 
the  serious  gaps  in  their  evidence,  while  imperiously 
demanding  that  their   opponents   should  fill  up  these 


172  "THE  RISEN  MASTER" 

gaps  by  positive  explanations  which  they  do  not  claim  to 
possess. 

Considering  the  strength  of  the  case  against  the 
resurrection  derived  from  universal  experience,^  and  the 
incompleteness  of  the  positive  testimony  in  its  favour,  it 
is  astonishing  that  anyone  should  assume  it  constitutes 
any  revelation  whatever  of  a  future  life  for  man.  Reve- 
lation should  make  clear.  The  evidence  for  the  resur- 
rection is  a  perfect  maze  of  doubt  and  perplexity.  While 
we  know  with  absolute  certainty  that  our  physical 
organisms  moulder  in  the  grave,  the  body  of  Jesus, 
according  to  the  argument,  was  preserved  from  all 
corruption.  It  was  a  spiritual  body  that  rose,  we  are 
told.  Yet  it  was  a  body  that  could  be  handled,  that 
could  walk,  speak,  and  eat.  Then  it  must  have  possessed 
the  physical  organs  which  Dr.  Westcott  says  it  did  not 
possess.  If  the  Evangelists  are  wrong  in  stating  these 
important  details,  does  that  prove  the  rest  of  their 
narrative  to  be  correct  ?  The  writers  must  have  believed 
in  a  bodily  resurrection,  or  such  details  would  not  have 
formed  part  of  the  records.  As  we  have  seen.  Dr. 
Milligan  admits  that  they  held  a  theory  which  cannot 
be  held  by  us.  That  being  so,  what  becomes  of  the 
argument  of  Dr.  Westcott?  The  Apostles  could  not 
have  believed  in  a  future  life  on  the  strength  of  a  bodily 
resurrection,  because  it  told  them  "  nothing  about  a 
spiritual  existence  of  a  different  order  "  from  their  own. 
The  "chasm  between  the  seen  and  the  unseen  world 
remained  unbridged,"  as  far  as  they  were  concerned. 
It  seems  evident  that  the  apologetic  house  of  cards  must 
tumble  to  pieces. 

Mr.  Latham    candidly   admits    that    this  "  spiritual 

^  We  term  the  experience  "  universal  "  because  we  cannot  hold  it  to  be 
depreciated  by  one  doubtful  exception. 


"  THE  RISEN  MASTER  "  173 

body"  puzzles  him.  While  some  controversialists 
imagine  that  a  meaningless  and  self-contradictory 
phrase  settles  the  question,  this  honest  writer  confesses 
his  ignorance.  "  What  connection  was  there  between 
the  body  that  disappeared  from  the  tomb  and  the  body 
that  the  disciples  were  invited  to  handle  ?  This,  I 
believe,  we  cannot  understand  till  we  get  out  of  the  body 
ourselves.  Almost  as  inscrutable  is  the  question  of 
what  it  is  in  which  personal  identity  consists."^  That 
personal  identity  is  a  mysteryis  no  doubt  true.  The  nature 
and  origin  of  mind,  and  its  connection  with  organised 
matter,  are  part  of  that  primal  mystery  of  life  which  we 
must  be  content  to  leave  unexplained,  though,  if  solution 
ever  comes,  it  will  come  from  science,  not  from  religion. 
But  we  cannot  admit  that  the  known  fact  of  this  mystery 
is  any  reason  for  holding  as  true  other  mysterious  doctrines 
which  cannot  be  shown  to  be  facts  at  all.  To  suppose 
that,  because  we  cannot  explain  what  life  is,  we  ought 
therefore  to  believe  that  a  particular  being  returned  to 
life  in  a  form  of  which  nature  affords  no  other  example, 
is  to  make  a  demand  which  requires  to  be  backed  by 
very  much  stronger  evidence  than  any  contained  in  the 
New  Testament.  To  the  Rationalist  the  question  is  not 
so  much  whether  Jesus  manifested  himself  after  his  death 
in  a  semi-spiritual  form,  as  whether  after  his  death  he 
manifested  himself  alive  at  all.  There  is  little  profit  in 
speculating  about  a  spiritual  body  until  it  has  been 
proved  that  Jesus  left  the  tomb  alive. 

Mr.  Latham  thinks  that  the  w^ounds  in  the  body  of 
Jesus  were  "  signs,"  or  rather  that  he  assumed  as  a  sign 
a  form  which  bore  the  marks  of  the  crucifixion,  so  that 
men  would  know  him  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth.^     The  dis- 

1  The  Risen  Master,  p.  73.  '^  Ibid,  p.  74. 


174  «  THE  RISEN  MASTER  " 

appearance  of  the  body  and  the  unaltered  condition  of 
the  grave-clothes  were  "  a  sign  "  to  the  people,  and  con- 
tributed to  the  reception  of  the  Gospel.  In  view  of  Dr. 
Milligan's  contention  that  it  was  impossible  for  Jesus  to 
appear  to  other  persons  than  his  own  followers,  it  would 
seem  essential  to  the  purpose  of  the  ''  scheme  of  redemp- 
tion "  that  these  signs  should  have  been  exhibited  to  those 
who  were  expected  to  heed  them,  and  not  to  the  disciples 
alone.  A  "  sign  "  is  of  little  value  when  it  has  to  be 
accepted  on  hearsay. 

In  another  respect  Mr.  Latham  is  hardly  at  one  with 
his  apologetic  brethren.  He  considers  that  the  trans- 
figuration resembled  the  resurrection,  and  in  a  way  fore- 
told it,  or  prepared  the  minds  of  the  disciples.  Why, 
then,  are  we  so  frequently  told  that  the  disciples  were 
utterly  unprepared  for  the  resurrection,  and  that  it  was 
the  last  thing  they  would  expect  ?  Dispassionately 
viewed,  it  is  impossible  to  regard  the  transfiguration  as 
a  true  objective  event  such  as  the  Gospels  imply.  If  it 
was,  the  beholders  could  never  have  forgotten  it,  or  the 
purport  of  the  words  they  had  heard.  Modern  critics 
are  practically  unanimous  in  holding  the  transfiguration 
to  have  been  a  purely  visionary  experience  on  the  part  of 
some  of  the  disciples,  and  even  the  Gospel  account  is  not 
without  a  suggestion  to  this  effect  in  relating  that  the 
disciples  were  asleep  just  before  the  vision.  If  the  critics 
are  right,  we  have  in  this  story  a  remarkable  example  of 
the  way  in  which  the  Evangelists  translate  subjective 
experiences  into  objective  facts,  and  a  strong  confirma- 
tion of  the  theory  that  they  treated  the  visions  of  the 
risen  Jesus  in  precisely  the  same  way.  As  the  narrative 
shows,  the  Jews  thought  that  holy  men  could  be  trans- 
lated to  heaven,  and  afterwards  revisit  the  earth.  Quite 
naturally,  the  idea  was  applied  to  Jesus. 


"  THE  RISEN  MASTER  "  175 

A  large  portion  of  Mr.  Latham's  book  is  concerned, 
not  with  the  usual  elaborate  futilities  of  the  apologist,  but 
with  the  exposition  of  passages  which,  in  his  opinion, 
indicate  that  they  proceed  from  eye-witnesses.  Thus 
we  gather  that  the  "  superlative  art  "  of  Luke,  in  not 
putting  words  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  during  the  journey 
to  Emmaus,  affords  a  strong  probability  of  the  truth  of 
his  account.  It  may  just  as  easily  tell  the  other  way.^ 
Luke  certainly  states  that  words  were  uttered  by  Jesus, 
though  he  does  not  expressly  quote  them,  evidently 
because  he  did  not  know  what  they  were.  Had  the 
tradition  with  which  he  was  dealing  comprised  the  exact 
words  believed  to  have  been  spoken,  we  decline  to 
suppose  that  Luke  omitted  them  for  artistic  reasons. 
Either  he  knew  or  did  not  know  what  words  had  been 
uttered.  If  he  knew  what  they  were,  it  was  his  duty  to 
embody  them  in  his  account.  There  can  be  no  "  super- 
lative art  "  in  suppressing  communications  of  a  divine 
being  which  should  have  been  of  priceless  value.  If 
Luke  did  not  know  what  the  words  of  Jesus  were,  we  fail 
to  perceive  the  "superlative  art"  of  omitting  what  was 
not  in  his  possession. 

But,  even  assuming  this  astonishing  talent  of  Luke, 
how  does  it  prove  his  story  to  be  true  ?  The  very 
expression  implies  that  he  freely  modified  his  materials, 
whatever  their  character  may  have  been.  Mr.  Latham's 
implication  is  that,  if  Luke  had  added  words  of  his  own, 

1  Some  Christian  writers  consider  the  whole  story  an  account  of  a 
visionary  experience.  Thus  the  conservative  Steinmeyer  says  :  "  The 
whole  region  of  ocular  appearance  is  completely  removed  from  their  (the 
disciples')  senses  "  {History  of  the  Passion  and  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord, 
p.  349).  And  he  calls  attention  to  the  significaiit  point  that  "  the  moment 
the  eyes  of  the  disciples  were  opened  Jesus  disappeared  from  their  view  " 
{ibid,  p.  351).  Of  the  resurrection  stories  generally  the  same  writer 
admits  that  they  secure  "  only  a  limited  measure  of  historical  certainty" 
{ibid,  p.  232). 


176  "  THE  RISEN  MASTER  " 

they  would  have  detracted  from  the  genumeness  of  his 
narrative.  But  a  writer  who  could  display  "  superlative 
art"  was  surely  capable  of  attributing  to  Jesus  the  most 
suitable  words  ;  at  any  rate,  words  as  suitable  as  those 
attributed  by  the  other  Evangelists  to  the  risen  Jesus. 
Mr.  Latham  considers  that  had  the  story  been  invented 
it  would  have  contained  the  alleged  words  of  Jesus,  for 
the  writer  would  have  thought  them  to  be  necessary. 
As  such  words  are  certainly  employed  by  Matthew  and 
John,  what  guarantee  have  we — unless  they  also  possessed 
superlative  art,  but  applied  it  in  a  way  contrary  to  that 
of  Luke — that  their  narratives  were  not  invented  ?  If 
they  are  true,  we  must  hold  them  to  be  so  for  precisely 
the  opposite  reason  that  Luke's  story  is  held  to  be  true. 
The  result  of  Mr.  Latham's  argument  is  that  we  must 
view  with  strong  suspicion  all  words  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Jesus  after  his  alleged  resurrection. 

The  argument  amounts  to  this  :  that,  because  writers 
of  that  age  were  in  the  habit  of  embellishing  current 
traditions,  their  omission  to  do  so  in  a  particular 
instance  proves  the  truth  of  the  tradition,  and  conse- 
quently of  a  miracle.  But  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 
suppose  that,  even  in  the  first  century,  writers  existed 
who  at  least  sometimes  passed  on  traditional  beliefs  in 
the  form  in  which  they  were  acquainted  with  them.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  follow  Reimarus  in  accusing  the 
Apostles  of  deliberate  fraud  ;^  they  simply  adopted  the 
literary  methods  common  to  an  uncritical  age.  If 
Matthew  and  John  attributed  words  to  the  risen  Jesus, 
they  believed,  equally  with  Luke,  that  they  were  relating 
a  faithful  account ;  that  is,  each  dealt  with  the  tradition 
he  happened  to  know.     Luke's  reticence,  however,  tends 

1  Fragments  from  Reimarus,  p.  73,  etc. 


"  THE  RISEN  MASTER  "  177 

to  show  the  imperfection  of  his  materials,  for,  if  words 
presumably  of  great  importance  were  actually  uttered, 
they  would  certainly  not  have  been  omitted  had  Luke 
been  able  to  transmit  them. 

Let  us  go  a  step  further.  Can  we  assume  the 
accuracy  of  the  statements  that  Luke  does  make? 
Internal  evidence  seems  to  indicate  the  contrary,  for,  if 
Jesus  really  expounded  as  concerning  himself  prophecies 
which  had  no  relation  to  him,  he  misled  his  disciples.-^ 
If  the  error  rests  with  the  Gospel  writers  alone,  it 
discredits  their  evidence  as  to  the  supernatural,  since  it 
shows  that  they  disseminated  a  tradition  the  true 
character  of  which  they  failed  to  perceive.  It  is  more 
probable  that  Luke's  account  simply  embodies  one  of  the 
conceptions  which  a  later  generation  had  formed  as  to 
w'hat  was  then  assumed  to  have  been  the  character  of 
the  discourse  in  question.  The  attribution  to  Jesus  of 
imaginary  prophecies  was  simply  part  of  the  theological 
outfit  of  the  time. 

Mr.  Latham  is  of  opinion  that  the  rudimentary  views 
of  Cleopas  about  the  Lord,  the  reference  to  Peter  as 
"  Simon "  only,  the  artless  character  of  the  literary 
style  of  this  narrative,  and  its  "  vivid  reproduction  of 
the  politico-theocratic  hopes  which  must  have  entirely 
disappeared  some  time  before  St.  Luke  wrote,"  indicate 
a  very  early  date  for  the  account  of  the  journey  to 
Emmaus,  and  the  probability  that  it  emanates  from  an 
eye-witness,  possibly  Cleopas  himself.  "  These  views  as 
to  the  nature  and  functions  of  the  Lord  would  by  that  time 
have  been  thought  to  require  excuse,  and  the  writer 
would  have  been  tempted  either  to  modify  what  Cleopas 

^  The  disciples  were  reproached  for  their  slowness  to  believe.  May 
not  this  have  been  the  form  in  which  was  expressed  their  self-reproach 
for  their  tardy  apprehension  of  spiritual  truth  ? 

N 


178  "THE  RISEN  MASTER" 

says,  or  to  apologise  for  his  ignorance."^  Obviously  we 
cannot  draw  any  positive  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
from  inferences  of  this  nature.  The  characteristics 
referred  to  are  more  probably  due  merely  to  the  Evan- 
gelist not  feeling  himself  at  liberty  to  modify  the  tradi- 
tion which  he  had  received.  But  how  even  the  early 
existence  of  the  tradition  proves  its  truth  is  not  very 
clear.  Had  it  been  derived  from  an  eye-witness,  the  fact 
should  have  been  stated,  if  the  narrative  was  intended  as 
evidence  of  a  miracle.  Even  this  would  not  have 
rendered  the  resurrection  credible,  but  it  would  have 
been  better  evidence  than  we  actually  possess. 

So  many  events  are  crowded  into  Luke's  account  of 
the  post-resurrection  life  of  Jesus  that  it  is  hard  to 
suppose  they  all  occurred  in  the  course  of  one  day, 
especially  as,  on  that  supposition,  the  ascension  must 
have  taken  place  at  night,  after  the  gates  of  Jerusalem 
had  been  closed.  Mr.  Latham  feels  this  difficulty,  and 
thinks  it  more  probable  that  the  writer  records  events 
which  took  place  at  various  times  during  the  forty  days 
between  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension.^  Luke, 
however,  does  distinctly  imply  that  these  events  occurred 
on  the  same  day,  and,  if  he  is  inaccurate  in  that  some- 
what important  detail,  we  do  not  think  he  makes  a  very 
reliable  witness  for  a  miracle.  And,  as  this  inaccurate 
writer  is  our  only  authority  for  the  conventional  period 
of  forty  days,  we  are  reduced  to  balancing  one  doubtful 
story  against  another. 

The  appearance  to  Thomas  is  believed  by  Mr.  Latham 
to  have  been  not  a  spirit,  but  a  real  body,  though  not 
the  same  as  before.  The  doubting  Apostle  was  thereby 
convinced  of  the  reality  of  the  resurrection,  and,  further 

1  The  Risen  Blaster,  p.  160.  2  mj^  p,  155. 


"  THE  RISEN  MASTER  "  179 

demonstration  being  needless,  did  not  put  his  hand  into 
the  wounds.  It  would  have  been  very  remarkable  if  the 
doubts  of  Thomas  had  not  been  removed  by  a  physical 
appearance  of  Jesus.  Any  modern  sceptic  in  the  same 
position  would  probably  find  his  doubts  vanish  if  they 
conflicted  with  the  unmistakable  evidence  of  his  own 
senses.  But  the  apologists  must  please  bear  in  mind 
that  we  are  not  in  the  position  of  Thomas,  nor  have  we 
even  the  testimony  of  Thomas  to  the  facts.  It  is  not 
Thomas  himself,  but  another  person,  who  relates  that  he 
was  satisfied.  Our  own  opinion  is  that  the  appearance 
to  Thomas  never  took  place. -^  It  is  highly  probable 
(though  not  certain)  that  the  story  grew,  that  many  of 
the  early  Christians  believed  the  resurrection  to  be  a 
spiritual  process,  and  that  the  story  of  Thomas  was, 
among  others,  an  imaginative  presentation  of  a  supposed 
fact  which  could  be  used  to  silence  an  opinion  which  was 
dangerous  to  the  Church.  To  many  minds  nothing  is 
more  impressive  than  the  conversion  of  an  honest  doubter. 
The  whole  account  of  Thomas's  incredulity,  and  its 
removal  by  a  professed  physical  test,  the  impossibihty  of 
which  is  quite  unperceived,  has  an  extremely  artificial 
air,  and  the  doubtful  authorship  and  late  appearance  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  fairly  entitle  us  to  hold  that  what 
seems  to  be  legendary  material  is  really  such.  And  this 
view  is  strengthened  when  w^e  note  that  in  the  words 
"  My  Lord  and  my  God  "  Thomas  expresses  a  theory  of 
the  deity  of  Jesus  which  was  of  later  origin. 

"  All  the  accounts  we  possess,"  says  Mr.  Latham,  "  of 
what  happened  on  the  resurrection- day  must  ultimately 
be  derived  from  those  who  had  been  eye-witnesses  of  the 
events."^     This  may  be  so;  but  how  does  it  affect  the 

^  If  it  did  take  place,  how  is  it  that  Thomas  did  not  at  once  recognise 
Jesus  a  few  days  later  ?     (John  xxi.  4.)  ^  y/jg  jUsen  Master,  p.  220, 


180  <'  THE  RISEN  MASTER  " 

question  ?  All  accounts  of  historical  events  must 
*'  ultimately  be  derived  "  from  those  who  have  been  eye- 
witnesses. All  events  are  not  equally  credible,  all 
accounts  of  them  are  not  equally  true.  In  proportion 
to  their  incredibility  must  we  demand  clearness  and 
directness  in  the  evidence.  If  Mr.  Latham  could  show 
that  the  accounts  of  eye-witnesses  are  invariably  true, 
and  that  they  are  never  modified  by  being  transmitted 
through  other  persons  during  a  long  period,  his  argu- 
ment would  possess  considerable  weight.  But  it  is  the 
reverse  of  this  which  happens.  We  know  that  trans- 
mitted statements  always  become  more  or  less  changed 
in  passing  from  one  person  to  another.  We  know  that 
an  unimaginative  reporter  will  materialise  spiritual 
impressions,  while  a  religious  mind  will  spiritualise 
physical  facts.  It  is  sufficiently  obvious  that  the  Gospel 
writers  exhibit  both  these  peculiarities.  Mr.  Latham's 
argument  might  be  used  to  justify  belief  in  almost  any 
alleged  miracle. 

''Eye-witnesses  of  the  events"!  What  events? 
What  we  want  to  ascertain,  and  what  the  Evangelists 
ought  to  have  related,  is  the  precise  nature  of  the  events 
which  led  to  the  belief  in  the  resurrection.  The  evidence 
that  this  belief  originated  in  the  actual  bodily  appearance 
of  Jesus  after  his  death  is  so  meagre  that  the  only 
reasonable  conclusion  is  that  the  facts  were  not  within 
the  personal  knowledge  of  those  who  purport  to  relate 
them.  If  this  evidence  was  so  scanty  after  the  lapse  of 
forty  or  fifty  years,  the  presumption  is  that  at  an  earlier 
date  it  was  more  slender  still.  It  is  not  likely  to  have 
diminished  with  the  lapse  of  time ;  it  is  more  probable 
that  the  oral  tradition  became  amplified  by  popular 
reports,  current  among  persons  actuated  by  religious 
enthusiasm  and  totally  incapable  of  critical  investigation. 


"  THE  EISEN  MASTER  "  181 

We  do  not  know  when  this  evolution  of  the  resur- 
rection-belief began.  We  do  know  that  it  took  place. 
The  Gospels  themselves  show  that,  during  the  interval 
which  elapsed  between  the  appearance  of  Mark's  Gospel 
and  the  appearance  of  John's  Gospel,  the  belief  assumed 
a  more  definite  literary  form.  The  latter  relates  four 
appearances,  each  accompanied  by  spoken  words ;  the 
former,  in  its  genuine  portion,  relates  no  appearance 
whatever.  If  the  resurrection  had  been  known  as  a 
physical  event  to  Mark,  it  is  practically  impossible  that 
he  should  not  have  related  it.  And,  if  he  was  associated 
with  Peter,  it  is  almost  as  incredible  to  suppose  him 
ignorant  of  the  most  important  circumstance  in  the 
career  of  Jesus. 

The  Gospel  writers  are  commended  by  Mr.  Latham  for 
not  adding  to  the  tradition  with  which  they  were 
acquainted.  Paul  tells  us  that  Jesus  appeared  to  James. 
There  is  no  record  of  this  in  the  Gospels,  but  Mr. 
Latham  treats  it  as  a  fact.  "  The  first  meeting  between 
James  and  the  Bisen  Lord  must  have  offered  an  attrac- 
tive subject  to  persons  who  looked  to  literary  success  ; 
and  it  speaks  well  for  the  conscientiousness  with  which 
the  Evangelists  wrote  that  no  legend  on  this  subject  is 
even  hinted  at.  It  may  be  that,  when  the  earlier 
Gospels  were  wTitten,  James  was  still  alive,  and  that  it 
was  known  that  on  this  subject  he  held  his  peace  himself, 
and  would  not  that  others  should  speak."  ^  In  other 
words,  the  credit  of  a  supernatural  story  is  to  be  assumed 
not  only  from  what  it  contains,  but  from  what  it  omits — a 
method  of  argument  which  hardly  commends  itself  to 
those  by  whom  the  story  is  doubted.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  contains  an 

1  The  Risen  Master,  p.  323. 


182  "  THE  RISEN  MASTER  " 

account  of  this  appearance.  In  that  Gospel  it  is  to  the 
apologist  nothing  but  a  legend  ;  had  it  been  in  one  of  the 
canonical  Gospels,  it  would  have  been  a  fact,  to  be 
defended  at  any  cost.  On  what  grounds  is  the  distinc- 
tion drawn?  Paul's  reference  is  doubtless  derived  from 
the  tradition  embodied  in  this  admittedly  legendary 
account.  Yet  Paul's  allusion  is  treated  by  all  apologists  as 
referring  to  an  actual  occurrence.  Paul  is  thus  a  credible 
witness  to  an  incident  because  he  mentions  it ;  the 
Evangelists  are  credible  witnesses  to  the  same  incident 
because  they  do  not  mention  it.  One  would  have  thought 
their  "conscientiousness"  might  have  resulted  in  a 
faithful  recital  of  the  fact,  without  legendary  embellish- 
ment. The  absence  of  the  latter  is  not  in  all  cases  so 
undoubted  as  Mr.  Latham  supposes. 

James  was,  we  are  told,  a  "  disbeliever  in  the  Lord's 
mission  to  the  very  close  of  His  earthly  life.  He  was 
convinced,  it  would  seem,  by  an  appearance  of  the  Risen 
Jesus."  ^  Like  the  apologist,  we  can  only  conjecture  the 
cause  of  James's  conversion,  though  we  cannot  share  the 
comfortable  belief  that  "it  would  seem"  is  sufiicient 
evidence  of  occurrences  which  involve  a  variation  of  the 
order  of  nature.  We  will  only  remark  that  the  Ration- 
alist of  the  present  day  is  in  a  position  somewhat  similar 
to  that  of  the  Lord's  brother,  with  the  difference  that 
James  is  rather  commended  for  declining  to  believe 
without  actually  seeing  Jesus,  while  the  unhappy  Ration- 
alist is  sometimes  sternly  reproved  for  disbelieving 
without  a  like  aid  to  faith. 

Mr.  Latham  refers  with  some  frequency  to  the  Gospels 
being  derived  from  the  reports  of  eye-witnesses.  It  may 
be  well  to  remind  him  of  something  which  he  knows 

1  The  Bisen  Master,  p.  320. 


THE  RISEN  MASTER  "  183 


quite  well — viz.,  that  the  testimony  even  of  eye- 
witnesses may  be  very  far  from  proving  the  truth  of 
what  they  relate.  In  times  when  miracles  are  readily 
believed  nothing  is  more  common  than  testimony  that 
is  unwittingly  false,  and  reasoning  that  is  evidently 
erroneous.  For  a  delightfully  written  and  convincing 
illustration  of  this  let  the  reader  turn  to  Professor 
Huxley's  essay  *'  On  the  Value  of  Witness  to  the 
Miraculous,"  from  which  the  following  passages  are 
extracted.  Eginhard,  a  writer  who  held  a  confidential 
position  in  the  Court  of  Charlemagne,  having  related 
certain  miracles  which  he  had  personally  witnessed, 
Huxley  observes : — 

It  might  fairly  be  said.  Here  you  have  a  man 
whose  high  character,  acute  intelligence,  and  large 
instruction  are  certified  by  eminent  contemporaries ;  a 
man  who  stood  high  in  the  confidence  of  one  of  the 
greatest  rulers  of  any  age,  and  whose  other  works  prove 
him  to  be  an  accurate  and  judicious  narrator  of  ordinary 
events.  This  man  tells  you,  in  language  which  bears 
the  stamp  of  sincerity,  of  things  which  happened  within 
his  own  knowledge,  or  within  that  of  persons  in  whose 
veracity  he  has  entire  confidence,  while  he  appeals  to  his 
sovereign  and  the  Court  as  witnesses  of  others  ;  what 
possible  ground  can  there  be  for  disbelieving  him  ?^ 

Eginhard,  in  fact,  gives  us  evidence  precisely  similar 
in  kind  to  that  of  the  Gospels,  with  the  addition  of  one 
important  particular  in  which  they  are  lacking — viz., 
the  direct  testimony  of  an  eye-witness.  According  to 
apologetic  canons,  he  ought  therefore  to  be  believed 
without  a  moment's  hesitation.  How  does  the  Protes- 
tant controversialist  treat  Eginhard's  testimony?  He 
either  flatly  disbelieves  or  calmly  ignores  it.  He  does  not 
believe  that  Eginhard  is  correct  in  asserting  that  demons 

^  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  170. 


184  "  THE  RISEN  MASTER  " 

were  exorcised  by  the  medium  of  holy  rehcs,  or  that  he 
saw  blood  exuding  from  a  chest  containing  the  bones  of 
martyred  saints.  Why  this  scepticism  ?  Because  the 
incidents  are  not  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  But 
the  evidence  is  exactly  similar  to  that  of  the  New 
Testament.  To  accept  the  one  and  reject  the  other  is 
to  make  theological  bias  the  test  of  historical  truth. 
Huxley  answers  his  question  thus  : — 

Well,  it  is  hard  upon  Eginhard  to  say  so,  but  it  is 
exactly  the  honesty  and  sincerity  of  the  man  which  are 
his  undoing  as  a  witness  to  the  miraculous.  He 
himself  makes  it  quite  obvious  that  when  his  profound 
piety  comes  upon  the  stage,  his  good  sense,  and  even 
his  perception  of  right  and  wrong,  make  their  exit.^ 

A  Roman  Catholic  writer,  the  Rev.  Sydney  F.  Smith, 

commented  on  Professor  Huxley's  argument  in   terms 

too  choice  to  pass  unnoticed  : — 

He  relates  a  little  mediaeval  story,  how  some  supposi- 
titious relics  were  palmed  off  upon  the  good  Abbot 
Eginhard.  He  then  draws  the  inference  that  witness 
for  the  miraculous  is  in  all  cases  unreliable.  If  so  large 
a  conclusion  follows  from  these  premisses,  one  does  not 
see  why  one  still  larger  should  not  follow  as  well,  and 
require  us  to  disbelieve  in  historical  testimony  all  round.^ 

That  is  how  orthodoxy  pulverises  a  man  like  Huxley. 
The  reverend  gentleman  cannot  even  state  with  any 
approach  to  accuracy  the  premisses  to  which  he  is 
opposed.  Eginhard  declares  that  he  saw  miracles 
wrought  by  the  power  of  certain  relics.  He  was 
mistaken;  consequently  the  testimony  of  even  an  eye- 
witness to  the  miraculous  becomes  unreliable.  And 
Eginhard  was  for  his  time  an  exceptionally  competent 
witness.     He    was    mistaken    merely   because    he   was 

1  Science  and  Christian  Tradition,  p.  170. 
2  The  Month,  June,  1889,  p.  218. 


"THE  EISEN  MASTER"  185 

chock-full  of  superstition.  Therefore  the  testimony  of 
even  a  capable  person  may  be  vitiated  by  his  religious 
beliefs.  That  is  clear  enough  for  any  reasonable  man. 
The  point  for  us  is  not  whether  the  relics  were  or  were 
not  spurious,  but  whether  Eginhard  was  really  justified 
in  believing  that  they  were  the  means  of  a  miracle  being 
wrought,  and  also  w'hether  we  are  justified  in  so 
believing  on  his  evidence.  Probably  the  relics  were 
supposititious,  though  the  story  does  not  definitely  say 
so,  or  that  they  w^ere  "palmed  ofl'"  upon  Eginhard,  who 
certainly,  with  many  others,  believed  them  to  be 
genuine.  The  question  is  :  Were  the  miracles  genuine  ? 
Mr.  Smith  implies  that  had  the  relics  been  genuine  the 
miracles  would  have  been  real,  and  that,  because  he 
believes  the  former  to  have  been  spurious,  the  miracles 
did  not  happen.  He  thus  discredits  evidence  more 
direct  than  that  for  the  resurrection. 

We  present  the  apologists  with  another  quotation  from 
Huxley's  essay : — 

Quite  apart  from  deliberate  and  conscious  fraud  (which 
is  a  rarer  thing  than  is  often  supposed),  people  whose 
mythopoeic  faculty  is  once  stirred,  are  capable  of  saying 
the  thing  that  is  not,  and  of  acting  as  they  should  not, 
to  an  extent  which  is  hardly  imaginable  by  persons  w^ho 
are  not  so  easily  affected  by  the  contagion  of  blind  faith. 
There  is  no  falsity  so  gross  that  honest  men,  and  still 
more  virtuous  women,  anxious  to  promote  a  good  cause, 
will  not  lend  themselves  to  it  without  any  clear  con- 
sciousness of  the  moral  bearings  of  what  they  are  doing.^ 

The  annals  of  the  Christian  Church  afford  ample  proof 
of  the  truth  of  these  words. 

1  Science  and  Cliristian  Tradition,  p.  182. 


Chapter  IV. 

''THE    RESURRECTION   OF   JESUS   CHRIST," 
BY   THE   REV.   JOHN   KENNEDY,  D.D. 

The  bouncing  confidence  of  the  Rev.  John  Kennedy  is 

out  of  all  proportion  to  the  strength  of  his  arguments. 

To  begin  with,  he  quotes  some  passages  from  Sir  George 

Cornewall  Lewis  and  other  writers,  on    the   nature   of 

evidence,  which  signally  fail  to  render  the  support  that 

he  imagines  his  case  derives  from  them.     Two  of  these 

passages  may  be  reproduced  : — 

Historical  evidence,  like  judicial  evidence,  is  founded 
on  the  evidence  of  credible  witnesses.  Unless  these 
witnesses  had  personal  and  immediate  perception  of  the 
facts  which  they  report,  unless  they  saw  and  heard  what 
they  undertake  to  relate  as  having  happened,  their  evidence 
is  not  entitled  to  credit.  As  all  original  witnesses  must 
be  contemporary  with  the  events  which  they  attest,  it  is 
a  necessary  condition  for  the  credibility  of  a  witness  that 
he  be  a  contemporary,  though  a  contemporary  is  not 
necessarily  a  credible  witness.  Unless,  therefore,  a 
historical  account  can  be  traced  by  probable  proof  to 
the  testimony  of  contemporaries,  the  first  condition  of 
historical  credibility  fails.i 

The  same  authority  also  states  : — 

The  credibility  of  a  witness  to  a  fact  seems  to  depend 
mainly  on  the  four  following  conditions,  namely : — 

1.  That  the  fact  fell  within  the  reach  of  his  senses. 

2.  That  he  observed  or  attended  to  it. 

3.  That  he  possesses  a  fair  amount  of  intelligence  and 
memory. 

^  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  Credibility  of  Early  Roman  History,  p.  IG. 

18G 


«  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  "    187 

4.  That   he   is   free  from  any  sinister  or  misleading 
interest,  or,  if  not,  that  he  is  a  person  of  veracity.^ 

Dr.  Kennedy  boldly  claims  that  the  evidence  for  the 
resurrection  meets  these  requirements.  As  regards  the 
Gospels  we  have  no  proof  (but  a  strong  contrary  pre- 
sumption) that  their  authors  were  contemporaries,  and, 
if  it  could  be  shown  that  they  were,  we  have  to  remember 
that  "a  contemporary  is  not  necessarily  a  credible 
witness."  We  have  to  prove  that  the  Gospel  writers 
*'  saw  and  heard  "  before  we  discuss  their  competency  as 
historians.  On  Dr.  Kennedy's  own  showing,  therefore, 
the  four  Gospels  must  be  struck  out  as  failing  to  fulfil 
"  the  first  condition  of  historical  credibility." 

As  regards  Paul  there  is  a  loophole,  though  it  is 
nothing  more.  We  may  at  once  admit  that  Paul  was  a 
man  of  intelligence  and  veracit}^  Does  that  alone  make 
him  a  good  witness  for  the  resurrection  ?  Certainly  not. 
Have  we  never  heard  of  intelligent  and  truthful  men 
being  mistaken  ?  Are  we  in  a  position  to  say  that  in 
his  case  no  possibilities  of  error  are  to  be  discerned  ? 
Are  we  certain  that  his  Epistles  have  never  been 
retouched?  Unquestionably  the  actual  resurrection  of 
Jesus  did  not  "fall  within  the  reach  of"  Paul's  senses. 
Nor  can  we  say  that  the  Damascus  incident  was  equiva- 
lent to  the  actual  perception  of  a  dead  person  returning 
to  life.  It  may  have  been,  it  probably  was,  nothing 
more  than  a  vision,  of  which  natural  antecedents  may 
be  predicated.  And — chief  point  of  all — this  incident  is 
nowhere  related  in  Paul's  own  writings.  Even  in  the 
case  of  Paul,  therefore.  Dr.  Kennedy's  evidence  resolves 
itself  into  a  series  of  inferences,  the  value  of  which  is 
highly  questionable.     He  maintains  that  Paul  must  have 

1  On  Authority  in  Matters  of  Opinion,  pp.  21,  22. 


188    "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 


investigated  the  evidence.  Only  there  is  not  an  iota  of 
proof  that  he  did  so.  On  the  contrary,  he  says  he  learnt 
nothing  from  the  other  Apostles.  We  may  add  a  defini- 
tion of  hearsay  evidence  which  will  show  beyond  reason- 
able doubt  that  the  Gospel  statements  come  under  this 
category.  "  Hearsay  evidence  is  the  name  given  by 
lawyers  to  evidence  given  in  a  court  of  justice  at  second- 
hand, where  the  witness  states  not  what  he  himself  saw 
or  heard,  but  what  somebody  else  said.  This  evidence 
is  as  a  general  rule  inadmissible,  because  the  axiom  is 
that  the  best  evidence  that  can  be  had  must  be  produced, 
and  therefore  each  witness  must  be  confined  to  stating 
what  he  knows  of  his  own  personal  knowledge,  or  what 
he  has  learned  by  the  aid  of  his  own  senses ;  and  as  he 
is  sworn  to  the  truth,  his  truthfulness  is  thus  secured  as 
far  as  human  testimony  can  be  so.  If  evidence  were 
once  admitted  at  secondhand,  there  would  be  no  limit  to 
its  uncertainty,  and  there  would  be  thus  introduced 
vague  statements  of  absent  persons,  who,  not  being 
sworn  when  they  made  them,  are  therefore  incapable  of 
being  punished  if  they  speak  falsely,  and  cannot  be  cross- 
examined."^  Why  should  not  the  evidence  for  a  divine 
revelation  be  at  least  as  good  as  that  required  by  a 
human  tribunal  ? 

Moreover,  what  events  are  they  to  which  Sir  G.  C. 
Lewis's  canons  are  intended  to  apply  ?  Miracles  ?  Not 
at  all.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  was  referring  to  natural  events. 
As  Dr.  Kennedy  himself  admits,  a  higher  degree  of 
evidence  is  required  to  prove  supernatural  events.  To 
them  even  more  stringent  canons  must  be  applied.  Yet, 
with  all  his  efforts,  he  is  able  to  bring  forward  in  support 
of  these  supernatural  events  a  degree  of  evidence  which 

1  Chambers^  Eiicyclopcsdia,  art.  "Hearsay  Evidence." 


"THE  KESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"     189 

only  partially  suffices  to  establish  events  within  the 
scope  of  ordinary  experience.  This  amounts  to  nothing 
less  than  a  collapse  of  the  entire  case  which  he  claims 
to  have  proved. 

Although  we  consider  at  the  outset  that  Dr.  Kennedy's 
whole  argument  is  self-refuted  through  its  failure  to 
satisfy  his  own  tests  of  credibility,  we  feel  bound  to 
notice  in  detail  the  most  important  of  his  propositions. 

He  states:  "The  principle  of  the  impossibility  or 
incredibility  of  miracles,  and  the  consequent  rejection 
of  all  supernatural  narrative  as  legendary,  would  put  a 
stop  at  once  to  any  inquiry  respecting  an  alleged 
revelation."^ 

It  is  pleasant  to  find  an  apologist  who  is  anxious  to 
have  his  alleged  revelation  inquired  into,  though  cases 
to  the  contrary  have  been  known.  We  nierely  ask 
which  is  the  worse  and  more  mischievous  alternative — 
to  reject  miracles  as  incredible,  or  to  swallow  them  with- 
out examination  ?  History,  which  shows  us  the  un- 
reasoning credulity  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  its  disastrous 
moral  consequences,  supplies  an  answer  which  is  clear 
and  conclusive.  The  great  evil  of  the  belief  in  the 
supernatural  is  this — it  never  knows  where  to  stop.  If 
you  believe  one  miracle,  on  what  principle  can  you  reject 
another  ?  On  the  authority  of  the  Bible  we  are  clearly 
justified  in  believing  in  angels,  devils,  evil  spirits,  witch- 
craft, and,  indeed,  in  a  comprehensive  dislocation  of  the 
natural  order.  Let  the  Rationalist  at  once  confess  to  a 
bias  against  the  miraculous.  In  that  he  is  more  than 
justified.  In  all  his  experience  he  has  never  seen  the 
laws  of  nature  interrupted,  nor  has  he  ever  met  with 
testimony  capable  of  proving  that  any  interruption  has 

1  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  21. 


190      "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

taken  place.  This  is  not  obstinate  incredulity,  but  a 
^Yell-fouuded  reliance  on  a  preponderating  body  of 
evidence,  which,  unlike  that  for  miracles,  is  not  even 
open  to  dispute.  Yet  the  apologist  regards  the  rational 
attitude  as  almost  criminal,  while  an  irrational  bias  in 
favour  of  what  no  one  can  verify  is  commonly  held  to  be 
essential  to  true  religion.  The  logical  result  of  belief 
in  the  supernatural  is.  Credo  quia  impossihile.  And  it 
frequently  carries  with  it  a  certain  scepticism  with  regard 
to  the  conclusions  of  science  and  reason.  Thus  Mr. 
McCheyne  Edgar  would  prefer  to  reject  the  whole  body 
of  modern  science  rather  than  the  evidence  for  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus.-^ 

Naturally  enough,  Dr.  Kennedy  misrepresents  the 
case  which  he  imagines  he  is  pulverising.  The  modern 
Agnostic  (such  a  man  as  Huxley,  for  instance)  does  not 
positively  assert  that  miracles  are  impossible.  He 
simply  says  that  the  evidence  in  their  favour  is  not 
strong  enough  to  warrant  belief  in  a  variation  of  natural 
laws;  his  verdict  is  that  miracles  are  "  not  proven." 

Lashing  out  at  this  "principle"  that  miracles  are 
impossible.  Dr.  Kennedy  brings  up  Dean  Milman,  who 
declares  it  to  be  "  unphilosophical,"  and  Canon  Mozley, 
who  describes  it  as  "  the  crudest  and  shallowest  of  all 
the  assumptions  of  unbelief."^  Our  apologist  fancies  he 
has  reduced  unbelief  to  an  absurdity  if  he  can  but  show 
that  it  involves  disbelief  in  the  evidence  of  our  own 
senses.  Let  him  answer  a  plain  question :  Are  our 
senses  infallible?  One  does  not  need  much  reflection 
before  saying  "  No "  to  that.  Leaving  the  Biblical 
writers  out  of  the  question,  instances  of  honest  delusion, 
from  Joan  of  Arc  to  Swedenborg,  from  George  Fox  to 

^  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  Present-day  Tracts,  No.  45,  p.  G2. 
2  Kennedy,  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  21. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"      191 


Joanna  Southcott,  are  simply  innumerable.  Even  in 
our  own  day  the  pathetic  demand  for  miracle  creates  its 
own  fulfilment.  Every  cripple  who  goes  to  Lourdes  is 
not  healed,  but  the  formally  attested  cures  are  declared 
to  number  ten  per  cent.^  Does  Dr.  Kennedy  believe 
them,  or  does  he  apply  to  them  the  rationalistic  explana- 
tions which  the  unbeliever  applies  to  the  belief  in  the 
resurrection  ?  Thousands  of  miracles  are  more  directly 
attested,  and  by  more  competent  witnesses,  than  the 
miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  The  apologist  will 
not  admit  it  to  be  unphilosophical  to  reject  the  one 
while  accepting  the  other.  But  if  one  miracle,  w^hy  not 
an  infinite  number  ?  The  philosophical  difficulty  remains 
the  same.  When  the  Rationalist  finds  miracles  sup- 
ported by  the  direct  testimony  of  eye-witnesses  to  be 
unworthy  of  credit,  he  cannot  be  expected  to  share  the 
apologists'  tenderness  for  the  indirect  and  traditional 
evidence  by  which  alone  the  resurrection-belief  is 
supported. 

Dr.  Kennedy  quotes  approvingly  the  Rev.  Isaac 
Tajdor's  remark  that  "  the  validity  of  evidence  in  proof 
of  remote  facts  is  not  affected,  either  for  the  better  or 
the  worse,  by  the  weight  of  the  consequences  that  may 
happen  to  depend  upon  them."^  Again,  Dr.  Kennedy 
fails  to  perceive  that  this  quotation  tells  against  the 
case  for  the  resurrection.  Isaac  Taylor's  words  exclude 
the  argument  based  upon  the  diffusion,  the  energy,  and 
the  influence  of  the  Christian  Church,  from  the  legiti- 
mate evidence  of  the  resurrection  as  a  real  occurrence. 
Yet  nearly  all  apologists  make  these  consequences  of 
the  resurrection-belief  one  of  the  chief  points  in  its 
favour. 

^  Zola,  Lourdes,  6d.  edition,  p.  81. 
-  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  22. 


192      "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

Referring  to  the  accounts  of  Paul's  conversion,  Dr. 
Kennedy  considers  the  discrepancies  in  Acts  only 
"  apparent  " — the  most  useful  term  the  apologist  has 
at  command,  though  he  never  explains  why  even 
''  apparent "  discrepancies  should  be  exhibited  by  a 
divine  revelation.  "  Luke  says  *  hearing  the  voice,' 
whereas  Paul  says  '  they  heard  not  the  voice  of  him 
who  spoke  to  me.'  The  solution  of  this  difficulty  is 
very  simple.  According  to  Luke,  those  w4io  travelled 
with  Paul  heard  the  sound  of  the  words  that  w^ere 
spoken ;  but  according  to  Paul  they  did  not  understand 
what  was  spoken.^  The  w^ords  spoken  by  the  Lord  were 
heard  both  by  Paul  and  his  companions,  but  were  under- 
stood only  by  Paul.  We  have  a  similar  instance  in  the 
life  of  Christ,  where  a  voice  from  heaven  to  him  was 
heard  in  a  threefold  manner  ;  those  who  were  believers 
recognised  it  as  the  voice  of  God,  and  heard  the  words  ; 
some  hearing  it  said  it  thundered  ;  others  hearing  it 
said  an  angel  spake  to  him.  When  two  narratives 
which  are  manifestly  independent  of  each  other  supple- 
ment the  one  the  other,  and  thus  throw  light  the  one 
upon  the  other,  they  furnish  mutual  confirmation."^ 

It  would  perhaps  be  a  waste  of  time  to  analyse  this 
masterpiece  of  reasoning.  It  seems  that  *'a  voice  from 
heaven  "  may  be  interpreted  either  as  the  voice  of  God 
or  as  a  simple  peal  of  thunder,  according  to  the  pre- 
disposition of  the  observer.^  We  know  well  enough 
which  explanation  would  be  preferred  in  an  age  of  rank 
superstition.     Dr.  Kennedy's  explanation   has   not  the 


^  Dr.  Davidson  pronounces  this  distinction  illegitimate.  {Introduction 
to  Neio  Testament,  v.  ii.,  p.  125). 

2  Eesurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  55. 

^  The  Jews,  like  many  other  peoples,  were  in  the  habit  of  regarding 
thunder  as  the  voice  of  God. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"     193 

remotest  resemblance  to  evidence  of  a  supposed  super- 
natural event,  nor  is  such  an  explanation  hinted  at  by 
the  writer  of  Acts.  Evidently  it  is  the  fruit  of  a  strong 
conviction  that  every  passage  in  the  New  Testament 
7nust  be  inspired,  must  be  true,  and  that  all  discrepancies 
must  be  merely  ''  apparent."  But  even  after  his  lucid' 
exposition  we  still  fail  to  understand  how  God,  if  he  is, 
as  Jesus  declared,  "a  spirit,"  can  possess  a  physical 
vocal  apparatus,  and  utter  from  the  realms  of  space 
articulate  words  in  a  human  language. 

This  brings  us  to  what  is  with  the  apologist  a  serious 
difficulty.  Jesus  is  alleged  to  have  died  and  ascended 
into  heaven  long  before  the  conversion  of  Paul ;  how 
long  we  cannot  say,  nor  can  any  theologian  help 
us.  No  one  knows  the  date  of  either  event.  He 
must,  therefore,  even  according  to  the  apologists,  have 
appeared  to  Paul  as  a  spirit.  Weizsacker  confirms  this 
view.  Paul's  words  in  Corinthians  prove  "  conclusively 
that  what  he  saw  was  only  visible  to  his  spirit.  For 
nothing  else  existed  than  a  spiritual  nature,  a  spiritual 
body.  Any  other  '  seeing  '  was  therefore  impossible,  and, 
accordingly,  every  assumption  that  involves  the  percep- 
tion of  the  material  body  in  its  original  form  falls  to  the 
ground."^  We  ask  for  some  evidence  that  a  spirit  can 
articulate  "  words  in  the  Hebrew  tongue " — or  any 
other.  And  is  it  not  strange  that  Paul's  companions, 
who  must  have  been  Jews,  were  somehow  incapable  of 
comprehending  words  spoken  in  their  own  language  ? 
It  looks  as  if  Dr.  Kennedy's  "  solution,"  instead  of  being 
*'very  simple,"  involves  a  succession  of  miraculous 
phenomena  for  which  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  warrant. 

Again,  the  Greek  word  for  "  hearing  "  is  the  same  in 

1  The  Apostolic  Age  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.,  p.  5. 

O 


194     ''THE  KESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

both  passages,  and  the  word  "  voice "  is  the  same. 
Obviously  Dr.  Kennedy  assumes  a  difference  of  meaning 
for  purely  apologetic  purposes. 

The  critical  acumen  which  accepts  as  historical  the 
account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  when  it  bears  legend 
stamped  on  almost  every  line,  may  be  left  to  sink  into 
oblivion  without  assistance. 

One  more  peculiar  feature  of  Dr.  Kennedy's  defence 
must  be  noticed.  He  has  no  hesitation  in  accepting  as 
Paul's  own  words  the  speeches  attributed  to  the  Apostle 
by  the  writer  of  Acts.  One  statement  is  by  Luke  ; 
another  by  Paul !  Both,  however,  are  from  the  pen  of 
Luke.  Since  when  has  it  been  discovered  that  Paul's 
speeches  were  reported  verbatim,  and  revised  by  the 
orator  ?  Dr.  Kennedy  would  doubtless  proffer  another 
"very  simple  solution"  of  this  difficulty:  Luke  must 
have  derived  his  information  from  Paul  himself;  it  must 
therefore  be  accurate.  This,  however,  is  nothing  but 
assumption,  and  it  is  not  confirmed  by  Paul  himself. 
In  his  own  writings  he  ignores  the  Damascus  incident 
altogether,  even  when  mentioning  his  visit  to  that  place. 
Moreover,  it  is  a  commonplace  of  modern  criticism  that 
the  Book  of  Acts  is  not  historically  reliable,  especially  in 
those  portions  which  lack  the  confirmation  of  Paul 
himself. 

The  reasonable  suggestion  that  Paul's  nervous  tem- 
perament was  a  factor  in  his  conversion  is  thus 
summarily  dismissed  :  "  Readers  may  be  excused  if  they 
resent  such  suggestions  as  an  insult  to  their  under- 
standing. But  we  are  content  to  say  that  how  a  con- 
vulsion or  an  epileptic  fit,  or  even  a  nervous  constitution, 
could  contribute  to  the  conversion  of  Saul,  or  to  the 
circumstances  in  which  it  took  place,  passes  our  know- 
ledge.    It  may  be,  however,  it  is  said  that  there  was  a 


"THE  RESUREECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"     195 

sudden  flash  of  lightning  and  a  sudden  peal  of  thunder, 
which,  coinciding  with  the  inward  struggles  of  his  mind, 
was  considered  by  the  Apostle  as  the  appearance  and 
angry  voice  of  the  Christ  whom  he  persecuted.  We  can 
understand  how  a  thunderstorm  might  produce  awe  and 
lead  to  solemn  reflection  ;  but  how  Saul  could  convert 
the  sound  of  thunder  into  a  conversation  between  him 
and  Jesus  Christ  we  cannot  understand."-^ 

The  dazed  inconsequence  of  these  remarks  is  rather 
trying  to  anyone  who  wishes  to  know  what  really  took 
place  when  Paul  became  a  Christian.  Dr.  Kennedy 
does  not  explain  on  what  principle  the  Apostle's  con- 
version should  be  regarded  as  a  unique  case  having 
no  relation  to  similar  phenomena.  Even  a  rudimen- 
tary acquaintance  with  the  psychology  of  conversion 
might  have  shown  it  not  to  be  beyond  any  ordinary 
person's  knowledge  that  the  particular  features  of  a 
human  personality  are  necessarily  involved  in  every 
change,  mental  or  spiritual,  which  that  personality 
undergoes.  Dr.  Kennedy  would  not,  we  think,  on  sober 
reflection,  deny  that,  even  if  Paul  was  supernaturally 
converted,  his  native  temperament  was  one  of  the  forces 
which  were  at  work  during  the  crisis,  and  helped  to 
determine  its  character  and  tendencies.  Even  a  super- 
natural revelation  could  not  annihilate,  though  it  might 
greatly  modify,  the  essential  nature  of  the  person  to  whom 
it  was  made.  And  to  assume  that  Paul's  conversion  lacked 
the  subjective  element  which  was  necessary  (or  there 
could  have  been  nothing  to  convert),  and  was  due  solely 
to  a  supernatural  cause,  because  the  Book  of  Acts 
mentions  only  the  latter,  is  merely  to  beg  the  question. 
Criticism — even    Biblical    criticism — proceeds    on    the 

1  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  59. 


196    "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

principle  that  a  supernatural  explanation  should  not 
be  invoked  if  a  natural  explanation  is  possible.  Con- 
version is  a  modification  of  the  inner  nature,  and  is 
consequently  a  process  in  which  the  subjective  element 
is  of  the  first  importance,  whatever  may  be  the  external 
co-operating  agencies.  Dr.  Kennedy  not  merely  ignores, 
but  practically  denies,  the  existence  of  this  subjective 
factor  in  the  case  of  Paul.  He  will  not  even  allow  that 
it  contributed  to  the  result.  To  suggest  such  a  thing  is 
to  "  insult  "  the  reader's  understanding.  Only  the  most 
determined  bias  could  thus  disregard  the  facts  essential 
to  a  comprehension  of  the  event,  and  set  at  defiance  the 
voice  of  reason. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  this  dogged  supernaturalism 
finds  little  support  in  the  language  of  Paul  himself.  Why 
does  Dr.  Kennedy  persist  in  preferring  the  authority  of 
another  and  much  later  writer,  who  was  not  present,  to 
that  of  the  principal  person  concerned  ?  He  considers 
the  '' hypothesis  of  mental  struggle  in  Paul"  not  only 
without  historic  foundation,  but  "  contrary  to  all  that  he 
tells  us  of  his  state  of  mind  in  this  great  crisis  of  his 
life."^  This  assertion  is  based  on  two  passages  in  Acts 
and  one  in  Galatians,  which  merely  refer  to  Paul's  having 
formerly  been  a  persecutor  ;  and,  though  they  give  no 
clear  indication  of  his  state  of  mind  at  the  time  of  his 
conversion,  they  imply  an  after-feeling  of  reproach 
which  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  callous  passivity 
assumed  by  Dr.  Kennedy.  The  uncertain  authorship  of 
the  passages  in  Acts  is  passed  over  without  notice. 
These  may  have  been,  and  probably  were,  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Paul  by  the  later  compiler.  At  any  rate, 
criticism   stands   self-condemned  when   it   assumes  the 

^  Piesurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  59. 


"THE  RESUREECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"     197 


truth  of  propositions  which  it  is  called  upon  to  support 
by  positive  reasons.  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Kennedy 
ignores  the  passage  in  Galatians  which  clearly  refers  to 
an  inward  revelation,  as  well  as  the  various  other 
passages  relating  to  experiences  which  in  modern 
language  would  certainly  be  termed  subjective. 

At  this  point  we  may  interpolate  the  opinion  of  a 
Christian  author  of  some  repute.  Dr.  Percy  Gardner 
says:  "It  is  a  cardinal  principle  that  in  speaking  of 
Paul  we  must  judge  him  from  his  own  writings,  and  not 

from  what  we  are  told  about  him  in   the  Acts In 

many  ways  the  picture  of  the  Apostle  as  given  in  the 
Acts  differs  from  that  which  we  derive  from  the  Epistles; 
and  when  this  is  the  case  we  cannot  hesitate  which  of 
the  two  accounts  we  should  prefer.  In  particular,  the 
story  of  the  sudden  and  complete  conversion  of  Paul,  of 
which  we  have  three  varying  accounts  in  the  Acts, 
though  it  may  probably  have  some  basis  of  fact,  is  yet 

no  doubt  misleading The  great  change  was  inward, 

perhaps  gradual,  and,  though  it  may  well  have  culmi- 
nated in  a  vision,  yet  the  writer  of  Acts  probably 
misleads  us  in   his  love   of    the    external,    the    sudden, 

the   dramatic Almost  all    theologians  have   been 

misled  by  attaching  too  much  weight  to  the  vivid 
account  in  Acts  of  Paul's  conversion,  to  the  speeches 
which  on  various  occasions  are  in  Acts  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Paul,  and  to  other  passages  which  are,  in  fact, 
expressive  of  the  views  of  Luke  rather  than  of  Paul."^ 

Dr.  Kennedy  claims  that  we  find  in  the  Apostle's 
writings  clear  "  evidence  of  a  sober,  sound,  and  self- 
possessed  mind the  very  opposite  of  nervousness  or 

excitability,  which  could  make  him  an  easy  prey  to  his 

^  A  HistoriclVieiu  of  the  Neio  Testament,  pp.  211-13. 


198     "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

own  imagination,  or  to  any  form  of  delusion."^  Has  the 
apologist  never  heard  of  opposite  characteristics  being 
displayed  by  the  same  person  ?  Has  he  never  heard  of 
the  scientific  mystic,  Swedenborg?  Does  he  really 
imagine  that  Paul  was  entirely  uninfluenced  by  the 
special  tendencies  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived?  One 
has  only  to  read  Paul's  Epistles  with  an  open  mind,  and 
numerous  indications  of  mysticism  and  emotional 
religion  will  be  plainly  seen.  To  some  of  these  we  have 
called  attention  in  a  preceding  chapter.  Dr.  Davidson 
remarks  that  "  Paul's  temperament  was  highly  nervous. 
He  was  epileptic,  mystical,  to  some  extent  visionary, 
and  the  subject  of  apocalyptic  revelations.  Images  in 
his  mind  were  often  turned  into  objective  phenomena" 
(Introduction  to  New  Testament,  vol.  i.,  p.  181). 

*'  There  was,"  says  Dr.  Kennedy,  "  an  external  or 
objective  cause  for  all  the  Apostle  Paul's  visions."^ 
Positive  assertions  of  this  character  should  be  proved. 
So  far  from  even  attempting  to  prove  this  one.  Dr. 
Kennedy  does  not  consider  the  attempt  worth  making. 
*'  We  need  not  trouble  ourselves  with  any  inquiry  into 
either  physical  or  metaphysical  explanations  of  visions  of 
this  order.  One  thing  is  certain — that  what  the  vision- 
seer,  if  the  vision  is  of  himself,  sees  and  hears  must  have 
lain  previously  within  him."^  To  say  this  was  the  case 
with  Paul  would  be  to  say  "  that  his  conversion  was  the 
fruit  of  his  conversion,  he  being  already  inwardly  that 
which  he  became  manifestly  after  his  vision."  ^  On  this 
theory  "  it  must  be  proved  that  Paul  was  already  a  con- 
verted man  "  before  the  Damascus  vision.  Here  Dr. 
Kennedy,  by  some  lucky  accident,  has  come  near  to  what 
is  probably  the  truth.     "  Probably  " — because  there  are 

^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  GO. 

'^  Ibid,  p.  GO.  3  Hid,  p.  G2.  ^  Ibid,  p.  62. 


"THE  EESUERECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"     199 

good  reasons  for  holding,  though  we  cannot  prove  it, 
that,  as  Dr.  Gardner  says,  Paul's  vision,  if  he  had  one, 
was  just  the  culminating  point  in  a  prolonged  psycho- 
logical struggle.  This  would  certainly  be  represented 
by  the  writer  of  Acts  as  an  external  manifestation, 
though  Paul  himself  speaks  only  of  an  inward  process. 
Dr.  McGiffert  has  remarked :  ''  Such  a  transformation 
necessitates  some  preparation  ;  without  it  the  event  is 
psychologically  inconceivable.  The  preparation  need 
not  be  direct,  but  some  preparation  there  must  be. 
What  it  actually  was  we  may  learn  from  Romans  vii.  7."  ^ 
The  seventh  chapter  of  Romans,  in  fact,  reveals  a  dis- 
satisfaction with  legal  forms  of  righteousness  which  was 
likely  to  issue  in  a  spiritual  crisis  with  such  a  man  as 
the  Apostle  Paul.  We  have  no  right  to  ignore  all  the 
natural  antecedents  of  Paul's  faith  because  a  later 
chronicler  does  not  refer  to  them.  He  states  the  result; 
he  does  not  enlighten  us  as  to  the  process. 

"  If  the  vision  is  of  himself  "  is  Dr.  Kennedy's  qualifi- 
cation. This  amounts  to  saying  that,  if  the  vision  is 
subjective,  it  is  not  objective.  It  is  for  the  supernaturalist 
to  prove  the  absence  of  normal  contributing  agencies. 
Was  Paul's  conversion  any  more  miraculous  than 
Luther's  ?  It  is  quite  in  accordance  with  our  knowledge 
of  visions  that  some  trifling  external  occurrence  should 
set  aflame,  as  it  were,  a  number  of  subjective  impressions, 
the  force  and  vividness  of  which  are  not  until  then  fully 
realised  by  the  slumbering  consciousness.  Dr.  Kennedy, 
however,  considers  that  a  miracle  alone  can  account  for 
so  remarkable  an  event.  But  then  he  has  to  account  for 
the  miracle.  For  this  he  has  no  other  authority  than 
an    unreliable    and    superstitious  chronicler,   and    the 

1  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age,  p.  126. 


200    ''THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

excellent  character  of  a  person  who  has  not  recorded  his 
testimony  on  the  subject.  An  ajoologist  does  not  show 
his  competence  by  airily  dismissing  the  natural  and 
reasonable  explanation  of  the  facts  as  not  even  worth  the 
trouble  of  examining. 

What  did  Paul  really  know  about  the  resurrection  ? 
**  It  was,"  says  Dr.  Kennedy,  *'  simply  impossible  that  a 
man  of  his  cast  of  mind,  and  in  a  matter  which  involved 
such  tremendous  issues  to  himself  and  to  mankind,  should 
receive  idly  and  unquestioningly  what  chance  might 
bring  to  his  ears."  ^  We  are  not  aware  that  anyone  has 
said  that  Paul  received  his  information  "idly  and 
unquestioningly."  The  point  for  us  is  whether  or  not 
that  information  was  absolutely  true  and  accurate.  Paul 
does  not  state  that  he  verified  it,  and  we  cannot  be  sure 
that  his  unknown  informants  were  intellectually  qualified 
to  declare  the  precise  truth  on  a  matter  in  which 
emotional  bias  may  have  misled  them,  as  it  has  misled 
many  others  since  that  time.  Apparently,  in  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Kennedy,  the  fact  that  evidence  for  the 
supernatural  cannot  be  verified  in  no  way  detracts  from 
its  value.  Yet  no  reasoning  being  ought  to  accept  the 
supernatural  on  conjecture,  and  none  but  an  apologist  of 
the  deepest  dye  would  ask  him  to  do  so. 

Whether  Paul  received  his  information  ''  idly  "  or  the 
reverse,  the  result  is  for  us  pretty  much  the  same.  If 
his  conversion  "involved  such  tremendous  issues,"  it  is 
a  great  pity  that  he  did  not  leave  to  posterity  a  full  and 
accurate  statement  of  the  facts.  In  an  earlier  chapter 
of  his  book  Dr.  Kennedy  says  he  received  the  "fullest 
and  most  minute  information  "  from  Ananias.  What 
was  this  information  ?  Who  was  Ananias  ?  How  did 
he  obtain  his  information,  and  from  whom  ?     And  why 

^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  G8. 


"THE  EESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"    201 

did  Paul  not  give  posterity  the  benefit  of  it  ?  To  these 
questions  Dr.  Kennedy  has  no  reply.  To  crown  this 
amazing  evidence  Paul  declares  on  oath  that  he  did  not 
receive  his  gospel  from  any  human  being. 

Dr.  Kennedy  goes  on  to  say  that  Paul  could  not  have 
alleged  the  appearance  to  Peter  unless  he  had  been  *'  told 
of  the  fact  and  the  circumstances  by  Peter  himself."  ^ 
This,  of  course,  may  or  may  not  be  so,  but  we  have  still 
to  balance  the  probabilities  of  Peter  having  seen  Jesus  as 
an  objective  reality  or  as  a  subjective  vision.  And  as 
neither  Peter  nor  Paul  says  a  word  about  the  ''circum- 
stances," how  can  we  possibly  treat  them  as  evidence? 

Again,  with  regard  to  the  appearance  to  the  500, 
"Paul  must  have  had  good  grounds  for  his  assertion."  ^ 
As,  however,  Paul's  grounds  are  not  before  us,  we  can  at 
the  best  only  assume  their  sufficiency. 

Matthew's  expression  that  "  some  doubted "  (the 
appearances  to  "the  eleven  "  and  to  the  500  are  assumed 
to  be  identical — a  matter  of  the  utmost  uncertainty) 
"  increases  our  confidence  in  the  candour  and  truthful- 
ness of  the  historian Matthew  could  afford,  if  the 

expression  may  be  used,  to  tell  the  whole  truth Some 

uncertainty  having  been  felt,  it  was  only  after  the 
manner  of  all  the  Gospel  writers  to  mention  it,  without 
troubling  themselves  as  to  how  it  might  be  interpreted."^ 
A  more  helplessly  crippled  defence  of  the  supernatural 
no  opponent  could  desire  to  meet  with.  The  "  candour 
and  truthfulness  "  of  a  writer  may  be  undoubted.  But 
what  about  his  knowledge  ?  What  about  his  capacity  to 
examine  evidence  ?  What  about  his  liability  to  prepos- 
sessions, and  to  the  perturbing  influence  of  tradition  upon 
a  credulous  mind  ?     These  things  enormously  affect  the 

1  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  69. 

2  Ihid,  p.  73.  3  iiici^  p.  75. 


202     "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 


value  of  testimony.  Dr.  Kennedy  wholly  disregards 
them.  If  Matthew  knew  "  the  whole  truth,"  why  did  he 
not  declare  it,  instead  of  referring  to  eleven  witnesses 
only,  if  500  witnesses  were  present  ?  If  he  did  not  know 
the  whole  truth,  that  alone  settles  the  question  of  his 
competency  as  a  **  historian."  It  appears  also  that  it 
was  "  the  manner  of  all  the  Gospel  writers  "  not  to 
*'  trouble  themselves  "  to  make  their  accounts  accurate 
and  complete.  That  is  precisely  what  the  unbeliever 
has  been  saying  for  generations. 

In  the  same  eccentric  vein  Dr.  Kennedy  asserts  that 
*'  Paul  cannot  have  been  mistaken"  as  to  the  appearance 
to  James.  ''  He  must  have  received  the  information 
from  James  himself  during  that  visit  of  fifteen  days  to 
Jerusalem."  ^  Perhaps  he  did;  but  where  is  the  evidence 
either  that  James  told  Paul,  or  that  James  saw  anything 
but  a  vision  ? 

It  is  often  profitable  to  put  the  dicta  of  theologians  side 
by  side.  Dr.  Gardner  remarks  :  "In  those  fifteen  days 
spent  with  Peter  we  cannot  suppose  that  St.  Paul  occu- 
pied himself  with  gaining  all  possible  information  as  to 
the  human  life  of  our  Lord ;  the  context  utterly  excludes 
this."^  Is  it  said  this  did  not  apply  to  the  post-resur- 
rection life  of  Jesus  ?  Dr.  Gardner  holds  that,  excepting 
in  a  spiritual  sense,  there  was  no  post-resurrection  life. 

The  extraordinary  manner  in  which  the  apologist  can 
shut  his  eyes  to  facts  is  shown  by  Dr.  Kennedy's  remarks 
on  Luke's  little  discrepancy  as  to  the  forty  days.  "It  is 
simply  impossible  that  a  writer  who  had  taken  pains  to 
acquire  *  a  perfect  understanding  of  all  things  from  the 
first '  should  have  fallen  into  any  mistake  in  the  matter."^ 

1  ReRxirrcction  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  G9. 

2  The  Origin  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  6. 
^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  79. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"    203 

The  apologist  here  commits  himself  to  the  proposition 
that  Luke,  who  admits  that  he  was  not  an  eye-witness  of 
the  events,  but  simply  made  the  best  use  he  could  of  his 
materials,  was  incapable  of  error — in  a  word,  infallible  ; 
a  claim  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  character  of  his 
account.  And  were  Luke's  unknown  informants  also 
infallible  ?  Dr.  Kennedy  is  no  doubt  aware  that  the 
more  exact  rendering  of  Luke's  expression  is  "  having 
traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from  the  first" — 
an  expression  which  it  is  "  simply  impossible  "  to  regard 
as  anything  more  than  an  assurance  that  Luke  had  given 
a  correct  recital  of  the  events  to  the  best  of  his  ability. 
But  accuracy  in  the  first  century  was  one  thing ; 
accuracy  in  an  age  of  science  is  quite  another.  The 
Evangelist's  words  do  not  justify  Dr.  Kennedy  in 
*' running  amok'''  with  historical  criticism.  And,  after 
all,  the  discrepancy  is  there  beyond  question  ;  Luke 
does  in  one  place  imply  one  day,  in  another  he  says  forty 
days.  Yet  we  are  asked  to  admit  that  an  author  who 
actually  makes  a  mistake  could  not  possibly  have  made 
it.  The  critical  bias  against  w^hich  the  Doctor  inveighs 
is  nothing  to  the  determined  prejudice  which  will  not 
admit  an  error  that  stares  every  reader  in  the  face.  It  is 
explained  that  Luke  may  in  Acts  have  repeated  '*  in  the 
most  summary  way"  the  "facts  regarding  the  forty 
days  "  which  he  had  previously  narrated.^  We  do  not 
see  how  even  an  infallible  writer  could  "repeat"  facts 
which  he  had  not  before  mentioned.  Nor  is  it  clear  why 
he  should  have  added  speeches  unrecorded  in  his  Gospel, 
and  given  a  second  version  of  the  last  words  of  Jesus.  ^ 


1  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  80. 

2  According  to  the  lievised  Version,  no  less  than  eight  passages  are  by 
"some  ancient  authorities"  omitted  from  the  last  chapter  of  Luke's 
Gospel. 


204     "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST 


In  the  usual  manner  of  the  "  thick  and  thin  "  contro- 
versialist, Dr.  Kennedy  will  not  have  it  that  the  disciples 
could  have  been  mistaken,  nor  the  Gospel  writers  either, 
even  when  they  were  merely  compiling  from  traditional 
materials  :  "  No  middle  term  can  be  found  between  the 
reality  of  the  fact  and  conscious  falsehood  on  the  part  of 
the  witnesses."^     Really  it  is  tiring  to  keep  pointing  out 
that  the  Gospel  writers  cannot  be  admitted  as  the  original 
witnesses,  and   that   they  could   not   help    sharing   the 
intellectual  tendencies  and  the  imperfect  knowledge  of 
their  time  and  country.     It  is  clear  that  these  affected 
even  Jesus — why  not,  therefore,  his  followers?     "Un- 
learned  and   ignorant  men,"  it  is  admitted,  were  the 
Apostles ;  but  they  could  not  be  in  error  concerning  the 
resurrection !     The  supposition   of    many   of    the   best 
modern  Christian  scholars  that  the  germ  of  the  resurrec- 
tion belief   was   visionary   experience,   material   details 
being  added  by  tradition,  does,  we  think,  supply  the  very 
"middle  term"  which  the  strenuous  Dr.  Kennedy  says 
cannot  be  found. 

Having  proved  the  resurrection,  Dr.  Kennedy  goes  on 
to  show  that  we  are  in  a  position  to  accept  all  the  other 
miracles  recorded  in  the  four  Gospels.  Instead  of  being 
improbable,  they  now  become  probable,  because  they 
form  part  of  a  supernatural  scheme.  We  quite  agree 
that,  if  we  can  but  accept  as  proved  a  great  miracle,  we 
need  have  no  qualms  about  believing  any  number  of 
little  ones.  Even  this  tempting  prospect,  however,  will 
not  cause  us  to  swerve  from  Paul's  admirable  injunction 
to  ^^ prove  all  things" — that  is,  so  far  as  Dr.  Kennedy 
and  the  Evangelists  will  permit  us  to  do  so.  To  make 
all  the  Gospel  miracles  "probable"  is  to  furnish  one 
more  reason  for  viewing  them  with  suspicion. 

^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  104-5. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"     205 

After  some  remarks  on  the  Temptation,  the  accounts 
of  which  Dr.  Kennedy  apparently  believes  to  be  literally 
true,  he  goes  on  :  "  Assured  that  He  rose  from  the  dead 
to  die  no  more,  we  are  not  surprised  to  be  told  that  He 
was  distinguished  from  mankind  in  this,  that  He  alone, 
of  all  born  of  woman,  was  born  miraculously,  and  that 
He  alone  was  sinless.  Moreover,  if  He  was  sinless, 
death  was  not  His  due ;  and  if,  from  any  cause  or  for  any 
reason,  He  suffered  death,  it  was  only  right  that  His 
sinlessness  should  be  attested  by  the  reversal  of  the 
sentence  which  doomed  Him  to  the  Cross." ^ 

Here  we  seem  to  find  a  modern  analogy  with  the 
genesis  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  We 
have  no  doubt  whatever  that  this  was  exactly  how  the 
first  Christians  reasoned,  only  in  their  personal  knowledge 
of  Jesus  some  of  them  had  better  evidence  than  Dr. 
Kennedy  possesses.  They  too  held  Jesus  to  be  sinless, 
though  clearly  they  did  not  regard  him  as  God.  They 
(or  rather  the  later  generation  which  produced  the 
records)  held  that  he  was  miraculously  born,  that  he  was 
the  divinely-sent  Messiah,  and  that  the  shocking  tragedy 
of  his  crucifixion  needed  to  be  reversed.  How  was  that 
to  be  effected?  It  is  no  insinuation  of  "conscious  fraud" 
to  allege  that  to  the  simple  piety  and  love  of  the  disciples, 
strengthened  by  the  supposed  predictions  of  their  sacred 
Scriptures,  the  conclusion  was  inevitable  that  Jesus,  the 
Messiah,  must  have  conquered  death,  must  have  burst  in 
glory  from  the  tomb,  must  have  ascended  into  heaven 
and  taken  his  place  at  the  right  hand  of  his  Father. 
Poetic  justice  demanded  the  resurrection.  The  Gospel 
traditions  supplied  the  demand.  But  how  material,  how 
crude  and  infantile,  the  whole  scheme  becomes  in  the 
light  of  modern  knowledge  ! 

^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  110. 


206    "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

Dr.  Kennedy  admits  the  "  wonderfulness  and  unlikeli- 
hood "  of  the  resurrection  "in  ordinary  circumstances," 
but  contends  that,  when  we  look  at  the  *'  circumstances 
and  character"  of  Jesus,  "the  wonderfulness  of  His 
resurrection  remains,  its  unlikelihood  vanishes."-^  This 
argument  would  not  be  without  force  if  it  could  be  proved 
that  Jesus  actually  was  a  divine  person.  A  miraculous 
birth  would  afford  at  least  some  probability  that  the 
subject  of  it  would  transcend  the  law  of  death.  But  the 
supernatural  birth  of  Jesus,  like  his  ascension  into 
heaven,  is  avouched  by  testimony  so  feeble  and  so 
dubious  that  it  cannot  properly  be  dignified  by  the  term 
"evidence."  It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  original 
belief  of  the  disciples,  or  the  Davidic  genealogy  could 
not  have  been  assumed.  Dr.  Kennedy  appears  to  forget 
two  important  facts.  One  is  that  the  conception  of  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  is  (rightly  or  wrongly)  derived  from  the 
same  documents  which  relate  his  miraculous  birth, 
resurrection,  and  ascension.  In  the  absence  of  indepen- 
dent evidence  it  is  hardly  a  legitimate  mode  of  reasoning 
to  bring  forward  one  of  these  conceptions  as  proof  of  the 
remainder,  when  all  alike  rest  upon  the  same  question- 
able authority.  The  other  fact  is  that,  in  order  to 
comprehend  the  "  circumstances  and  character  "  of  Jesus, 
full  and  accurate  data  are  essential.  The  Gospels  present 
us  with  pictures  of  the  life  of  Jesus  which,  while  compri- 
sing valuable  reports  of  his  teaching,  are,  in  a  historical 
and  chronological  sense,  fragmentary  and  disjointed  to  a 
degree  for  which  we  are  not  able  to  account.  They 
relate  the  events  of  one  year,  or  possibly  three  years  (no 
apologist  knows  which),  out  of  a  life  extending  to  at  least 
ten  times  the  latter  period,  and  even  then  with  nothing 

1  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  121. 


"THE  RESUREECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"    207 

like  completeness.  From  these  imperfect  materials  we 
have  to  frame  as  best  we  can  a  synthetic  view  of  his 
whole  life,  his  mental  outlook  and  capacity,  his  ideas, 
his  culture,  his  hopes  and  aspirations.  Does  the 
apologist  seriously  maintain  that  this  can  be  done  ?  We 
cannot  but  hold  that  the  Christian  synthesis  of  his 
divinity,  with  its  exorbitant  supernaturalism,  has  been 
put  forward  on  very  insufficient  data. 

As  might  have  been  anticipated,  Dr.  Kennedy  rides 
roughshod  over  the  contention  that  the  first  century  was 
an  age  of  superstition.  The  argument  involves  the  con- 
clusion that  Jesus  himself,  "the  idea  of  whom  originated 
in  that  age,  is  the  product  of  ignorance  and  superstition," 

and  thus  "  answers  itself If  Jesus  was  the  natural 

product  of  his  age,  the  argument  is  a  fair  one  that  the 
age  which  has  accomplished  this  great  result  was  capable 
of  the  lesser  achievement  of  raising  up  trustworthy 
historians  of  the  'Man  and  His  doings.'"^  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  also  a  fair  argument  that  if  Jesus  was 
not  a  natural  product  of  his  age,  "the  divine  favour 
could  secure  to  the  world  a  trustworthy  history  of  what 
He  was  and  did."^ 

One  has  to  exercise  several  of  the  Christian  virtues  in 
dealing  with  Christian  apologists.  The  substance  of 
Dr.  Kennedy's  claim  is  that,  whether  we  take  the  natural 
or  the  supernatural  view  of  Christ's  nature,  God  "  could" 
have  caused  a  trustworthy  history  of  him  to  be  written. 
What  has  that  to  do  with  the  question  ?  We  are  not 
dealing  with  suppositions  as  to  the  degree  of  literary 
capacity  possessed  by  a  supreme  being,  and  we  will 
not  deny  that  such  a  being  "could"  write  a  perfectly 

1  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  123,  124. 
2  Ibid,  p.  125. 


208     "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

trustworthy  history  if  he  chose.  But  has  he  done  it  ?  If 
the  four  Gospels  are  his  work,  they  are  not  remarkable 
achievements  in  the  way  of  accuracy.  Among  modern 
critics  there  is  a  practical  consensus  of  opinion  that 
their  historic  details  cannot  be  implicitly  accepted,  and 
this  conclusion  the  plain  man  can  with  ease  verify  for 
himself  by  simply  reading  the  Gospels.  It  would  be 
very  extraordinary  if  documents  of  unknown  date  and 
authorship  w^ere  free  from  error,  and  when  error  is 
patent  to  every  unbiassed  reader  we  cannot  admit  that  a 
bold  denial  of  its  existence  serves  the  cause  of  truth. 
And  we  repeat  with  a  confidence  equal  to  that  of  Dr. 
Kennedy  that  the  Gospels  ivere  produced,  and  that 
Christianity  did  arise,  in  an  epoch  of  gross  ignorance 
and  superstition.  Sufficient  proof  of  this  statement  has 
already  been  given ;  every  scholar,  well-nigh  every 
reader,  knows  it  to  be  true.  Dr.  Kennedy  also  knows  it 
quite  w^ell ;  he  is  merely  seeking  to  throw  his  opponents 
into  a  perplexing  dilemma. 

The  dilemma  is  this:  How  is  it  possible  on  naturalistic 
principles  to  account  for  such  a  moral  and  spiritual 
phenomenon  as  the  nature  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  We  doubt 
whether  any  perfectly  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
problem  can  be  found,  nor  have  we  at  present  any 
ready-made  solution  to  offer.  Two  or  three  reflections, 
however,  may  be  borne  in  mind :  (1)  The  fact  that  our 
knowledge  is  imperfect  is  not  a  good  reason  for 
assuming  explanations  which  involve  the  supernatural. 
(2)  All  great  men  are  necessarily  the  products  of  their 
age,  but  many  so  far  transcend  it  as  to  make  explana- 
tion of  their  appearance  difficult,  if  not  impossible. 
Mohammed  sprang  from  a  clan  of  semi-barbarous 
idolaters.  (3)  Dr.  Kennedy  confuses  the  qualities 
necessary  to  report  in  a  simple,  disconnected  style  an 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  "     209 

outline  of  the  moral  teachings  of  Jesus  with  the  intel- 
lectual power  and  veracity  proper  to  the  historian.  The 
Gospels  indicate  the  first  set  of  qualities  ;  they  do  not 
reveal  the  second.  (4)  Whatever  the  basis  of  the 
Gospel  tradition  may  be,  the  character  of  Jesus  has 
evidently  become,  to  an  undefined  extent,  idealised  in 
the  written  accounts  of  him — a  process  which  went  on 
until  he  was  assumed  to  be  the  Deity  in  human  form. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  more  closely  the  origins  of 
Christianity  are  studied  the  less  reason  do  we  find  to 
assume  their  supernatural  origin.  The  remarkable  simi- 
larity of  many  of  the  ethical  teachings  of  Jesus  to  the 
doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Essenes,  and  to  the  current 
morality  of  Judaism,  demonstrates  that  much  of  the 
Christian  morality  was  derived  from  pre-existing  sources. 
Professor  Graetz  considers  that  John  the  Baptist  was  (as 
indicated  by  his  appellation)  an  Essene,  and  that,  as  one 
of  his  disciples,  Jesus  must  have  been  "powerfully 
attracted  by  the  pure  and  ascetic  doctrines  of  that 
body."i 

Dr.  Kennedy  remarks  that  modern  times  are  not  free 
from  superstition,  and  we  are  therefore  '^landed  in  the 
strange  conclusion  that  the  only  persons  fit  by  their 
enlightenment  to  bear  witness  to  the  supernatural  are 
those  who  believe  the  supernatural  to  be  antecedently 
incredible,  and  who  would  not  believe  it  though  one  rose 
from  the  dead  before  their  eyes."^  Such  a  conclusion 
might  be  strange  if  it  were  enunciated  by  anyone  else, 
but  with  Dr.  Kennedy  it  is  only  his  peculiar  way  of 
exposing  the  absurdity  of  rational  methods.  Disbelievers 
in  the  supernatural  neither   claim  nor  intend  to  claim 

^  History  of  the  Jetcs,  vol.  ii.,  p.  loO.    For  details  of  the  Essene  beliefs 
see  chap.  i.  of  that  volume. 
2  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  126. 

P 


210    "  THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  " 

that  they  alone  are  competent  witnesses  to  it.     They 
have  not  yet  had  such  a  test  put  to  them  as  seeing  a  man 
rise  "  from  the  dead  before  their  eyes."     When  they  get 
the    chance    of    observing    such    a    phenomenon,   Dr. 
Kennedy  may  rest  assured  they  will  examine  it  fairly, 
and,  if  both  the  death  and  the  resurrection  be  certainly 
proved,  they  will  then — hut  not  until  then — believe  that  a 
dead  person  can  return  to  life.     Dr.  Kennedy  is  right  in 
supposing  that  the  unbeliever  demands  proof  of  such  an 
occurrence ;    he  is  wrong  in  supposing  that  the  proof 
would,    as    a    matter    of     course,    be    rejected.      The 
unbeliever  contends   that  even  the  testimony  of  one's 
own  senses  is  liable  to  error.     That  is  a  fact  which  not 
merely  history  (for  that,  too,  is  but  fallible  testimony), 
but  every  man's  personal  experience,  proves.     Uncom- 
promising as  he  is.  Dr.  Kennedy  cannot  deny  it.     So  he 
evades  the  force  of  this  fact  by  the  charitable  insinuation 
that  the  unbeliever  is  guilty  of  a  wilful  persistency  in 
error.     He    does    not    understand    that,    even    if    the 
unbeliever  were  in  the  wrong,  his  error  would  rest  upon 
a  firm  realisation  of  that  inflexible  natural  order  which 
is  a  necessary  condition  of  all  scientific  knowledge,  and 
would,  so  far,  be  defensible.     This  conviction  does  indeed, 
and     quite     rightly,     render     miracles     "  antecedently 
incredible,"  for  it  is  impossible  that  a  qualified  intellect 
should  at  the  same  time  hold  the  inconsistent  ideas  that 
natural  law  is  at  once  variable  and  invariable.     Every 
thinking  person  regards  experience  transmitted  to  him 
by  others  as  possessing  less  certainty  than  his  own.     We 
do  know  that  human  testimony  errs ;  we  do  not  know 
that  the  laws  of  nature  are  ever  broken.     Consequently 
we    cannot    admit     that     the    unbeliever    is    wilfully 
blind  to  truth.     For  ourselves  we  would  say  that  if  a 
man  "  rose  from  the  dead  before  our  eyes,"  beyond  the 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"    211 

possibility  of  dispute,  we  should  accept  the  miracle — and 
look  out  for  an  explanation  of  it.  Dr.  Kennedy  might 
reply  that  there  is  no  merit  in  believing  a  certainty. 
Neither  is  there  merit  in  believing  an  uncertainty. 

Our  apologist  sternly  reproves  the  unholy  demand  for 
certitude  in  regard  to  matters  supernatural.  "  The 
spirit  which  demands  more  evidence  for  the  resurrection 
of  our  Lord  is  a  spirit  which  would  reject  more  evidence 
if  it  were  forthcoming,  which  would  reject  every  con- 
ceivable amount  and  variety  of  evidence.  The  demand 
is  practically  hypocritical,  for,  if  conceded,  the  additional 
evidence  must  still  be  rejected."^  Is  Dr.  Kennedy's 
case  so  strong  that  he  can  afford  to  indulge  in  unworthy 
aspersions?  The  acceptance  of  additional  evidence 
would,  of  course,  depend  upon  what  that  evidence  is, 
and  until  it  is  produced  we  cannot  say  what  its  effect 
would  be.  Our  concern  is  with  the  evidence  that 
actually  exists,  and  such  remarks  as  Dr.  Kennedy's  do 
not  add  much  to  its  weight.  It  must  need  an  undue 
bias  to  regard  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection  as 
conclusive.  If  it  were  so,  the  most  competent  Christian 
scholars  of  to-day  would  not  be  giving  up  their  belief  in 
it.  We  recall  the  Gospel  incident  of  Thomas,  whose 
incredulity  is  said  to  have  been  removed  by  a  physical 
manifestation  of  Jesus,  while  the  modern  unbeliever  is 
called  "  hypocritical  "  because  he  demands  no  greater 
evidence  for  the  supernatural  than  Thomas  had,  but  a 
little  more  than  Dr.  Kennedy  is  willing  to  accept. 

Dealing  with  the  objection  that  no  one  actually 
witnessed  the  resurrection,  Dr.  Kennedy  asserts  that 
we  have  the  "positive  evidence"  of  Peter,  James,  and 
John  that  they  saw,  heard,  and  conversed  with  Jesus 

1  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  140. 


212     "THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

after  his  death  and  burial.  **  It  would  be  no  sufficient 
answer  to  these  witnesses  to  say :  '  You  did  not  see  Him 
rise.'  Their  reply  might  be  equally  brief:  '  No,  but  we 
saw  Him  risen.'  "^  Our  rejoinder  is  also  brief:  This  is 
what  the  Apostles  might  have  said,  but  it  is  what  they 
never  do  say.  As  regards  Peter  we  have  only  the 
doubtful  authority  of  Acts,  and  in  his  first  Epistle  two 
or  three  references  to  the  resurrection,  one  of  which 
describes  it  as  a  quickening  "in  the  spirit."  The  second 
Epistle  attributed  to  Peter  is  given  up  by  Christian 
scholars  as  not  the  work  of  the  Apostle  himself. 
Now,  if  it  was  not  considered  improper  to  attribute  to 
Peter  a  whole  Epistle  which  he  did  not  write,  we  cannot 
be  sure  that  Luke  did  not  attribute  to  him  speeches 
which  Peter  did  not  utter.  As  regards  John,  we  again 
cannot  be  sure  that-^vve  possess  his  evidence.  It  is  far 
from  certain,  but,  on  the  contrary,  very  improbable,  that 
the  fourth  Gospel  was  written  by  him.  As  regards 
James,  we  have  not  a  vestige  of  direct  evidence  on  the 
subject.  How  often  is  one  to  repeat  that  a  mere 
assertion  of  a  person's  belief  (written  by  someone  else) 
which  leaves  out  of  account  both  the  grounds  of  the 
belief  and  the  possibility  that  it  was  purely  subjective 
does  not  amount  to  "  positive  evidence  "? 

Dr.  Kennedy  says  the  Gospels  were  written  "  indepen- 
dently of  each  other,"  and  quotes  a  remark  by  Godet 
that  "no  ingenious  calculation"  guided  their  compilers. 
The  absence  of  collusion  is  fairly  obvious,  but  how  that 
proves  that  each  witness  speaks  the  truth,  no  less  when 
he  differs  from  the  others  than  when  he  agrees  with 
them,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  comprehend.  Dr.  Kennedy 
cannot  see  that  this  very  independence  is  fatal  to  his 

^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  130. 


"THE  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST"    213 

argument.  Evidently  each  Evangelist  knew  no  more 
than  he  related,  and  knew  that  only  by  report. 

"  It  is  only  by  the  double  charge  of  folly  and  deceit," 
says  Dr.  Kennedy,  ''  that  the  'visionary  '  hypothesis  can 
set  aside  the  plain  historic  statements  "  of  the  Evan- 
gelists.^ He  does  not  seem  to  understand  what  is  meant 
by  the  hypothesis  in  question.  It  is  a  theory  which 
must  of  course  embrace  those  visionary  experiences 
which  were  common  to  the  Apostolic  age,  and  are  so 
frequently  related  in  the  New  Testament.  The  state- 
ments of  the  Evangelists  are  not  ''plain,"  because  they 
are  not  full,  consistent,  and  intelligible.  And  they  are 
not  "historic,"  because  they  are  unconfirmed,  and 
because  they  involve  a  violation  of  that  principle  of 
continuity  on  which  alone  history  can  rest. 

Dr.  Kennedy  insists  that  the  faith  of  the  disciples  in 
the  resurrection  "  dates  from  the  very  morrow  of  the 
resurrection  itself."^  How  does  he  know  that?  He 
does  not  know  it.  He  merely  believes  it,  and  that  on 
the  totally  inadequate  authority  of  documents  written 
long  afterwards,  and  lacking  almost  every  condition  of 
historic  credibility. 

Dr.  Kennedy  examines  the  view  that  "the  appearances 
of  Jesus  after  his  death  were  real  objective  occurrences, 
apparitions  or  communications  from  the  spirit-world,  to 
assure  the  disciples  that  Jesus  was  glorified."^  This 
view,  which  is  but  seldom  put  forward,  is  held  by  the 
Rev.  R.  C.  Fillingham,*  who  has  probably  derived  it 
from  Keim,  and  we  are  not  concerned  to  defend  it.  Dr. 
Kennedy  considers  this  idea  completely  refuted  by  the 
words  in  Luke  xxiv.  39  :  "  See  my  hands  and  my  feet, 

^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  154. 

2  Ibid,  p.  146.  ^  Ibid,  p.  160. 

■*  Hibhert  Journal,  October,  1905. 


214     ''THE   RESUREECTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST" 

that  it  is  I  myself."     But  he  does  not  say  how  he  knows 
that  Jesus  ever  spoke' those  words. 

Finally,  Dr.  Kennedy'  asks  what,  on  any  of  these 
theories,  became  of  the  body  of  Jesus  ?^  Well,  what 
became  of  the  body  on  his  theory  ?  That  will  always  be 
a  difficulty,  whichever  view  we  adopt.  The  story  of  the 
ascension  does  not  solve  it,  for  that  miracle  rests  on 
evidence  which  is  simply  paltry,  and  cannot  be  received 
by  any  candid  and  competent  inquirer. 


^  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  p.  164. 


PART  III. 

NATURALISTIC  EXPLANATIONS 


Chapter  I. 
GNOSTICISM  AND  THE   MESSIANIC  IDEA 

An  impartial  scrutiny  of  the  accounts  relied  on  by 
Christian  advocates  to  prove  the  bodily  resurrection  of 
Jesus  discloses  in  those  accounts  features  which  cannot 
be  reconciled  with  that  view,  but  which  tend  to  support 
the  conclusion  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  may 
have  originated  in  Messianic  notions  and  subjective 
impressions  on  the  part  of  one  or  more  of  the  followers 
of  Jesus,  Some  of  these  features  may  here  be  grouped 
together  for  the  sake  of  convenience  : — 

1.  The  rebuke  to  the  eleven  disciples  mentioned  in 
the  legendary  addition  to  Mark  for  not  believing  the 
report  of  (apparently)  the  arrivals  from  Emmaus,  when, 
according  to  Luke,  one  of  the  eleven  had  already  seen 
Jesus  after  his  death.  If  these  two  Evangelists  are 
correct,  it  follows  that  the  eleven  continued  incredulous 
after  they  had  heard  that  Jesus  had  appeared  to  the 
women,  to  Cleopas  and  his  companion,  and  to  Peter. 
This  unbelief  is  entirely  improbable.  The  passage 
reveals  a  disposition  to  exaggerate  the  alleged  incredulity 
of  the  disciples,  which  indicates  the  later  origin  and 
dogmatic  tendency  of  the  accounts. 

2.  The  similar  rebuke  given  to  the  Emmaus  disciples 

215 


216      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

for  their  blindness  to  the  meaning  of  supposed  Jewish 
prophecies.  This  is  highly  significant,  because  it  shows 
that  to  the  writer  of  the  third  Gospel  absolutely 
irrelevant  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  were  the  best 
evidence  of  the  resurrection. 

3.  The  omission  of  any  account  of  the  appearance  to 
Peter.  It  would  seem  that  great  importance  was 
attached  to  this  manifestation,  for  it  was  announced 
immediately  to  the  Emmaus  disciples  without  waiting 
to  hear  their  story  or  mentioning  the  appearances  to 
the  women.  Weizsacker  regards  the  omission  of  any 
account  of  an  appearance  to  Peter  "  as  a  proof  that  the 
legendary  element  has  quite  got  the  better  of  the 
historical  element  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  and  explains 
it  by  the  conjecture  that  the  actual  appearance  to  St. 
Peter,  on  which  so  much  depended,  was  not  of  such 
a  nature  as  to  satisfy  the  craving  of  the  Church  for  a 
palpable,  i.e.  objective,  manifestation."-^ 

4.  The  words  attributed  to  Jesus  in  John  xx.  29, 
''Blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen  and  yet  have 
believed,"  have  a  distinctly  theological  air.  They  are 
at  least  unlikely  to  have  been  spoken  by  Jesus  after  his 
death,  and  they  would  hardly  have  been  attributed  to 
him  by  tradition  unless  it  had  been  thought  advisable  to 
lay  stress  on  the  importance  of  faith  as  distinguished 
from  sight. 

5.  The  expression  in  Luke  xxiv.  24,  "but  him  they 
saw  not,"  points  to  a  very  confused  state  of  the  original 
tradition.  Matthew  plainly  relates  that  the  women  on 
returning  from  the  tomb  did  see  Jesus  in  person.  Luke 
says  they  did  not.  Of  the  two  accounts  the  less  improb- 
able  is   to   be   preferred.     And   Luke,  by  terming   the 

^  Mackintosh,  Natural  History  of  Christian  Religion,  p.  261. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      217 


appearance  a  ^'vision  of  angels,"  lends  some  support  to 
the  idea  of  subjective  manifestations.  There  is  no  good 
evidence  for  the  existence  of  angels,  yet  we  find  their 
objective  reality  assumed  by  the  Gospel  writers,  and 
spoken  luorcls  freely  attributed  to  them.  Some  apologists 
contend  that  several  visits  were  made  to  the  sepulchre 
by  the  women,  who  were  not  all  together ;  and  this  is,  of 
course,  possible.  But  both  Matthew  and  Luke  refer  to 
a  first  visit  made  at  early  dawn,  and  the  former  states 
that,  as  the  women  were  on  their  way  to  tell  the 
disciples  the  message  of  the  angel,  they  were  met  by 
Jesus.  The  disciples  therefore  could  not  have  heard  oj 
the  appearance  of  the  angels  ivithout  also  hearing  of  that  oJ 
Jesus.  Yet  Luke  says  the  women  did  7iot  see  Jesus. 
We  are  again  led  to  suppose  that  behind  these  vague 
and  contradictory  accounts  lay  psychological  impressions 
which  were  long  afterwards  misunderstood,  and  clumsily 
put  into  a  more  concrete  shape. 

6.  John's  immediate  belief  on  entering  the  tomb.  It 
is  true  we  are  not  told  what  it  was  he  believed;  but  if,  as 
the  tendency  of  the  book  would  imply,  it  was  the  rising 
of  Jesus,^  we  perceive  that  it  was  possible  for  the  mind 
of  that  age  to  believe  in  miracles  on  no  real  evidence 
whatever. 

7.  The  story  of  the  guard  at  the  sepulchre  is  so  full  of 
improbabilities  that  it  is  now  abandoned  by  most  con- 
servative critics.  Its  significance  is  that  it  is  an  obvious 
attempt  to  support  by  legendary  details  a  narrative 
which  was  felt  to  be  so  indefinite  as  to  require  apology. 

8.  The  formula  of  baptism  employed  in  Matthew 
xxviii.  19,  though  it  merely  refers  to,  but  does  not  define, 
a  doctrine  which,  if  true,  is  of  great  importance,  certainly 

1  This  view  is  held  by  Ewald  {History  of  Israel,  vol.  vii. ,  p.  69)  and  by 
other  theologians. 


218       GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

implies  a  Trinitarian  belief  which  cannot  be  shown  to 
have  existed  till  long  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  We  are 
therefore  warranted  in  holding  that  in  this,  as  in  several 
other  instances,  words  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
which  he  never  uttered. 

9.  The  accounts  by  Luke  of  the  sudden  appearing  and 
disappearing  of  Jesus  are  consistent  only  with  the  per- 
ception being  of  a  subjective  kind,  and  cannot  be  made 
to  agree  with  the  statements  that  he  spoke  and  ate — that 
is,  that  he  possessed  vocal  and  digestive  organs.  The 
accounts,  in  fact,  embody  traditions  the  conflicting 
nature  of  which  their  compiler  had  not  the  knowledge 
to  perceive.  The  explanation  of  a  "spiritual  body" 
does  not  remove  the  difficulty,  for  it  merely  substitutes 
one  inconceivable  hypothesis  for  another. 

10.  Matthew's  expression,  "some  doubted,"  also  con- 
firms the  view  that  the  appearance  was  subjectively 
apprehended  by  some  rather  than  that  it  was  an 
objective  reality,  which  must  of  necessity  have  been 
visible  to  all  those  present.  In  this  narrative  the 
unsubstantial  character  of  the  tradition  is  forced  upon 
our  notice ;  for  if,  as  both  Luke  and  John  allege,  the  risen 
Jesus  had  previously  been  seen  and  spoken  to  by  the 
eleven  disciples,  it  is  well-nigh  impossible  that  they 
should  have  "  doubted  "  on  seeing  him  a  second  time. 

These  indications  that  the  manifestations  were  not  of 
an  objective  but  of  a  subjective  nature  are  afforded  by 
the  Gospels  themselves,  and,  considering  the  superstition 
of  the  time,  it  is  rather  surprising  that  they  are  so 
numerous.  A  closer  scrutiny  would  doubtless  reveal 
others,  which  we  have  not  space  to  examine.  Added  to 
this  the  inquirer  finds  it  impossible  to  ignore  the  condi- 
tions in  which  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  originated 
and  the  soil  in  which  it  fructified.     The  prevalence  of 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      219 

the  idea  that  dead  persons  could  and  did  return  to  life 
must  have  greatly  aided  an  uncritical  acceptance  of  the 
belief,  while  the  emphatic  stress  laid  upon  supposed 
prophecies  shows  what  was  then  regarded  as  evidence. 
That  the  Evangelists  exerted  a  "creative  pressure" 
upon  their  materials  is  apparent  in  almost  every  page 
of  the  Gospels.  Dr.  McGiffert  remarks  that  the  Jews 
looked  upon  prophecy  as  the  best  of  all  evidence,  and 
thought  no  other  was  necessary.  A  glaring  instance  of 
this  peculiarity  is  to  be  found  in  the  words :  *'  If  they 
hear  not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be 
persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the  dead."^  This  can 
only  mean  that  the  testimony  of  ''  Moses  and  the 
prophets  "  is  better  evidence  of  a  future  state  than  the 
return  of  a  dead  person  to  life.  That  the  Jewish  scrip- 
tures contain  no  such  testimony  is  no  difficulty  to  the 
reckless  Evangelist.  A  like  inaccuracy  appears  in  John 
V.  39,  where  Jesus  is  said  to  have  reminded  the  Jews  that 
they  thought  to  find  eternal  life  in  their  scriptures,  and 
that  these  bore  witness  of  him.  Moreover,  the  extreme 
tenuity  of  the  ascension  tradition  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  idea  that  it  had  any  objective  basis.  We  can  but 
conclude  that  the  materialistic  details  supplied  by  the 
Gospel  writers,  so  far  from  proving  that  Jesus  returned  to 
bodily  life,  are  themselves  the  most  suspicious  features  of 
the  accounts.  When  we  find  the  Evangelists  giving  but 
a  few  meagre  and  contradictory  particulars  of  the 
alleged  post-resurrection  life  of  Jesus  (which,  if  real, 
was  the  most  important  part  of  his  career),  leaving 
unexplained  incidents  of  the  greatest  moment  and 
interest,  and  finally  failing  to  account  for  his  ultimate 
disappearance,  how  is  it  possible  to  come  to  any  other 

^  Luke  xvi.  31. 


220      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

conclusion  than  that  the  evidence  for  his  resurrection  is 
hopelessly  insufficient?  Whatever  elements  of  truth 
the  accounts  may  contain,  it  is  certain  that  their  form 
was  determined  by  the  general  tendency  of  the  first 
century  to  believe  in  phenomena  which  to  us  are 
altogether  incredible,  and  on  grounds  which  at  the 
present  day  no  educated  man  would  for  a  moment 
entertain. 

The  above  considerations  are  strengthened  by  a  glance 
at  the  Gnostic  sects  which  were  so  numerous  in  the 
first  and  second  centuries.  Under  the  general  term 
''Gnostics"  are  grouped  a  surprising  number  of  bodies 
whose  religious  conceptions  were  made  up  partly  of 
Christian  and  jDartly  of  Jewish  and  Pagan  elements;  and 
orthodox  writers  admit  that  the  New  Testament  contains 
several  references  to  these  heretical  doctrines.  All  these 
sects  denied  a  bodily  resurrection.  This  alone  is  proof 
that  at  a  date  prior  to  the  appearance  of  our  present 
Gospels  great  uncertainty  was  felt  as  to  the  exact 
character  and  validity  of  the  Christian  tradition. 

"  The  term  'Gnostic,'  "  says  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Blunt,  "pro- 
perly signifies  'the  perfect  Christian,'"  so  that  it  is  evident 
the  heterodox  of  the  first  century  claimed  to  belong  to 
the  Christian  Church.  "  The  Docetae  are  usually  traced 
to  Simon  Magus  as  their  founder,  and  were  becoming 
numerous  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  when  St.  John's 
Gospel  was  written."  ^  Although  Simon  Magus  is  treated 
in  the  New  Testament  as  a  real  personage,  he  is  probably 
a  mythical  figure  ;  but,  as  it  is  clear  that  the  Clementine 


^  Dr.  Blunt,  Dictionary  of  Doctrinal  and  Historic  Theology,  art. 
"Docetoo."  The  real  origin  of  Gnosticism  is  of  much  earlier  date  than 
the  times  of  the  Apostles.  It  "  virtually  began  in  the  pre-Christian  period, 
when,  in  Alexandria,  Judaism  became  blended  with  Greek  philosophy  " 
(K.  W.  Mackay,  Rise  and  Progress  of  Christianity,  p.  110). 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA       221 

Homilies  refer  to  the  Apostle  Paul  under  this  name/ 
there  is  strong  probability  that  his  teaching  was  believed 
to  favour  the  Docetic  ideas.  As  the  Clementine  Homi- 
lies belong  to  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  it 
seems  obvious  that  the  antagonism  which  existed  between 
the  Judaic  and  Pauline  forms  of  Christianity  was  not 
removed  until  a  very  long  time  after  the  death  of  Jesus. 
Dr.  Blunt  states  that  Docetism  was  a  reversal  of  the 
fundamental  teaching  of  the  Gospel ;  hence  the  emphatic 
condemnation  in  1  John  iv.  3,  which  applies  to  a  sect  of 
Docetse  then  existing.  "  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
heresy  as  to  the  unreal  nature  of  Christ's  body  existed  in 
Apostolic  times,  and  was  generally  held  by  the  Gnostics."^ 
It  is  probable  that  Paul  himself,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  12,  refers 
to  the  Docetae,  Dean  Mansel  states  that  "  the  earliest 
distinct  indications  of  a  Gnostic  teaching  contemporary 
with  the  Apostles  are  to  be  found  in  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul."^  The  same  authority  admits  that  the  Gnostic 
heresy,  *'  though  utterly  contradicting  the  whole  tenour 
of  Paul's  teaching,  might  have  found  an  imaginary 
support ''  in  some  of  his  expressions.*  ''  The  Gnostic 
heresy  was  manifested  in  two  forms — first,  that  of  the 
Docetae,  who  held  the  body  of  our  Lord  to  be  an 
immaterial  phantom ;  and,  secondly,  that  of  the 
Ebionites  and  others,  who  asserted  that  the  spiritual 
being  Christ  was  a  distinct  person  from  the  man  Jesus. "^ 
Mansel  says  :  "As  regards  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  we 


1  The  Ebionites  also  called  him  Simon  Magus.  Graetz,  History  of 
the  Jejvs,  V.  ii.,  p.  371. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Gnostic  Heresies  of  the  First  and  Second  Centuries,  p.  48. 

4  Ihid,  p.  59.  See  also  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  art.  "  Gnosis."  Mr. 
Gerald  Massey  found  it  possible  to  contend  that  Paul  was  not  an  Apostle 
of  Christianity,  but  its  Gnostic  opponent.     Vide  his  lecture  on  this  subject. 

5  Ibid,  p.  58. 


222     GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

have  the  express  testimony  of  Iren?eus  that  it  was  written 
to  oppose  that  form  of  the  Gnostic  heresy  which  was 
taught  hy  Cerinthus,  and  before  him  by  the  Nicolaitans."^ 
The  Nicolaitans  are  referred  to  in  the  book  of  Revelation, 
which  is  believed  to  have  appeared  prior  to  any  of  the 
four  Gospels. 

"  The  Docetic  sects  held  that  Christ  was  either  a  mere 
man,  to  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  was  given  at  baptism  and 
withdrawn  before  his  crucifixion,  or  a  phantom.  They 
denied  the  general  resurrection  of  the  body.  They  were 
little  heard  of  after  the  second  century ;  but  their 
principles  survived."^  The  famous  heretic  Marcion, 
who  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  con- 
tended that  the  Jewish  Christians  had  corrupted  true 
Christianity,  and  he  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Valentinus  held  that  Jesus  was  only  a  man.  The 
Philetians,  referred  to  in  2  Tim.  ii.  17,  also  denied  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  A  great  number  of  the  early 
sects  held  that  Christ  was  only  a  man,  and  was  not  born 
of  a  virgin.^  It  seems  impossible  to  account  for  the 
early  prevalence  of  these  Gnostic  ideas  unless  we  assume 
that  they  and  the  nascent  Christianity  were  alike 
survivals  of  still  earlier  conceptions. 

Christian  advocates  sometimes  claim  that  the  x\postolic 
announcements  of  the  resurrection  were  not  denied  at 
the  time.  If  the  fact  was  so,  the  argument  would  not 
have  the  slightest  weight.  But  the  fact  was  not  so.  As 
an  eminent  critic  has  pointed  out,  "  there  is  the  very 
strongest  evidence  that,  when  the  assertion  of  the  resur- 
rection and  ascension  as  '  unquestionable  facts '  was 
made,  it   was   contradicted   in   the   only   practical   and 

^  GnoHic  Heresies  of  the  First  and  Second  Centuries,  p.  74. 

2  Hook,  Church  Dictionary,  art.  "Gnostics." 

2  Foulkes,  Manual  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  ch.  i. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      223 

practicable  way  conceivable :    (1)  by  all   but   universal 
disbelief   in   Jerusalem ;    (2)   by   actual   persecution   of 
those  who  asserted  it.     It  is  a  perfectly  undeniable  fact 
that  the  great  mass  of  the  Jews  totally  denied  the  truth 
of  the  statement  by  disbelieving  it,  and  that  the  converts 
to  Christianity,  who  soon  swelled  the  numbers  of  the 
Church  and  spread  its  influence  among  the  nations,  were 
not   the   citizens   of    Jerusalem,   who   were   capable   of 
refuting  such  assertions,  but  strangers  and  Gentiles."  ^ 
This  view  is  confirmed  by  an  orthodox  writer,  Dr.  Harold 
Browne.     "  The  Sadducees,  who  denied  all  resurrection, 
of  course  would  deny  the  resurrection  of  Christ.     The 
Essenes  also,  though  they  believed  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  yet  did  not  believe  that  the  body  would  rise."  ^ 
The  Docetae,  "of  necessity,  disbelieved  the  truth  of  the 
resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ.     Augustine  tells  us 
that  the  Cerinthians  held  that  Jesus,  whom  they  took  to 
be  a  mere  man,  had  not  risen,  but  was  yet  to  rise."  ^ 
Dr.  Browne  refers  to  the  "  strange  fables  "  of  some  of 
the  earlier  heretics,  such  as  that  of  Hermogenes,  who 
"  believed  our  Lord's   body  to  be  placed  in  the  sun," 
while  others  held  "  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  in  the 
heavens,  devoid  of  sense,  as  a  scabbard  or  sheath,  Christ 
being  withdrawn  from  it."     The  Manichees  denied  the 
resurrection,  and  the  doctrine  of  Eutyches,  "  by  implica- 
tion, opposed  the  verity  of   His  resurrection  ;    and  so 
Theodoret  accuses  him  of  considering  that  the  Godhead 
only  rose  from   the  grave."*     The  Fathers   held   that 
Christ's  body  was  "  truly  human,"  but  "divested  of  all 
that  was  mortal,  carnal,  and  corruptible,  and  became  a 
spiritual  body  incorruptible,  intangible,  impassable."^ 

1  Supernatural  Relifi ion,  1-vol.  ed. ,  pp.  899-900. 

2  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  p.  98. 

3  Ibid.  4  ijjid^  p.  99.  5  j^j^. 


224      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

The  Scriptural  statements  merely  illustrate  the  con- 
fused state  of  the  resurrection  tradition ;  3^et  Dr.  Browne 
regards  them  as  forming  the  "  strongest  proof"  that  the 
*'  spiritual  body  "  of  Jesus  was  a  reality. 

Many  other  heretical  bodies  existed  during  the  first 
two  centuries  of  Christianity,  of  which  a  few  may  be 
mentioned.  The  Apell?eans  held  that  Christ  ascended  to 
heaven  without  a  body.  The  Archontics  denied  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  The  Bardesanists  believed  the 
incarnation  and  death  of  Jesus  to  have  been  only 
apparent.  They  denied  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
The  Lucianists  denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The 
Marcionites  denied  the  real  birth,  incarnation,  and 
passion  of  Jesus.  The  Marcosians  also  denied  the 
reality  of  Christ's  sufferings  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  The  Ophites  identified  Christ  with  the  serpent 
that  tempted  Eve.  The  Sethites  were  less  uncompli- 
mentary to  Jesus,  for  they  regarded  him  as  having  had 
a  prior  existence  as  Seth,  the  son  of  Adam.^ 

As  Christian  writers  have  made  it  clear  that  the 
Gnostic  sects  were  in  existence  before  the  Gospels 
appeared,  and  that  John  wrote  with  a  definite  polemical 

1  A  New  Theological  Dictionary.  Edinburgh,  1805.  Most  of  the 
uncanonical  writings  of  the  first  and  second  centuries  were  of  decidedly 
heretical  tendency.     We  need  only  mention — 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews     ...  Ebionite 

The  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites         ,, 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians  . . .  Docetic 
The  Gospel  according  to  Peter      ...         ...  ,, 

The  Gospel  of  Matthias     

The  Descent  of  Mary  Gnostic 

The  Gospel  of  Philip  

The  Pistis  Sophia ,, 

{Encyclopccdia  Bihlica,  art.  "Apocrypha.") 

The  four  Gospels  are  admittedly  far  superior  to  these  works,  but  it  would 
be  desperately  uncritical  to  suppose  that  they  bear  no  traces  of  the  ideas 
common  to  the  times  in  which  they  were  produced. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      225 

purpose,  the  reader  will  perceive  that  we  are  not  without 
warrant  for  maintaining  that  the  details  regarding  the 
physical  appearances  of  Jesus  after  his  death — that  he 
walked,  spoke,  and  ate  food — have  been  inserted  in  order 
to  refute  the  contention  that  the  appearances  were  those 
of  a  phantom.  Whatever  reason  and  fact  may  lie  behind 
these  heresies,  it  is  self-evident  that  their  existence  in 
Apostolic  times  proves  that  among  the  Christians  them- 
selves an  extraordinary  degree  of  doubt  as  to  the  facts  of 
the  life,  death,  and  personality  of  Jesus  prevailed  in  the 
very  epoch  when,  as  a  recent  writer  uncritically  asserts, 
''the  facts  were  fresh  in  men's  memories."-^  It  is 
abundantly  clear  that,  as  regards  the  resurrection,  the 
Church  W'as,  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  "  a  house 
divided  against  itself,"  and  it  was  inevitable  that 
in  those  times  the  party  which  presented  the  more 
dogmatic  and  material  view  of  the  event  should  ultimately 
prevail. 

There  is,  as  we  think  has  been  shown,  a  presumption 
fairly  clear  and  fairly  strong  that  the  belief  in  the  resur- 
rection began  in  subjective  impressions.  It  is  admitted 
that  this  view,  owing  to  our  ignorance  of  the  facts, 
involves  certain  difficulties,  and  cannot  be  decisively 
proved.  But  it  is  obviously  more  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  belief  originated  by  a  natural  process  than  to 
assume  a  break  in  the  natural  order  for  which  nothing 
approaching  to  proof  can  be  brought  forward.  The 
inquirer  must  make  his  choice  between  these  two 
explanations. 

We  find  Christian  writers  in  the  present  day  preferring 
the  view  that  the  resurrection  was  a  spiritual  process 
rather  than  a  physical  fact.     We  cannot,  therefore,  be 

1  The  Resurrection  of  Clirist,  by  Gideon  W.  B.  Marsh,  p.  4G. 

Q 


226     GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

sure    that    the     spu'itnally-minded     among     the     first 
Christians  did  not,  in  spite  of  the  prevalence  of  super- 
stition, hold  the  helief  in  this  form,  while  matter-of-fact 
believers  found  a  materialistic  view  more  congenial  to 
their   unscientific   intelligence.     The  Eev.  W.  R.  Inge 
says :  "  The  real  basis  of  our  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of    Christ    is   a   great    psychological    fact — a    spiritual 
experience.     We  know  that  Christ  is  risen  because,  as 
St.  Paul  says,  w^e  are  risen  with  him."^     Again  :  ''When- 
ever the  carnal  mind  is  set  to  judge  of  spiritual  things 
this  degradation  of  the  symbol  into  a  bare  fact  is  bound 
to  occur." ^     He  admits  the  inadequacy  of  the  evidence 
for  the  miracle :  "  It  is  barely  honest  to  assert  that  the 
discourses  of  Christ,  or  his  miracles,  or  his  Resurrection 
on  the  third   day  after   his   crucifixion,  are   absolutely 
certain.     The  evidence  may  be  as  good  as  possible  ;  it  is 
not  possible  for  it  to  be  good  enough  to  justify  such  a 
statement  as  this."^     Even  Dr.  Westcott  renders  testi- 
mony to  the  strength  of  the  subjective  element:  "The 
Apostolic  conception  of  the  Resurrection  is  rather  '  the 
Lord  lives '  than  '  the  Lord  was  raised.'"^ 

When  he  is  driven  into  a  corner  the  apologist  is  com- 
pelled to  admit  (very  unwillingly)  that  his  evidence  for 
the  resurrection  is  bad.  But  he  turns  round,  and  says  : 
"What  other  explanation  have  you  to  ofier?  Unless 
you  can  prove  that  the  miracle  did  not  happen  you  are 
bound  to  assume  that  it  did,  for  you  cannot  otherwise 
account  for  the  Christian  Church."  The  demand  for 
strict  proof  of  a  negative  is  not  consistent  with  unten- 
able positive  claims.  It  has  been  shown,  how^ever,  that 
a  natural  explanation  does  exist,  and,  if  not  conclusive, 
it  has   at   least   the  advantage   of   not  postulating  any 

1  Contcntio  Veritatis,  p.  87.  ^  Ibid,  p.  87. 

^  Ibid,  p.  93.  ^  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection,  p.  294. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      227 

interruption  of  the  normal  processes  of  thought,  and  of 
being  in  accord  with  the  phenomena  of  history  and 
experience. 

If  the  visions  which  the  New  Testament  shows  to  have 
been  so  common  in  the  first  century  were  really  expe- 
rienced, but  never  accurately  defined,  and  were  after- 
wards sometimes  misapprehended,  the  strange  gaps  in 
the  Gospel  evidence  are  accounted  for.  The  evidence  is 
precisely  of  the  character  that  justifies  this  inference. 
The  ideas  which  we  have  assumed  as  animating  the 
minds  of  the  disciples  must  have  presented  themselves 
as  profoundly  and  divinely  true,  and  it  was  by  the  force 
of  this  newly-apprehended  truth  that  they  preached 
Jesus  risen  from  the  dead.  If  due  regard  be  paid  to  the 
mental  conditions  of  the  Apostolic  age,  we  do  not  think 
that  an  explanation  on  some  such  lines  as  those  indicated 
can  be  deemed  inadequate.  If  it  is  so,  the  inadequacy  is 
owing  to  the  imperfect  manner  in  which  the  facts  have 
been  transmitted.  When  the  conceptions  of  the  first 
believers  came  to  be  written  down,  probably  by  those 
who  had  not  experienced  their  original  force,  the  desire 
to  know  more  would  lead  to  additions  being  made,  so  as 
to  make  the  tradition  more  readily  comprehended  by 
those  homely  and  uncultured  persons  who  formed  the 
majority  of  the  early  Church.  It  could  scarcely  have 
been  otherwise.  Why  should  men  be  careful  of  the  past 
when  they  awaited  an  immediate  and  glorious  return  of 
the  Son  of  Man  ?  And  spiritual  conceptions,  in  their 
union  of  poetical  and  ecstatic  aspirations,  are  very  hard 
to  explain  clearly,  especially  to  minds  whose  sympathy 
with  them  is  limited.  It  is  so  in  the  cultivated  societies 
of  the  present  day.  It  must  have  been  more  difficult  in 
an  age  which  was  on  one  side  hopelessly  prosaic,  and  on 
another  wildly  imaginative.     Jesus  had  not  often  defined 


228     GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

his  sayings  so  that  they  could  not  well  be  misunderstood. 
His  disciples  were  still  less  likely  to  discern  limits 
between  the  action  of  God  and  the  working  of  natural 
laws  which  to  them  were  totally  unknown. 

Mr.  Mackintosh  remarks  :  *'  We  can  hardly  resist  the 
feeling  that  the  idea  of  the  bodily  resurrection  of  Jesus 
is  more  like  a  suggestion  of  human  fantasy  to  account 
for  that  great  revolution  in  the  spiritual  life  than  like  a 
divine  expedient  to  produce  it."^  Christian  apologists 
argue  that  only  the  return  of  Jesus  to  bodily  life  could 
have  produced  the  great  change  in  the  Apostles.  This 
means  that  a  psychical  change  is  good  evidence  for  a 
physical  miracle.  Is  not  this  to  go  back  deliberately  to 
the  mental  confusion  of  the  Apostolic  period  ?  And  is  it 
not  evident  that  in  that  age  many  people  were  impressed 
as  effectually  by  a  supposed  miracle  as  they  would  have 
been  by  a  real  one  ? 

It  may  indeed  be  surmised  that  the  very  fact  of  Jesus 
having  been  executed  as  a  malefactor  would  facilitate  the 
belief  that  he  had  risen.  So  unjust  a  fate  needed 
reversal,  needed  to  be  turned  into  a  triumph.  And  this 
could  only  be  done  by  holding  that  at  death  he  had 
entered  upon  the  higher  life  of  the  heavenly  Messiah. 
The  mythopoeic  instinct  would  supply  the  details.  But 
how,  it  will  be  asked,  could  this  idea  have  caused  the 
disciples  to  think  that  they  had  seen  and  touched  him  ? 
We  have  no  sufficient  evidence  that  they  did  think  so. 
Their  statements  are  not  before  us.  We  have  only 
statements  attributed  by  others  to  the  disciples  after  the}^ 
were  dead.  It  may  not  be  possible  to  prove  that  the 
details  in  question  are  a  product  of  a  later  tradition ;  it 
is  certainly  impossible  to  prove  that  they  are  not.     The 

^  Natural  History  of  Christian  Religion,  p.  259. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      229 


spiritual  idea  underwent  a  transition  from  the  purely 
spiritual  to  a  materialistic  form,  which,  in  the  particular 
conditions  of  the  age,  was  inevitable.  It  does  not  follow 
that  the  process  was  consciously  perceived  by  the 
Apostles ;  but  "  the  situation  was  favourable  to  an 
interpretation  of  their  experience  which  the  disciples 
were  otherwise,  as  can  easily  be  shown,  disposed  to  put 
upon  it."^  Their  inspiration,  in  fact,  "was  but  the 
outcome  of  past  impressions  now  re-asserting  them- 
selves."^ When  this  latent  faith  sprang  into  life  it 
produced  an  effect  as  great  as  the  physical  resurrection 
of  Jesus  would  have  done.  In  such  a  state  of  mind  the 
disciples  might  readily  suppose  that  Jesus  had,  unknown 
to  them,  been  present  w^ith  them  in  a  semi-spiritual  form, 
and  the  supposition  would,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  be 
embodied  in  some  such  vague  and  inconclusive  traditions 
as  those  of  the  Gospel  records.  The  mythical  details  of 
the  resurrection  reflect  in  the  sensuous  or  outward  form 
common  to  that  epoch  the  mental  experiences  presented 
to  the  consciousness  of  the  disciples.^  It  is  more  than 
probable  that  experiences  of  this  nature,  left  entirely 
undefined,  would  receive  in  time  such  details  as  would 
tend  to  represent  an  established  historical  fact  in  the 
Christian  tradition.^  In  the  same  way  the  story  of  the 
virgin  birth  of  Jesus  is  a  result  of  the  belief  that  the 
heaven-sent  Messiah  must  have  been  conceived  in  a  way 
different  from  the  ordinary  physical  process — an  idea 
found  in  many  non-Christian  religions.  The  whole  cycle 
of  '' mighty  works"  attributed  to  Jesus  gathered  round 
his  name  before  the  Gospels  were  compiled,  as  a  result 
of  the  same  idealising  sentiment — perhaps  by  way  of 
compensation   for   his   admitted   failure   as  a  temporal 

1  Natural  History  of  Christian  Eeligion,  p.  2SG. 
2  Ibid,  p.  287.  3  iiici^  p,  288.  '^  Ibid,  p.  290. 


230      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

Messiah.     As    Strauss   contended,  the   Gospel  miracles 
are  "concrete  representations  of  the  Messianic  idea."^ 

As  we  have  remarked,  the  apologist  will  contend  that 
this  reasoning  is  inconsistent  with  parts  of  the  Gospel 
narratives.  It  is  true  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the 
statements  that  Jesus  spoke  and  ate  after  his  death. 
But  the  explanation  is  not  to  be  dismissed  on  that 
account,  unless  those  particular  statements  can  be 
proved  to  be  literally  true.  Such  a  conclusion  the 
evidence  does  not  justify.  They  belong  to  the  form  in 
which  an  unscientific  age  expressed  a  psychological 
process.  The  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  had 
precisely  the  effect  which  the  event  itself  would  have 
had.  It  was  this  faith  which  became  to  the  disciples  "  a 
fact  of  their  consciousness  as  real  as  any  historical  event 
whatever,  and  supplied  a  basis  for  the  historical  develop- 
ment" of  the  Church.^  The  New  Testament  assertions 
(that  of  Paul,  for  example)  that  certain  persons  had 
''seen  Jesus"  are,  as  we  know,  made  without  that 
definition  of  the  sense  which  is  to  us  a  necessity  in  order 
to  prove  an  external  fact.  The  meaning  may  well  be 
that  it  was  by  the  spiritual  eye  ;  it  would  be  understood 
to  mean  with  the  physical  eye.  A  figurative  expression 
would  become  transformed  into  a  relation  of  literal  fact. 
Even  in  an  age  of  science  language  is  loosely  employed : 
we  say  that  we  see  the  point  of  a  joke,  without  meaning 
to  imply  either  that  a  joke  has  a  point  or  that  our 
perception  is  anything  but  mental.  The  Gospel  writers 
neither  define  nor  reconcile  the  terms  of  their  narratives. 
How,  then,  can  we  suppose  them  to  be  sufficiently  full 
and  accurate  to  establish  a  variation  of   natural  law? 

1  A.  W.  Benn,  History  of  English  Rationalism  in  the  Nineteenth  Century, 
vol  i. ,  p.  382. 

2  Natural  History  of  Christian  Religion,  p.  292. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA     231 

The  apologist  rejects  a  rational  explanation  of  the  belief 
in  the  resurrection  on  the  strength  of  a  few  expressions 
by  unknown  writers,  the  historic  truth  of  which  is  at 
best  extremely  doubtful.  Thus  so  moderate  a  writer  as 
the  Kev.  T.  Vincent  Tymms  remarks  :  "  Before  the 
visionary  theory  can  be  reasonably  accepted,  some 
advocate  must  instruct  us  how  such  visions  as  are  related 
in  the  New  Testament  can  conceivably  have  happened  to 
such  men  as  the  disciples,  and  how  the  various  moral, 
mental,  and  physical  conditions  which  beset  the 
hypothesis  can  be  disposed  of."^  Here  it  is  implied 
that  modern  knowledge  "must"  be  accommodated  to 
obsolete  conceptions.  Again  :  "  It  is  idle  to  suppose 
that  genius  will  ever  be  able  to  reconcile  Paul's 
words  and  conduct  with  a  '  subjective '  theory  of  his 
own  vision  of  Christ."^  We  reply  that  it  is  "  idle  "  to 
ask  even  genius  to  "  make  bricks  without  straw,"  to 
frame  a  perfect  explanation  from  insufficient  and 
conflicting  data.  Yet,  in  spite  of  this,  we  think  the 
explanations  of  modern  Christian  scholarship  are  satis- 
factory enough  to  enable  us  to  dispense  with  a  miracle. 
Paul's  genuine  words  do  not  need  to  be  "  reconciled  " 
with  the  subjective  theory,  because  they  imply  it.  By 
assuming  that  any  theory  must  be  unsatisfactory  which 
does  not  fit  in  with  every  detail  of  the  Gospel  records, 
Mr.  Tymms  uses  those  records  as  a  fixed  standard  of 
historical  truth,  when  the  point  at  issue  is  precisely  the 
legitimacy  of  that  view. 

Keverting  to  the  Messianic  conceptions  which  domi- 
nated the  first  Christians,  we  extract  the  following  from 
the  work  of  a  great  critic.  The  death  of  Jesus,  says 
Ferdinand    Christian    Baur,    "  made    a   complete    and 

1  The  Mijstery  of  God,  pp.  293-94.    (Italics  ours.)         2  ij^id^  p,  313. 


232      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

irreparable  breach  between  him  and  Judaism.  A  death 
like  his  made  it  impossible  for  the  Jew,  as  long  as  he 
remained  a  Jew,  to  believe  in  him  as  his  Messiah.  To 
believe  in  him  as  the  Messiah  after  his  dying  such  a 
death  involved  the  removal  from  the  conception  of  the 
Messiah  of  all  the  Jewish  and  carnal  elements  which 
were  associated  with  it.  A  Messiah  who  died,  and  by 
his  death  put  an  end  to  all  that  the  Jew  expected  his 
Messiah  to  accomplish — a  Messiah  w^ho  had  died  to  the 
life  in  the  flesh — was  no  longer  a  'Christ  after  the  flesh' 
(2  Cor.  V.  16)  such  as  the  Messiah  of  the  Jewish  national 
faith  was.  Even  to  the  most  faithful  adherent  of  the 
cause  of  Jesus,  what  could  a  Messiah  be  who  had  fallen 
a  prey  to  death  ?  Only  two  alternatives  were  possible — 
either  with  his  death  the  faith  which  had  gathered  round 
him  must  be  extinguished,  or  this  faith,  if  it  were  firm  and 
strong  enough,  must  break  through  the  barrier  of  death 
itself,  and  force  its  way  from  death  to  life.  Nothing  but 
the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection  could  disperse  these 
doubts,  which  threatened  to  drive  away  the  faith  of  the 
disciples  after  its  object  into  the  eternal  night  of 
death."! 

This  passage  is  not  to  be  taken  as  an  admission  of  the 
reality  of  the  miracle;  it  is  an  explanation  of  the  process 
by  which  it  became  a  dogmatic  necessity.  The  concep- 
tion of  a  spiritual  Messiahship  led  the  way  to  the  con- 
ception that  the  Messiah  had  triumphed  over  death,  had 
returned  in  spiritual  power  and  glory,  and  had  in  the 
spirit  ascended  to  his  father.  And  this  conception  in 
turn  was  afterwards  understood  in  terms  of  the  bodily 
life  to  which  it  w^as  inapplicable. 

Baur  guards  against  the  assumption  that  the  physical 

1  F.  C.  Baur,  The  Church  History  of  the  Firsti^Three  Centuries,  vol.  i,, 
p.  42. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      233 

miracle  is  the  paramount  concern.  "  History  must  be 
content  with  the  simple  fact  that  in  the  faith  of  the 
disciples  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  came  to  be  regarded 

as   a   solid   and    unquestionable    fact By   whatever 

means  this  result  was  brought  about,  the  Resurrection  of 
Jesus  became  a  fact  of  their  consciousness,  and  was  as 
real  to  them  as  any  historical  event." ^ 

Moreover,  it  seems  clear  that  even  when  the  disciples 
had  formed  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  they 
by  no  means  abandoned  the  prepossession  that  his 
return  would  involve  a  great  manifestation  of  divine 
power  on  behalf  of  their  nation.  That  event,  though 
postponed,  was  still  hoped  for.  Dr.  McGiffert  remarks 
that  the  Apostles  seem  to  have  believed  that  the  death  of 
Jesus  "  would  be  but  his  translation  into  the  heavenly 
sphere,  in  order  that  he  might  at  once  appear  in  glory  as 

the  conquering  Messiah For  a  death  unaccompanied 

by   any   such    manifestation    they   were    certainly   not 

prepared The  Apostles,  and  almost  the  entire  early 

Church  after  them,  continued  to  believe  that  an  earthly 
kingdom  was  yet  to  be  founded  by  Christ.  But  if  the 
time  for  its  establishment  was  postponed  by  Jesus' 
departure  from  the  earth,  it  was  evident  that  the  work  of 
preparation  must  still  go  on,  and  thus  there  was  thrust 
upon  the  disciples  a  new  and  unexpected  duty.  Upon 
them  rested  the  responsibility  of  carrying  on  until  the 
consummation  the  work  which  Jesus  had  begun."  ^  This 
explanation  appears  to  account  for  that  Apostolic  zeal 
which  is  sometimes  said  to  be  inexplicable  apart  from  a 
bodily  resurrection,  and  also  for  various  allusions  in  the 
New  Testament  to  the  materialistic  ideas  which  remained 

^  The  Church  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  pp.  42-43. 
-  Professor  A.  C.  McGiffert,  xl  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic 
Aye,  pp.  36-41. 


234      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

in  the  early  Church.^  The  belief  in  the  return  of  Jesus 
took  different  forms  in  different  minds.  The  Gospels 
show  a  vague  remembrance  of  the  immateriality  of  the 
apparitions  struggling  with  an  ardent  desire  for  their 
tangible  reality.^ 

The  following  passage  from  a  cautious  British  theo- 
logian is  adduced  as  further  evidence  :  *'  There  can'  be 
no  doubt,"  says  Professor  A.  B.  Bruce,  "  that  along  with 
sympathy  for  the  fate  of  a  beloved  Master  went  a 
theoretic  or  dogmatic  interest,  at  least  in  a  rudimentary 
form.  There  was  a  desire  to  harmonise  the  passion  with 
faith  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  This  was  obviously 
a  vital  matter  for  the  disciples.  They  could  not  con- 
tinue to  believe  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  unless  they  could 
satisfy  themselves  that  he  might  be  the  Christ,  the  Cross 
notwithstanding ;  nor  could  their  faith  be  triumphant 
unless  they  could  further  satisfy  themselves  that  he  was 
all  the  more  certainly  the  Christ  just  because  he  was 
crucified.  The  words  of  the  Master  concerning  suffering 
as  the  appointed  lot  of  all  faithful  souls  might  help  to 
attain  this  insight.  With  this  doctrine  as  a  key,  they 
would  see  new  meanings  in  Old  Testament  texts,  and 
gradually  learn  from  histories,  psalms,  and  prophecies 
that  the  path  appointed  for  the  godly,  and  therefore 
above  all  for  the  Messiah,  was  the  path  of  sacrifice."^ 

That  the  particular  conditions  of  the  earlier  part  of 
the  first  century  favoured  the  growth  of  the  Messianic 
idea  is  shown  by  Professor  Graetz,  who  remarks  :  *'  The 
ever-recurring  evils  brought  on  the  Jewish  people  by  the 
rapacity  of  their  Roman  rulers,  the  shamelessness  of  the 


^  Even  after  the  re-appearance  of  Jesus  we  find  his  disciples  asking  if 
he  was  about  to  restore  the  kinf^^dom  to  Israel  (Acts  i.  6). 

2  A.  li^^ville,  Jesus  de  Nazareth,  vol.  ii.,  p.  470. 

3  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  art.  "Jesus,"  sec.  30. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      235 

Herodian  princes,  the  cowardice  and  servility  of  the 
Judaean  aristocracy,  the  un worthiness  of  the  high  priests 
and  their  famiUes,  and  the  dissensions  between  rival 
parties,  had  aroused  the  longing  for  the  deliverer 
announced  in  the  prophetical  writings — the  Messiah — 
to  so  great  a  pitch  that  any  highly-gifted  individual, 
possessed  of  outward  charm  and  imbued  with  moral  and 
religious  grace,  would  readily  have  found  disciples  and 
believers  in  his  Messianic  mission."^  We  in  the  present 
day  cannot  appreciate  the  intensity  of  this  hope,  or  the 
extent  to  which  the  beliefs  then  current  influenced  the 
beginnings  of  Christianity.  "  The  Messiah  and  the 
Messianic  time  were  pictured  in  the  most  idealistic 
manner  by  the  Essenes,  the  great  object  of  whose 
asceticism  was  to  advance  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and 
the  coming  time.  Their  adherence  would  be  granted 
alone  to  him  who  led  a  pure  and  spotless  life,  who 
renounced  the  world  and  its  vanities,  and  gave  proofs 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelt  within  him.  He  must  also 
have  power  over  demons,  reject  mammon,  and  inaugurate 
a  system  of  community  of  goods,  in  which  poverty  and 
self-renunciation  would  be  the  ornaments  of  mankind. 
It  was  from  the  Essenes  that  for  the  first  time  the  cry 
went  forth  :  '  The  Messiah  is  coming  !  The  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  near  !'  "^ 

It  must  be  pointed  out  that,  while  the  term  "  Messiah  " 
personified   the   highest  expression   of   Jewish   life,  its 

1  Historij  of  the  Jews,  vol.  ii. ,  p.  142.  In  times  of  national  trouble 
exaggerated  hopes  of  deliverance  usually  arise.  In  1870,  during  the  war 
between  Germany  and  France,  numberless  predictions  of  this  character 
appeared  in  the  latter  country,  and  were  collected  into  twenty  volumes. 
One  prophecy  had  a  sale  of  50,000  copies  (Professor  James  Drummond, 
The  Jewish  Messiah,  p.  183). 

2  Ibid,  p.  145.  The  Jews  assert  that  whole  chapters  from  the  apoca- 
lyptic writings  of  the  Essenes  were  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  {Jewish 
Encyclopcedia,  art.  "Jesus  "). 


236      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

meaning  is  extremely  vague  and  fluctuating.  Nor  is  it 
clear  that  Jesus  ever  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  though 
there  is  no  doubt  he  was  so  regarded  by  his  followers, 
particularly  after  his  death.  The  term  "  Son  of  Man," 
by  which  Jesus  usually  spoke  of  himself,  does  not  imply 
his  Messiahship ;  and  even  the  expression  "  Son  of 
God,"  which  he  is  represented  as  accepting  rather  than 
using,  does  not  apjDear  to  have  conveyed  any  clear 
Messianic  significance.  The  Rev.  V.  H.  Stanton  states 
that  the  term  "  Son  of  Man  "  is  not  equivalent  to  the 
term  "  Messiah,"  and  could  not  have  been  used  by  Jesus 
in  that  sense. -^  The  phrase  "  Son  of  God,"  says  Dr. 
James  Martineau,  "received  its  Messianic  significance 
from  the  Christians  themselves ;  neither  in  the  true  text 
of  the  anterior  Apocalyptic  literature  nor  in  the  Hebrew 
scriptures  does  it  ever  appear  in  that  sense." ^  "  The 
name  '  Son  of  God '  became  appropriate  to  Jesus  in 
virtue,  not  of  the  Messianic  office,  but  of  the  heavenly 
nature  discovered  in  his  person,  and  was  therefore  first 
freely  given  to  him  by  his  disciples  after  his  passage  to 
immortal  life.  This  is  strongly  marked  by  the  Apostle 
Paul's  distinction  that  he  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh,  but  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God 
with  power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.'"^ 

"  In  speaking  of  himself  Jesus  habitually  employs  the 
expression  '  Son  of  Man,'  and  on  its  meaning,  when  thus 
appropriated,  depends  the  question  as  to  the  range  and 
character  of  his  self-conscious  mission.  That  for  the 
Evangelists  themselves  it  had  settled  into  its  Messianic 
sense,  and  that  they  attributed  the  same  to  him,  is  not 
disputed.     The  point  to  be  determined  is  whether  this 

^  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "Messiah." 

^  Seat  of  Authority  in  Reliyion,^.  333.  ^  Ibid,  p.  334. 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      237 

is  historically  true,  or  is  a  Christian  afterthought  thrown 
back  upon  the  personal  ministry  of  Jesus.  The  previous 
history  of  this  phrase  certainly  gave  it  sufficient  elas- 
ticity to  leave  room  for  reasonable  doubt.  The  use  of  it 
as  the  name  of  a  personal  Messiah  was  supposed  to  be 
sanctioned  by  the  pseudo-prophecies  of  Daniel,  but  was 
drawn  thence  only  by  a  misinterpretation  of  the  author's 
symbols."^ 

''  If,  then,  Jesus  occasionally  spoke  of  himself  as  the 
*  Son  of  Man,'  it  by  no  means  implied  any  Messianic 
claim.  It  might,  on  the  contrary,  be  intended  to 
emphasise  the  very  features  of  his  life  and  love  which 
are  least  congenial  with  the  national  ideal.  That  in  the 
days  of  his  Galilean  ministry  it  had  not  passed  into  a 
Messianic  title  is  proved  by  the  startling  effect  of  Peter's 

recognition  of  him  as  '  the  Christ.' If  the  term  '  Son 

of  Man  '  was  only  a  synonym  for  '  the  Christ,'  and  Jesus 
had  been  habitually  applying  it  to  himself  throughout 
the  previous  year  or  years,  there  is  no  room  for  his 
question  addressed  to  the  disciples,  and  their  answer 
was  a  mere  tautology ;  and  if  he  actually  framed  the 
question  in  Matthew's  words,  '  I  the  Son  of  Man,'  he 
dictated  the  very  answer  which,  when  uttered,  produced 
so  intense  a  sensation,  and  was  ordered  to  be  suppressed 
and  told  to  no  man."^ 

Dr.  Martineau's  conclusion  is  that  "  the  identification 
of  Jesus  with  the  Messianic  figure  is  the  first  act  of 
Christian  mythology  withdrawing  him  from  his  own 
religion  to  a  religion  about  him."^ 

A  writer  in  the  Jewish  Encyclopcedia  states  that  it  was 
not  until  after  the  fall  of  the  Maccabsean  dynasty,  when 
the  state  of  the  Jews  was  becoming  ever  more  deplorable, 

^  Seat  of  AutJiority  in  Religion,  p.  336. 
2  Ibid,  p.  339.  3  Ibid,  p.  355 


238      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

that  they  sought  refuge  in  the  hope  of  a  personal 
Messiah,^  They  looked  for  a  temporal  redeemer  of  the 
type  referred  to  by  Josephus,  who  testifies  that  the  belief 
in  the  immediate  appearance  of  the  Messianic  king  gave 
the  chief  impulse  to  the  war  that  ended  in  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  state  ;  after  the  fall  of  the  Temple  the  last 
Apocalypse  (4  Ezra)  still  loudly  proclaimed  the  near 
victory  of  the  God-sent  king  ;  and  Bar  Kocheba,  the 
leader  of  the  revolt  against  Hadrian,  was  actually  greeted 
as  the  Messiah  by  Rabbi  Akiba.^ 

The  most  important  point,  however,  in  connection 
with  the  present  argument  is  that  the  conception  of  a 
spiritual  Messiah  was  gradually  coming  into  existence 
before  the  time  of  Jesus.  The  Rev.  V.  H.  Stanton 
writes:  "  There  were  differences  in  the  spirit  in  which 
the  Messiah  and  his  times  were  thought  of  and  desired. 
The  mass  of  men  thought  chiefly  of  victory  over  their 
enemies,  and  the  bringing  in  of  great  material  prosperity, 
while  the  truly  pious  dwelt  on  the  remission  of  sins."^ 
This  fact  is  shown  by  the  Testaments  of  the  Patriarchs 
(written  in  the  second  and  first  centuries  B.C.),  and  also 
in  the  book  of  Enoch,  which  exhibits  the  idea  of  a  pre- 
existent  heavenly  Messiah.^  If  Jesus  believed  himself 
to  be  this  divine  messenger,  can  we  be  certain  that  he, 
and  his  disciples  after  his  death,  did  not  draw  their 
inspiration  from  current  Jewish  literature  ?  That  the 
belief  in  a  resurrection  from  the  dead  formed  part  of  the 
Messianic  hope  generally  held  by  the  Jews  is  declared  in 
the  Jewish  Encyclopcedia.^    It  seems  manifest  that,  as 

1  Jeiuish  EncyclopcBclia,  art.  "Messiah." 

2  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  art.  "  Messiah." 

^  Hastings^  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "Messiah." 
"*  Jewish  Encyclopcedia,  art.  "Messiah." 
^  Art.  "Resurrection." 


GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA      239 

the  Messianic  idea  had,  long  before  the  Gospels  were 
written,  undergone  this  transformation  from  the  material 
to  the  spiritual  (though  naturally  in  some  minds  only), 
the  idea  of  resurrection  which  was  part  of  it  must  have 
passed  through  a  corresponding  change.  We  thus  find 
prevalent  in  the  time  of  Jesus  the  conception  that  rising 
from  the  dead  meant  passing  from  physical  to  spiritual 
life,  as  well  as  the  conception  that  it  meant  an  actual 
return  to  bodily  conditions.  In  this  spiritual  sense  Jesus 
may  have  interpreted  the  conception,  and  a  tardy  appre- 
hension of  his  meaning  may,  after  his  death,  have  come 
to  his  followers. 

One  other  point  in  relation  to  the  Messianic  belief 
remains  to  be  noticed.  The  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament  are,  it  is  well  known,  concerned  mainly  with 
the  restoration  or  resurrection  of  Israel  as  a  people. 
But  before  the  time  of  Jesus  a  sentiment  of  individuality 
was  evolved,  which  modified  this  idea  by  regarding  the 
Messiah  as  a  distinct  personality,  as  well  as  a  national 
ideal.  The  growing  claims  of  the  individual  "made  it 
impossible  for  any  conception  of  the  divine  rule  and 
righteousness  which  did  not  render  adequate  satisfaction 
to  the  claims  of  the  righteous  individual  to  gain  accep- 
tance. Thus,  in  order  to  justify  the  righteousness  of 
God  [a  problem  which  became  more  pressing  as  the 
nation's  troubles  grew  more  serious]  ,  there  was  postulated 
not  only  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  nation,  but 
also  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  individual."  i  Can 
we  be  sure  that  men  like  the  followers  of  Jesus,  men 
who  were  deeply  penetrated  with  the  national  hope  of 
a  Messiah,  would  not  have  concentrated  these  ideas  on 
him  who  embodied  their  highest  conception  of  the  ideal 

1  EncyclopcEtUa  Bihlica,  art.  "Apocalyptic  Literature,"  sec.  2. 


240      GNOSTICISM  AND  THE  MESSIANIC  IDEA 

individual  ?  If  we  may  judge  by  the  book  of  Acts,  we 
can  hardly  doubt  that  they  actually  did  so,  and  that  the 
idealising  process  combined  with  and  strengthened  the 
belief  that  their  Master  could  not  be  ''  holden  of  death." 
To  the  enthusiasm  of  the  disciples,  rendered  more  vivid 
and  elastic  by  their  return  to  the  hills  of  Galilee,  "  it 
would  be  a  thing  incredible  that  Messiah  should  be  '  cut 
off  from  the  land  of  the  living ';  it  was  only  that '  heaven 
should  receive  him  until  the  time  for  the  restoration  of 
all  things.'"  1 

Dr.  Martineau  fully  recognises  that  around  the  figure 
of  Jesus  there  grew  up  a  Christian  mythology.  "  Within 
the  limits  of  the  New  Testament  we  can  follow  it  for 
nearly  a  century  and  a  half ;  and  we  find  there  the 
vestiges  of  three  successive  theories  respecting  the  person 
of  Jesus.  He  is  construed  into  (1)  the  Jewish  ideal  or 
Messiah ;  (2)  the  human  ideal,  or  second  and  spiritual 
Adam ;  (3)  a  divine  incarnation,  whose  celestial  glory 
gleamed  through  the  disguise  of  his  earthly  ministry. 
The  personal  attendants  on  Jesus  worked  out  the  first ; 
the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  the  second ;  the  school 
whence  the  Fourth  Gospel  proceeded  the  third."  ^ 

It  has  now  been  rendered  extremely  probable  that  the 
Messianic  conceptions  of  the  New  Testament  were  not 
derived  from  an  immediate  manifestation  of  a  divine 
personality  with  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus  had  been 
brought  into  contact,  but  were  to  a  large  extent  the 
product  of  ideas  and  hopes  then  current  among  the  race 
which  gave  birth  to  the  religion  afterwards  known  as 
Christian.  And  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  these  pre-formed,  vague,  and  spiritual  conceptions 
helped  to  idealise  the  person  of  Jesus,  and  to  mould  the 
tradition  that  he  rose  from  the  dead. 

^  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  p.  363.  "^  Ibid,  p.  361. 


Chapter  II. 

THE  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  AND  THE  UNCANONICAL 

GOSPELS 

Very  few  Christians  are  aware  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
doctrines  of  their  faith  have  been  borrowed  from  pre- 
viously existing  sources.  One  of  the  most  important  of 
these  sources  survives  in  the  book  of  Enoch,  the  various 
sections  of  which  were  written  by  five  different  authors 
during  a  period  of  about  a  hundred  years,  extending 
from  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  to  about  seventy  years 
before  the  Christian  era.  The  influence  of  this  book  is, 
as  will  presently  be  shown,  clearly  traceable  in  many 
parts  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  book  of  Enoch  was  discovered  in  1773  by  James 
Bruce,  the  traveller,  and  was  translated  into  English  by 
Archbishop  Lawrence  in  1821.  There  are  two  versions 
in  existence,  which  form  practically  separate  works — an 
Ethiopic  version,  of  which  a  revised  translation  was 
published  in  1892,  while  the  book  of  the  Secrets  of  Enoch, 
comprising  only  a  few  chapters  of  the  longer  w^ork,  was 
translated  into  English  from  a  Sclavonic  manuscript  and 
issued  four  years  later.  These  books  have  been  edited 
by  the  Eev.  E.  H.  Charles,  who,  with  rare  candour, 
writes  thus  :  "  The  book  of  Enoch  was  well  known  to  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and,  to  some  extent, 
influenced  alike  their  thought  and  diction.  Thus  it  is 
quoted  as  a  genuine  work  of  Enoch  by  Jude.  Phrases, 
and  at  times  entire  clauses,  belonging  to  it  are  repro- 
duced in  the  New  Testament,  but  without  acknowledgment 

241  B 


242     BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

of  their  source."^  The  literary  etiquette  of  the  present 
day  cannot,  of  course,  be  applied  to  the  writers  of  the 
first  century ;  but  this  significant  admission  deserves  the 
attention  of  Christian  advocates. 

Professor  Charles  also  states  that  "  the  doctrines  in 
Enoch  that  had  a  share  in  moulding  the  corresponding 
New  Testament  doctrines,  or  formed  a  necessary  link  in 
the  development  of  doctrine  from  Old  Testament  to  New 
Testament,  are  those  concerning  the  Messianic  kingdom 
and  the  Messiah,  Sheol  and  the  Resurrection,  and 
demonology."^ 

The  Apostle  Paul  appears  to  have  quoted  freely  from 
the  book  of  Enoch,  and  must  therefore  have  been 
familiar  with  it.  May  we  not  conjecture  that  it  was 
one  of  the  factors  in  his  conversion,  and  that  he  made  a 
further  study  of  it  during  his  three  years'  retirement  ? 
He  certainly  seems  to  have  formed  a  conception  of  Jesus 
very  milike  that  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  strangely 
similar  to  the  heavenly  man  of  the  book  of  Enoch. 
This  explanation'is  favoured  by  Hausrath,  who  considers 
it  "  beyond  doubt  that  in  Paul's  view  the  heavenly  man 
has  a  similar  position  among  the  spirits  of  heaven  as 
Enoch's  Son  of  Man."^  Vague  ideas  of  this  nature  were 
floating  about  during  the  first  century,  Philo  also  having 
formed  the  conception  of  a  heavenly  man  who  was  pure 
spirit.*  Nor  was  Paul  likely  to  hesitate  about  accepting 
and  propagating  them  in  the  sincere  belief  that  they 
were  the  product  of  a  direct  revelation.  He  may  well 
have  been  the  first  to  discover  points  of  contact  between 
the   conceptions   of    the    pseudo-prophets    Daniel    and 

1  Hastings'  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  "  Enoch." 

2  Ibid. 

3  History  of  New  Testament  Times,  vol.  iii.,  p.  102. 

4  There  are  numerous  resemblances  between  the  ideas  of  Paul  and 
Philo. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS    243 

Enoch  and  the  tradition  that  a  divine  messenger  had 
appeared  in  the  person  of  Jesus.  If  his  former  convic- 
tion that  Jesus  was  a  false  prophet  had  by  his  experience 
of  the  disciples'  faith  once  begun  to  be  shaken,  a  painful 
mental  disturbance  was  inevitable.  And  it  is  not 
surprising  that  this  should  issue  in  a  powerful  impres- 
sion that  the  crucified  teacher  fulfilled  the  anticipations 
of  the  seer,  which  would  in  their  turn  ratify  the  claim 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Some  such  view  seems  to 
account  for  many  distinctive  features  in  Paul's  theology. 
One  of  these  is  ver}^  noticeable.  The  Apostle  made  it 
one  of  his  leading  principles  that  in  Christ  the  Jewish 
law  had  been  abolished.  Jesus  taught  that  every  "jot 
and  tittle  "  of  the  Jewish  law  must  be  fulfilled.  Is  it 
likely,  then,  that  he  revealed  to  Paul  a  conception 
opposed  to  that  which  he  himself  had  announced  ? 

In  Enoch  four  titles  are  applied  to  the  Messiah — the 
Anointed  One  or  Christ,  the  Kighteous  One,  the  Elect 
One,  and  the  Son  of  Man.  These  are  all  reproduced  in 
the  New  Testament.  In  the  Jewish  belief  the  ofiice  of 
judge  in  the  universal  judgment  of  man  was  not 
ascribed  to  the  Messiah,  but  always  to  God  alone.  It  is 
Enoch  which  first  represents  the  Messiah  as  the  judge  of 
mankind;  and  in  Matthew  xix.  28  and  John  v.  22-27 
this  novel  view  is  faithfully  followed,  the  former  passage 
being  attributed  to  Jesus  himself.^ 

In  the  older  parts  of  the  book  of  Enoch  ''  we  have  the 
earliest  appearance  of  the  Messiah  in  non-canonical 
literature."^  These  parts  were  wTitten  before  161  b.c, 
in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  Messiah  was  then  thought  to  have 
appeared    in    the  person   of    the  great  patriot   Judas 

1  Hastings'  Dictionary,  art.  "Enoch."  ^  Uti^, 


244     BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

Maccab?eus ;  but  after  his  death  the  despairing  nation 
began  to  turn  its  thoughts  towards  a  spiritual  deliverer. 
"  There  was  no  need,"  says  Professor  Charles,  "  of  such 
a  personality  as  the  Messiah  while  Judas  Maccabaeus  was 
living,  but  it  w^as  very  different  fifty  years  or  more 
later." 1 

The  title  "  Christ"  is  found  repeatedly  in  writings  of 
earlier  date  than  Enoch,  but  always  in  reference  to 
actual  contemporary  kings  or  priests.  Professor  Sanday 
observes:  "  The  title  'Messiah,'  'Christ,'  'Anointed,'  is 
simply  that  of  the  current  Jewish  expectation."^  And 
we  note  the  admission,  "  Only  once  does  our  Lord  use 
this  term  of  himself  (John  xvii.  3),  and  that  in  a  passage 
where  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  wording  is  not  that  of 
the  Evangelist."^  In  Enoch  the  term  "Christ"  is 
applied  to  the  Messianic  king  that  is  to  come,  and  is 
associated  with  supernatural  attributes.  * 

The  title  "  Son  of  Man"  also  appears  "for  the  first 
time  in  Jewish  literature  in  Enoch,  and  is  the  source  of 
the  New  Testament  designation.  To  the  latter  it  contri- 
butes some  of  its  most  characteristic  contents,  particularly 
those  relating  to  judgment  and  universal  authority. 
Thus  statements  in  Enoch  respecting  the  Son  of  Man 
are  quoted  by  the  Evangelists  respecting  the  New 
Testament  Son  of  Man."  "  The  Father hath  com- 
mitted all  judgment  unto  the  Son "  (John  v.  22)  is 
equivalent  to  Enoch  Ixix.  27 — "  The  sum  of  judgment 
was  committed  unto  him  the  Son  of  Man."  "Blessed 
are  the  peacemakers  "  (Matt.  v.  9)  differs  but  slightly 
from  the  "Blessed  is  he  who  establishes  peace"  of  Enoch. 
"  Blessed  are  the  meek  :  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth" 

^  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  31. 

2  Hastings'  Dictionary,  art.  "Jesus  Christ." 

3  Ibid.  ^  Ibid. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS    245 

(Matt.  V.  5)  reminds  us  of :  "  For  the  elect  there  will  be 
light  and  joy  and  peace,  and  they  will  inherit  the  earth" 
(Enoch  V.  7).  The  well-known  passage  in  John  xiv.  2, 
"  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  mansions,"  may  be 
compared  with  chap.  Ixi.  2  of  the  Sclavonic  Enoch  :  "  For 
in  the  world  to  come  there  are  many  mansions  prepared 
for  men."  A  verse  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  same 
book,  ''  Do  not  worship  vain  gods  who  did  not  make 
heaven  and  earth,"  may  have  suggested  the  words  in 
Acts  xiv.  15,  "  turn  from  these  vain  things  unto  the 
living  God,  who  made  the  heaven,  and  the  earth,  and 
the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is."  The  conception  of 
the  future  life  in  the  words  attributed  to  Jesus  in 
Matt.  xxii.  23-33  "  tallies  almost  exactly  in  thought,  and 
partially  in  word,  with  that  described  in  Enoch  xci.-civ., 
which  speaks  of  a  resurrection  of  the  spirit,  when  the 
righteous  are  to  rejoice  as  the  angels  of  heaven."  And 
the  words  of  Jesus  in  Matt.  xix.  28,  referring  to  "the 
regeneration  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne 
of  his  glory,"  cannot  well  be  anything  but  an  adaptation 
of  Enoch  Ixii.  5:  "When  they  see  that  Son  of  Man 
sitting  on  the  throne  of  his  glory."  In  fact,  the  doctrine 
of  the  resurrection  "  was  made  a  commonplace  of  Jewish 
theology  by  the  book  of  Enoch."  ^  We  are  the  less 
surprised  at  the  contradictory  notions  of  the  New 
Testament  when  their  composite  sources  have  been 
discovered.  In  some  parts  Enoch  teaches  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  in  other  parts  there  is  a  resurrection 
of  the  spirit  only,  as  in  chaps,  xci.-civ.  It  teaches  also 
that  all  Israelites  will  be  raised,  that  only  the  righteous 
Israelites  will  be  raised,  and  that  there  will  be  a  general 
resurrection  of  all  mankind.     It  teaches  that  the  Messiah 

1  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  52. 


246  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

is  only  a  man,  though  superior  to  the  rest  of  men ;  it 
also  teaches  that  he  is  a  supernatural  being,  armed  with 
power  to  destroy  the  wicked  and  vindicate  the  righteous. 
Some  parts  contain  no  reference  to  a  Messiah,  while  in 
others  the  Messiah  "  plays  a  more  important  role  than 
had  ever  yet  been  assigned  to  him."  All  these  ideas 
find  a  more  or  less  faithful  reflection  in  the  New 
Testament.  Professor  Charles  states  that  ''the  influence 
of  Enoch  on  the  New  Testament  has  been  greater  than 
that  of  all  the  apocryphal  and  pseud-apocryphal  books 
taken  together."^  He  enumerates  more  than  a  hundred 
passages  from  the  New  Testament  which,  "either  in 
phraseology  or  idea,  directly  depend  on,  or  are  illustrative 
of,  passages  in  Enoch."  Paul  and  the  author  of  the  book 
of  Revelation,  in  particular,  were  well  acquainted  with 
Enoch,  and  used  its  ideas  and  phraseology  with  consider- 
able freedom.  And  the  book  of  Enoch  is  but  "a 
fragmentary  survival  of  an  entire  literature  that  once 
circulated  in  his  name."^  How  much  more  of  this 
literature  was  borrowed  by  the  Christian  writers  we 
shall  never  know. 

According  to  this  remarkable  work,  Enoch  is  translated 
to  heaven  without  undergoing  physical  death — a  concep- 
tion which  probably  formed  an  element  in  the  Gospel 
accounts  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus. 
The  disciples  could  not  bring  themselves  to  think  that 
their  Messiah  was  less  worthy  of  such  an  honour  than 
the  Old  Testament  saint.  He  must  have  overcome 
death,  and  gone  up  to  heaven ;  therefore  his  resurrection 
and  ascension  were  facts.  At  the  translation  of  Enoch 
the  Lord  sends  darkness  on  the  earth,  and  the  angels 
come  and  take  Enoch  up  to  the  highest  heaven,  where 

1  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  41.  '^  Ibid,  p.  24. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS  247 

the  Lord  receives  him,  and  the  darkness  departs,  and 
there  is  light,  and  the  people  who  had  seen  such  things 
departed  to  their  houses.-^  Can  we  be  sure  that  some  of 
the  Gospel  details  are  not  derived  from  such  conceptions 
as  these — conceptions  which  formed  part  of  the  religious 
consciousness  of  the  age  ? 

The  term  "  Son  of  Man  "  as  used  by  Jesus  embodied 
the  natural  sense  of  Daniel  and  the  supernatural  sense  of 
Enoch ;  but  it  assumed  a  deeper  spiritual  significance 
from  combination  with  it  of  the  Isaiah  conception  of 
the  Servant  of  Jehovah.^  And  this  change  was  brought 
about  by  political  conditions.  The  book  of  Enoch  was 
written  during  a  period  of  terrible  national  calamities, 
which  compelled  the  idea  of  a  temporal  deliverer  to 
merge  itself  in  the  idea  of  a  spiritual  Messiah.  "  Subject 
to  ruthless  oppression,  the  righteous  were  in  sore  need 
of  help.  As  their  princes  w^ere  the  leaders  in  this 
oppression,  the  pious  were  forced  to  look  for  aid  to  God."^ 
"A  great  gulf  divides  the  eschatology  of  the  last  century 
B.C.  as  a  whole  from  that  of  its  predecessor.  The  hope 
of  an  eternal  Messianic  kingdom  on  the  present  earth  is 
all  but  universally  abandoned.  The  earth  as  it  is  is 
manifestly  regarded  as  wholly  unfit  for  the  manifestation 
of  the  kingdom.  The  dualism  which  had  begun  to 
assert  itself  in  the  preceding  century  is  therefore  now 
the  preponderating  dogma.  This  new  attitude  compels 
writers  to  advance  to  new  conceptions  concerning  the 
kingdom."^  All  these  ideas  are  embodied  in  the  book  of 
Enoch.  '*  The  bold  and  original  thinker  to  whom  we 
owe  the  Similitudes  (chaps,  xxxvii.  to  Ixx.)  conceived  the 
Messiah  as  the  supernatural  Son  of  Man,  who  should 

^  Charles,  Book  of  the  Secrets  of  Enoch,  p.  83. 

2  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  315. 

3  Charles,  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  art.  "Eschatology."  ^  Hid. 


248  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &   UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

enjoy  universal  dominion,  and  execute  judgment  on  men 
and  angels."-^  "Other  religious  thinkers,  returning 
afresh  to  the  study  of  the  earlier  literature,  revived,  as  in 
the  Psalms  of  Solomon  (b.c.  70-40),  the  expectation  of 
the  prophetic  Messiah  sprung  from  the  house  and  lineage 
of  David." ^  "These  very  divergent  conceptions  took 
such  a  firm  hold  of  the  national  consciousness  that 
henceforth  the  Messiah  becomes  generally,  but  not 
universally,  the  chief  figure  in  the  Messianic  kingdom."^ 
It  seems  evident  that  these  divergent  ideas  are  attempted 
to  be  combined  in  the  New  Testament  writings.  In 
conformity  with  the  prevailing  practice,  the  Christian 
compilers  freely  appropriated  whatever  elements  in  the 
national  thought  were  best  suited  to  their  aims,  and  con- 
centrated them  upon  the  person  of  their  lost  leader. 
The  ideas  and  aspirations  embodied  in  the  current 
literature  were  adapted  and  combined  in  a  new  form, 
which  possessed  the  great  practical  advantage  of  having 
behind  it  a  concrete  personality,  whose  nature  retained 
its  human  elements  while  satisfying  the  ideal  of  the 
pious.  Thus,  in  the  words  of  Professor  Charles, 
Christianity  furnished  "  a  synthesis  of  the  eschatologies 
of  the  race  and  of  the  individual,"*  a  statement  which 
does  not  imply  any  striking  originality.  We  are 
beginning  to  see  that  all  the  materials  for  the  Christian 
form  of  the  resurrection  idea  were  already  in  existence 
before  the  first  Easter  dawn. 

In  view  of  the  popular  belief,  it  was  inevitable  that 
this  idea  should  take  the  form  of  the  bodily  resuscitation 
of  Jesus.  But  it  seems  equally  clear  that  the  more 
spiritually-minded,  and  particularly  those  familiar  with 
the  book  of  Enoch,  would  be  predisposed  to  favour  that 

1  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  art.  "Eschatology."  '^  Ibid. 

»    Ibid.  4  Ibid. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS    249 

conception  of  a  resurrection  of  the  spirit  only  which  was, 
as  many  scholars  maintain,  the  original  form  of  the 
belief.  A  passage  in  Enoch  clearly  expresses  this  idea : 
"  And  your  spirits — (the  spirits)  of  you  who  died  in 
righteousness — will  live  and  rejoice  and  be  glad,  and  their 
spirits  will  not  perish."^  Intimations  of  this  idea  are 
discovered  by  Professor  Charles  in  the  twenty-sixth 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  it  is  expressly  asserted  by  Philo, 
who  held  that,  "  as  matter  is  incurably  evil,  there  can  be 
no  resurrection  of  the  body.  Our  present  life  in  the 
body  is  death,  for  the  body  is  the  sepulchre  of  the  soul."^ 
There  is,  we  believe,  no  doubt  that  Philo's  writings,  in 
which  the  influence  of  Greek  thought  was  prominent, 
had  a  marked  influence  on  Christian  theology,  especially 
in  regard  to  the  fourth  Gospel ;  and  he  also  did  not 
remain  unaffected  by  the  national  aspirations  which  he 
did  not  fully  share.  "  The  inclusion  of  the  Messiah  and 
the  Messianic  kingdom,  though  really  foreign  to  his 
system,  in  Philo's  eschatology  is  strong  evidence  as  to 
the  prevalence  of  these  expectations  even  in  Hellenistic 
Judaism."^  Such  expectations  must  have  exerted  a  far 
more  powerful  influence  in  Judea  itself  at  a  time  when 
their  causes  w^ere  in  full  activity. 

In  several  passages  the  book  of  Enoch  appears  to 
teach  the  doctrine  of  a  bodily  resurrection:  "And  in 
those  days  will  the  earth  give  back  those  who  are 
treasured  up  within  it,  and  Sheol  also  will  give  back  that 
which  it  has  received,  and  Hell  will  give  back  that  which 
it  owes"  (li.  1).^  "And  the  righteous  one  will  arise 
from  sleep,  will  arise  and  walk  in  the  path  of  righteous- 
ness, and  all  his  path  and  conversation  will  be  in  eternal 

1  Enoch  ciii.  4. 

2  Charles,  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  art.  "  Eschatology." 

^  Ibid.  ^  Cp.  Kevelation  xx.  13. 


250    BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

goodness  and  grace"  (xcii.  3).  The  second  book  of 
Maccabees  ''j^uts  forward  a  very  definite  resurrection  of 
the  body."^  The  influence  of  such  materiaHstic  notions 
is  traceable  in  many  parts  of  the  Gospels,  as  in 
Matthew's  expression,  *'  many  bodies  of  the  saints  which 
slept  arose,"  and  above  all  in  the  forms  which  the  belief 
in  the  reappearance  of  Jesus  himself  assumed.  The 
persistence  of  the  belief  is  in  no  wise  remarkable,  for  it 
seems  impossible  to  conceive  of  the  soul  except  in  terms 
which  imply  material  attributes.  The  early  Israelites 
were  unable  to  form  an  idea  of   the   soul  "  without  a 

certain  corporeity The  departed  were  conceived  not 

only  as  possessing  a  soul,  but  also  a  shadowy  body."^ 
In  Revelation  xx.  4  the  same  idea  is  expressed:  *'  I  saw 
the  souls  of  them  that  had  been  beheaded  for  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  and  for  the  word  of  God."  Generally 
among  barbarous  tribes  the  soul  is  thought  of  as  in  some 
sense  material. 

The  more  spiritual  view  is,  however,  distinctly 
expressed  in  the  early  uncanonical  literature.  In  the 
book  of  Jubilees,  written  in  the  first  century  B.C.,  we 
read :  "  The  bones  of  the  righteous  shall  rest  in  the 
earth,  and  their  spirits  shall  have  much  joy."  In  the 
Assumption  of  Moses  (b.c.  4-a.d.  30)  "  the  idealisation  of 
Moses  leaves  no  room  for  a  Messiah.  The  nation  of 
Israel  is  to  be  exalted  to  heaven,  whence  it  shall  see  the 
destruction  of  its  enemies  in  Gehenna.  Finally,  there 
seems  to  be  no  resurrection  of  the  body,  only  of  the 
spirit. "3  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (first  century  b.c.) 
depicts  a  theocratic  kingdom  without  a  Messiah.     The 

^  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica,  art.  "  Eschatology." 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.  There  is  a  reference  in  this  book  to  a  curious  tradition  that 
when  the  body  of  Moses  was  buried  its  spiritual  counterpart  was  seen 
rising  to  heaven. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS  251 

body  does  not  rise  again ;  it  is  a  mere  burden,  taken  up 
for  a  time  by  the  pre-existent  soul.  It  is  the  soul  that  is 
immortal.  The  fourth  book  of  Maccabees  (circ.  b.c.  100- 
A.D.  100)  teaches  the  eternal  existence  and  punishment 
or  reward  of  all  souls,  good  and  bad,  but  no  resurrection 
of  the  body.  In  the  Sclavonic  book  of  Enoch  there  is 
apparently  no  resurrection  of  the  body ;  the  righteous 
are  clothed  with  the  garments  of  God's  glory.  The 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch  (a.d.  50-90)  effects  a  sort  of  recon- 
ciliation of  both  the  opposing  views  by  teaching  that  the 
dead  will  be  raised  with  bodies  unchanged,  so  that  they 
may  be  recognised,  and  then  that  they  will  be  trans- 
formed, with  a  view  to  unending  spiritual  existence. 
They  shall  be  made  like  the  angels,  but  surpassing  them 
in  glory, ^  This  book  contains  many  points  of  contact 
with  the  New  Testament,  though  "  they  are  for  the  most 
part  insufficient  to  establish  a  relation  of  dependence  on 
either  side.  The  thoughts  and  expressions  in  question 
are  explicable  from  pre-existing  literature,  or  as  common- 
places of  the  time."^  The  work  is  of  value  because  it 
"  furnishes  us  with  the  historical  setting  and  background 
of  many  of  the  New  Testament  problems,"  and  enables 
us  to  see  that  the  "  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection 
in  1  Corinthians  xv.  35-50  was  not  an  innovation,  but  a 
developed  and  more  spiritual  exposition  of  ideas  already 
current  in  Judaism."^  In  his  scholarly  edition  of  this 
important  work  Professor  Charles  remarks  that  "  Long 
before  the  time  of  the  writers  of  Baruch  the  Pharisees 
were  familiar  with  the  idea  of  the  spiritual  transforma- 
tion of  the  body  after  the  resurrection."^ 

The   Ascension   of    Isaiah    is    another    work    which 


^  Above  particulars  from  Charles,  art.  "  Eschatology." 

^  Charles,  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  art.  "Apocalyptic  Literature." 

^  Ibid.  *  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  p.  Ixxxii.  (note). 


252    BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

helped  to  render  familiar  the  notion  that  the  supremely 
righteous  man  might  he  translated  from  a  sinful  world 
to  the  ahodes  of  eternal  happiness,  the  prophet  heing 
represented  as  taken  up  into  the  seventh  heaven.  It  is 
a  Jewish  wa-iting  of  early  date,  the  apocalyptic  sections 
being  written  between  a.d.  50  and  80 — that  is,  during 
the  very  period  when  the  earliest  Christian  Gospels  came 
into  existence.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  it  helped  to 
mould  the  legend  of  the  ascension  of  Jesus.  This  work 
is  written  in  prophetic  form,  though  describing  current 
events,  and  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  prophet  Isaiah. 
It  contains  many  parallelisms,  both  in  thought  and 
expression,  with  the  book  of  Kevelation. 

In  nearly  every  one  of  these  old  Jewish  books  (which 
were  freely  interpolated  by  Christians)  the  privilege  of 
taking  part  in  the  resurrection  is  assumed  to  be  enjoyed 
by  the  righteous  only.  In  this  respect  also  the  Gospel 
writers  faithfully  reproduced  the  current  conception.  In 
Luke  XX.  35,  36,  Jesus,  while  inculcating  a  spiritual 
aspect  of  the  resurrection,  distinctly  expresses  this  view, 
and  Paul  appears  to  favour  it ;  indeed,  according  to 
Professor  Charles,  "  the  all  but  universal  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament  writers  is  that  the  resurrection  is  the 
privilege  only  of  those  who  are  spiritually  one  with 
Christ."^  It  is  not  easy  to  evade  the  conclusion  that  the 
Christian  belief  on  this  subject  must  have  been  derived 
from  previously  existing  non-Christian  sources. 

As  already  stated,  it  is  quite  impossible  for  persons 
belonging  to  another  nation,  and  to  a  period  contrasting 
in  almost  every  respect  with  the  times  preceding  and 
following  the  age  of  Jesus,  to  appreciate  the  intense  and 
absorbing  nature  of  the  Jewish  Messianic  hope.     "  The 

1  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  art.  "Eschatology." 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS    253 


two  subjects  with  which  Jewish  thought  and  enthusiasm 
were  concerned  were  the  law  and  the  Messianic 
kingdom." '^  The  Christian  Church  (though  not  for 
some  years)  broke  with  the  former.  The  latter  it  trans- 
formed from  an  earthly  to  a  heavenly  kingdom,  even  in 
this  respect  following  the  lead  of  Jewish  idealists.  And 
with  this  natural  evolution  of  religious  thought  there 
seems  to  have  gone  on  a  development  of  the  sense  of 
individuality.  "  The  Old  Testament  prophets  had  con- 
cerned themselves  chiefly  with  the  position  of  the 
righteous  as  a  community,  and  pointed  in  the  main  to 
the  restoration  (or  resurrection)  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  and 
to  Israel's  ultimate  possession  of  the  earth  as  a  reward 
for  righteousness.  Later,  with  the  growing  claims  of  the 
individual  and  the  acknowledgment  of  these  in  the 
religious  and  intellectual  life,  the  second  problem 
presented  itself  irresistibly  on  the  notice  of  religious 
thinkers,  and  made  it  impossible  for  any  conception  of 
the  divine  rule  which  did  not  render  adequate  satisfac- 
tion to  the  claims  of  the  righteous  individual  to  gain 
acceptance.  Thus,  in  order  to  justify  the  righteousness 
of  God,  there  was  postulated,  not  only  the  resurrection 
of  the  righteous  nation,  but  also  the  resurrection  of  the 
righteous  individual."^  These  remarks  suggest  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  put  forward  as 
a  vindication  of  the  divine  government,  a  refutation  of 
the  doubts  which  the  prevailing  wickedness  had  awakened, 
as  the  conception  formed  by  the  pious  of  how  God  might 
be  expected  to  reverse  the  condemnation  by  men  of  his 
Messiah.     In  those  times  the  transition  from  what  ought 

1  Charles,  EncyclopoRclia  Bihlica,  art.  "  Apocalyptic  Literature."  The 
preaching  by  Jesus  of  "  The  Kingdom  "  was  probably  suggested  by  the 
national  idea  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom. 

2  Ibid. 


254  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

to  be  to  what  had  been  was  easily  made.  A  i->riori  con- 
siderations had  greater  weight  than  prosaic  facts.  The 
idea  that  the  nation  would  be  raised  ended  in  failure  and 
despair.  Perhaps  partly  for  that  reason,  the  idea  that 
the  righteous  individual  had  been  actually  raised  met 
with  astonishing  success.  The  failure  of  the  one  hope 
drove  the  religious  mind  to  seek  consolation  in  the 
guarantee  afforded  by  the  assumed  resurrection  of  Jesus 
that  God  still  cared  for  his  people,  and  that  the  wicked 
would  not  be  for  ever  triumphant.  The  believer  did  not 
ask  for  evidence  of  the  fact,  or  scrutinise  the  sense  of  the 
terms  in  which  it  was  proclaimed.  The  assertion  of  an 
event  which  gratified  his  aspirations  remained  uncriticised 
by  reason. 

The  wTiters  of  the  Sclavonic  Enoch  show  us  the  down- 
fall of  the  national  hope,  the  destruction  of  the  national 
ideal.  The  apocalyptic  author  "  entertains  no  hope  of 
arousing  his  contemporaries  to  faith  and  duty  by  direct 
personal  appeals.  His  pessimism  and  w^ant  of  faith  in 
the  present  thus  naturally  led  him  to  pseudonymous 
authorship,  and  so  he  approaches  his  countrymen  with 
a  writing  which  purports  to  be  the  work  of  some  great 
figure  in  their  history,  such  as  Enoch,  Moses,  Daniel,  or 
Baruch."^  But  in  all  the  apocalyptic  writings  the 
predictions  "  are  mere  products  of  the  religious  imagina- 
tion, and  vary  with  each  writer.  In  nearly  every  case 
these  books  claim  to  be  supernatural  revelations  given  to 
the  men  by  whose  names  they  are  designated."^ 

The  substitution  of  the  idea  of  individual  resurrection 
for  that  of  national  resurrection  must  have  meant  a 
great  change  for  the  pious  Jew.  ''  Never,"  says  Professor 
Charles,  "  in  Palestinian  Judaism  down  to  the  Christian 

^  Encyclopedia  Biblica,  art.  "Apocalyptic  Literature."  ^  Ibid. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS    255 

era  did  the  doctrine  of  a  merely  individual  immortality 
appeal  to  any  but  a  few  isolated  thinkers."^  In  the  first 
century  B.C.  this  doctrine  had  become  powerful,  and  the 
interest  of  the  believer  centred  in  his  own  soul.  "  The 
great  thought  of  the  Divine  Kingdom  had  been  surrendered 
in  despair."^  Is  it  not  evident  that  Jesus  revived  this 
"great  thought"  in  a  more  spiritual  and  individualised 
form,  and  was  it  not  this  idea  which  sustained  his 
followers  under  the  trial  of  his  crucifixion,  filled  them 
with  the  conviction  that  he  was  still  alive,  and  gave  them 
courage  to  preach  the  faith  he  had  taught  them  ?  More 
than  a  century  before  his  time  the  book  of  Enoch  had 
developed  the  conception  of  an  earthly  New  Jerusalem 
into  a  spiritual  one  in  heaven.  "  From  such  a  view  of 
the  future  it  is  obvious  that,  for  the  writer,  the  centre 
of  interest  has  passed  from  the  material  world  to  the 
spiritual,  and  the  Messianic  kingdom  is  no  longer  the 
goal  of  the  hopes  of  the  righteous.  Their  faith  finds  its 
satisfaction  only  in  a  blessed  immortality  in  heaven 
itself."^  In  short,  Jewish  piety  only  believed  in  a 
heaven  in  the  clouds  when  it  could  no  longer  believe  in 
a  heaven  upon  earth. 

Just  in  the  same  way  the  conception  of  a  suffering 
Messiah  was  only  framed  when  the  conception  of  a 
triumphant  king  had  become  no  longer  possible. 

Hitherto  we  have  been  considering  the  Jewish  un- 
canonical  writings,  because  they  comprise  some,  at  any 
rate,  of  the  sources  from  w^hich  the  Christian  narratives 
have  been  derived.  It  is  manifestly  important  that  we 
should  know  the  true  origin  of  a  system  which  is  claimed  to 
constitute  a  divine  revelation.  If  we  find  that  origin  to 
lie   within   the   normal   development   of    the    religious 

1  Art.  "Eschatology."  2  j^^^,  3  jjj^;. 


256  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

consciousness,  there  can  be  no  good  reason  for  referring 
it  to  any  extra-human  source.  We  find  no  such  break,  no 
such  difference,  between  the  religious  conceptions  of 
Jesus  and  his  earliest  followers  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  religious  conceptions  of  the  pious  Jews  of  his  day  on 
the  other  hand,  as  would  justify  the  assumption  that  the 
former  stand  apart  from  the  ordinary  process  of  psycho- 
logical development.  This  being  so,  the  position  of 
Neander,  that  we  must  regard  "  the  whole  manifestation 
of  Christ  as  supernatural  before  we  can  believe  in  his 
resurrection,"  becomes  logical  only  if  w^e  are  prepared 
to  overlook  the  unsoundness  of  its  premisses.  Investi- 
gation discloses  that  the  essential  ideas,  doctrines,  and 
even  practices,  of  Christianity  were  in  existence  before 
Jesus  lived ;  that  his  followers  did  not  regard  him  as 
God ;  and  that,  in  view  of  the  tendencies  of  his  age  and 
the  uncertain  date  and  authorship  of  the  records,  we  can 
never  be  sure  that  the  words  put  into  his  mouth  were 
really  uttered  by  him.  In  the  light  of  the  critical 
researches  which  Christian  scholars  themselves  have  so 
bravely  and  honourably  made  public,  we  are  driven  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  "  whole  manifestation  of  Christ," 
instead  of  being  supernatural,  is  purely  natural  and 
human.  And  this  involves  the  further  conclusion  that 
the  particular  dogmas  of  the  Virgin  birth,  the  resurrec- 
tion and  ascension  of  Jesus,  are  antecedently  incredible, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  established  by  the  meagre  and 
contradictory  statements  of  unknown  and  ill-informed 
writers. 

The  Apocryphal  Gospels  which  were  so  largely  circu- 
lated during  the  first  and  second  centuries  have  no  direct 
bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection.  Being  of 
later  date  than  the  Apostolic  age,  they  do  not  form  the 
sources  of  the  Christian  belief,  but  its  products.     They 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS     257 

are,  nevertheless,  full  of  interest,  as  exemplifying  the 
gradual  accretion  of  mythical  elements  round  a  certain 
(or,  rather,  uncertain)  nucleus  of  truth.  It  should  be 
the  task  of  the  apologetic  school  to  show  that,  while  the 
later  development  is  admittedly  legendary,  its  original 
source  is  not.  The  numerous  analogies  between  the 
apocryphal  and  the  canonical  accounts  seem  to  imply  a 
common  origin ;  and,  when  we  see  belief  in  the  super- 
natural carrying  with  it  the  rankest  absurdities,  we  are 
the  more  disposed  to  find  that  origin  in  the  natural 
tendency  of  mankind  to  superstition. 

The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  abounds  with  exaggerated 
and  impossible  stories.  Thus  the  guard  of  soldiers  set 
to  watch  the  tomb  has  grown  into  a  small  army  of  five 
hundred  men,  who  place  seals  upon  the  entrance.  In 
the  form  related  by  Matthew  this  tradition  has  usually 
been  accepted  by  apologists  as  historically  true  ;  but  its 
origin  is  unknown,  and  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
in  its  favour.  There  is,  indeed,  a  close  resemblance 
between  it  and  the  story  concerning  Joseph  of  Arimathea 
contained  in  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  According  to  the 
latter  account,  Joseph  is  arrested  for  having  interred  the 
body  of  Jesus ;  but  when  the  Jews  come  to  his  prison 
to  take  him  away  for  execution,  Joseph  is  nowhere  to  be 
found.  "  When  the  day  began  to  break  on  the  Lord's 
day,  the  chief  priests  and  the  Jews  held  a  council,  and 
sent  to  bring  Joseph  out  of  prison  to  put  him  to  death ; 
but  on  opening  it  they  found  him  not.  And  they 
wondered  at  this,  how,  when  the  doors  were  shut,  and 
the  locks  secured,  and  the  seals  remaining,  Joseph  was 
not  to  be  seen."^  Why  is  this  story  disbelieved  while  a 
similar  incident  in  the  Gospels  is  held  to  be  true  ?     The 

1  B.  Harris  Cowper,  The  Apocryi^hal  Gospels,  p.  291. 


258  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

orthodox  reply  is  that  "  the  whole  manifestation  of  Christ 
was  supernatural,"  which,  of  course,  assumes  the  point 
to  he  proved. 

The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  contains  a  curious  legend  of 
the  ascension.  There  are  two  versions  of  it ;  we  need 
only  quote  the  second :  "  Jesus,  whom  ye  crucified,  we 
have  seen  in  Galilee  with  his  eleven  disciples,  at  the 
Mount  of  Olives^  [_sic],  teaching  them,  and  saying,  *  Go 
ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel ;  and  whoso- 
ever believeth  and  is  baptised  shall  be  saved,  but  whoso- 
ever believeth  not  shall  be  condemned.'  And,  having  said 
this,  he  ascended  to  heaven.  And  we  saw,  both  we  and 
many  others  of  the  five  hundred  who  were  there." ^  This 
seems  to  point  to  some  confusion  between  the  appearance 
of  the  five  hundred  alluded  to  by  Paul  and  the  ascension 
recorded  by  Luke,  possibly  complicated  by  some  vague 
tradition  of  the  Pentecost  incident.  The  legend  is 
doubtless  long  subsequent  to  the  Gospel  narrative  ;  but 
it  shows  the  tenuous  and  fluctuating  character  of  the 
belief,  and  also  how  readily  the  early  Christians  could 
declare  that  they  had  actually  seen  what  they  had  not 
seen.  Can  any  reasoning  mind  attach  the  slightest 
value  to  the  alleged  evidence  of  five  hundred  unknown 
witnesses  to  such  a  miracle  when  he  sees  how  easily  a 
small  picket  of  soldiers  was  magnified  to  a  regiment  ? 

The  following  passage  suggests  the  reflection  that 
"heaven"  was  simply  a  convenient  expression  to 
account  for  the  disappearance  (real  or  supposed)  of  the 
body  of  Jesus :  *'  Nicodemus  said  :  0  children  of  the 
people  of  Jerusalem,  the  prophet  Elijah  ascended  to  the 
height  of  heaven  with  a   fiery  chariot,  and   it   is   not 

1  The  locality  is  given  in  the  first  version  as  Mount  Mamilk,  a  hill 
south-west  of  Jerusalem. 

2  The  Apocryphal  Gospels,  p.  294. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS  259 

incredible  if  Jesus  also  is  risen ;  for  the  prophet  Elijah 
was  a  prefiguration  of  Jesus,  in  order  that  ye  should  not 
disbelieve  when  ye  heard  that  Jesus  was  risen."  ^  There 
are  so  many  indications  in  the  New  Testament  of  the 
persistent  manner  in  which  Old  Testament  types  and 
predictions  were  assumed  to  have  been  fulfilled  in  Jesus 
that  we  cannot  fail  to  perceive  the  close  mental  relation- 
ship between  the  authors  of  the  canonical  and  of  the 
uncanonical  writings  of  Christianity.  It  seems  to  us 
that  the  first  Christians  were  dimly  aware  of  the 
weakness  of  the  historical  basis  for  their  doctrines,  and 
so  were  almost  forced  back  upon  fanciful  interpretations 
of  the  Jewish  scriptures.  In  spite,  however,  of  these 
interpretations  being  in  accord  with  the  tendencies  of 
the  ignorant  age  which  produced  them,  the  Jewish 
nation  as  a  whole  never  admitted  their  validity. 

In  the  same  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  appears  the 
following  extraordinary  passage,  purporting  to  have 
been  uttered  by  Joseph  of  Arimathea.  He  says  to  his 
accusers,  who  had  apprehended  him  for  his  removal  of 
the  body  of  Jesus :  "On  the  evening  of  the  prepara- 
tion, when  ye  secured  me  in  prison,  I  betook  myself  to 
prayer  all  the  night,  and  all  the  day  of  the  Sabbath. 
And  at  midnight  I  saw  the  prison-house,  that  four  angels 
lifted  it  up,  holding  it  by  the  four  corners.  And  Jesus 
entered  like  lightning,  and  through  fear  of  him  I  fell  to 
the  ground.  Therefore,  taking  me  by  the  hand,  he 
raised  me,  saying :  Fear  not,  Joseph.  Then  he 
embraced  and  kissed  me,  and  said  :  Turn  and  see  who  I 
am.  Therefore  I  turned  and  looked,  and  said  :  Lord,  I 
know  not  who  thou  art.  He  saith,  I  am  Jesus  whom 
thou  didst   bury  the   day  before  yesterday.     I   said  to 

^  The  Apocryphal  Gospels,  p.  295. 


260    BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

him,  Show  me  the  sepulchre,  and  then  I  will  believe. 
Therefore  he  took  me  by  the  hand,  and  led  me  away  to 
the  sepulchre,  which  was  open.  And  when  I  saw  the 
linen  clothes  and  the  napkin,  and  knew%  I  said :  Blessed 
is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and 
worshipped  him.  Then  he  took  me  by  the  hand,  the 
angels  also  following,  and  led  me  to  Arimathea,  to  my 
house,  and  saith  unto  me:  Abide  here  for  forty  days. 
For  I  go  unto  my  disciples,  that  I  may  instruct  them  to 
preach  my  resurrection."^ 

Only  one  or  two  points  in  this  story  need  be  noticed. 
We  have  first  that  singular  disposition  to  "argue  the 
point"  which  seems  to  have  been  thought  necessary  on 
the  part  of  the  recipient  of  a  divine  manifestation,  and 
which  is  frequently  and  carefully  recorded  in  the  Bible. 
Then  there  is  the  significant  statement  that  Joseph  was 
convinced  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  by  beholding  the 
empty  tomb,  although  Jesus  in  person  had  just  appeared 
to  him  and  declared  his  identity.  Can  it  be  doubted 
that  similar  evidence  satisfied  the  disciples,  as  indeed 
seems  to  be  hinted  by  John  ?  But,  whatever  theory 
may  be  formed  of  the  disappearance  of  Jesus,  the  mere 
fact  (assuming  it  to  be  such)  of  the  tomb  being  empty  is 
obviously  no  evidence  whatever  that  he  returned  to  life. 
Nor  can  we  avoid  the  suspicion  that  the  incredulity  of 
the  followers  of  Jesus  was  "overdone  "  when  we  find  the 
incident  of  "doubting  Thomas"  thus  duplicated.  In 
each  narrative  the  apologetic  purpose  is  manifest.  The 
introduction  of  the  conventional  period  of  forty  days 
should  also  be  noticed. 

The  Encydopcedia  Bihlica  gives  the  date  of  the  Gospel 
of  Nicodemus  as  "  not  earlier  than  the  fourth  century,"^ 

1  The  Apocryphal  Gospels,  p.  297.  ^  Art.  "  Nicodemus." 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS  261 

but  the  Christian  scholar  Tischendorf  places  it  as  early 
as  the  second  century.^  Whichever  view  be  adopted,  the 
work  embodies  very  ancient  traditions. 

The  myth-making  process  flourishes  in  the  forgery 
known  as  the  Report  of  Pilate  the  Governor  to  Augustus 
Ccesar.  Here  Pilate  is  made  to  relate  that  he  himself 
saw  many  of  the  "saints"  whose  unaccountable  resur- 
rection is  related  by  Matthew,  and,  in  addition,  reports, 
with  a  fine  sense  of  poetic  justice,  that  the  opponents  of 
Jesus  had  been  swallowed  up  in  the  chasm  made  by  the 
earthquake. 2  In  another  of  these  vivacious  productions, 
entitled  The  Death  and  Condemnation  of  Pilate,  the  unfor- 
tunate Procurator  is  put  to  death  for  having  caused  the 
just  man  Jesus  to  be  crucified,  but  his  last  moments  are 
consoled  by  a  vision  of  Jesus,  who  forgives  him,  and  his 
head  is  received  by  an  angel.^ 

The  following  passage  relating  the  appearance  to 
James  is  given  in  the  Encydoxicedia  Biblica  as  a  citation 
by  Jerome  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  of  which  only 
fragments  have  been  discovered  :  "  The  Lord,  after  he 
had  given  the  cloth  to  the  slave  of  the  priest,  went  to 
James  and  appeared  to  him ;  for  James  had  sworn  that 
he  would  not  eat  bread  from  that  hour  in  which  he  had 
drunk  the  cup  of  the  Lord  until  he  should  see  him  rising 
again  from  them  that  sleep  ;  and  again,  after  a  little, 
'  Bring,'  says  the  Lord,  '  food  and  bread,'  and  imme- 
diately, there  is  added,  he  brought  bread,  and  blessed 
and  gave  to  James  the  Just,  and  said  to  him  :  '  My 
brother,  eat  thou  bread  because  the  Son  of  Man  is  risen 
again  from  them  that  sleep.'  "* 

There  is  a  tradition  of  the  resurrection  embodied  in 
the   Gospel  of   Peter  which   it   may  be  interesting    to 

1  Apocryphal  Gospels,  p.  228.  -  Ihid,  p.  404. 

3  Ihid,  p.  414.  4  j\i;t.  "  Resurrection, "  sec.  4. 


262  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

reproduce.  This  ancient  MS.,  believed  to  be  a  product 
of  the  second  century,  was  found  at  Akhmim,  in  Egypt, 
nearly  twenty  years  ago  by  the  French  Archaeological 
Mission,  but  was  not  published  till  1891.  The  passage 
is  given  by  Professor  Rendel  Harris,  as  follows  : — 

And  in  the  night,  when  the  Lord's  Day  was  drawing 
on,  as  the  soldiers  were  on  guard,  two  and  two  in  each 
watch,  there  was  a  great  voice  in  heaven,  and  they  saw 
the  heavens  opened,  and  two  men  descend  thence  with 
great  radiance,  and  they  stood  over  the  tomb.  But  that 
stone  which  had  been  cast  at  the  door  rolled  away  of 
itself,  and  withdrew  to  one  side,  and  the  tomb  was 
opened,  and  both  the  young  men  entered. 

When  those  soldiers  saw  this,  they  aroused  the 
centurion  and  the  elders  (for  they  also  were  present  on 
guard) ;  and  as  they  were  relating  what  they  had  seen 
again  they  behold  three  men  coming  out  of  the  tomb, 
and  two  of  them  were  supporting  the  third,  and  a  cross 
was  following  them  :  and  the  heads  of  the  two  men 
reached  to  the  heaven,  but  the  head  of  Him  who  was 
being  led  along  'by  them  was  higher  than  the  heavens. 
And  they  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  which  said.  Hast 
thou  preached  to  them  that  are  asleep  ?  And  a  response 
was  heard  from  the  cross.  Yea. 

After  these  circumstances  have  been  related  to  Pilate, 
who  orders  the  centurion  and  the  soldiers  to  say  nothing, 
the  women  arrive  at  the  sepulchre. 

And  they  came  there,  and  found  the  sepulchre  opened ; 
and,  drawing  near  thither,  they  stooped  down,  and  they 
see  a  young  man  sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  sepulchre, 
beautiful  and  clad  in  a  most  dazzling  robe,  who  said  to 
them:  "Wherefore  are  ye  come?  Whom  do  ye  seek? 
Is  it  the  one  who  was  crucified  ?  He  is  risen  and  gone  ; 
and,  if  ye  do  not  believe,  stoop  down  and  see  the  place 
where  he  was  laid  ;  for  he  is  not  here ;  for  he  is  risen, 
and  has  gone  to  the  place  from  whence  he  was  sent." 

Then  the  women  fled  away  in  fear. 

And   it  was  the  last  day  of  the  feast  of   unleavened 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS  263 

bread,  and  many  people  were  returning  [from  the  city] 
to  their  homes,  the  feast  being  ended.  But  we,  the 
twelve  disciples  of  the  Lord,  wept  and  grieved;  and  each 
of  us,  in  grief  at  what  had  happened,  withdrew  to  his  house. 
But  I,  Simon  Peter,  and  Andrew,  my  brother,  took  our 
nets,  and  departed  to  the  sea,  and  there  was  with  us  also 
Levi,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  whom  the  Lord ^ 

At  this  point  the  fragment  comes  to  an  end,  the 
remainder  having  been  lost.  It  is  unnecessary  to  dwell 
on  its  variations  from  the  New  Testament  accounts  ;  but 
the  reader  will  again  observe  that  the  mere  sight  of  the 
empty  tomb  is  given  as  a  convincing  argument  for  the 
resurrection,  and  also  that  the  account  purports  to  be  a 
first-hand  declaration  by  the  Apostles  themselves.  Pro- 
fessor Harris  considers  that  all  the  four  canonical  Gospels 
were  utilised  by  the  author ;  and  this  was  probably  the 
case,  though  it  is  evident  that,  following  the  practice  of 
the  time,  he  used  his  materials  with  a  freedom  which  is 
not  consistent  with  their  having  been  regarded  as  divinely 
inspired.  Referring  to  the  curious  notion  that  the  cross 
itself  uttered  words,  Professor  Harris  states  that  this  is 
an  allusion  to  "  the  legendary  doctrine  that  when  Christ 
descended  to  Hades  he  took  the  cross  with  him  ;  thus 
the  preaching  in  question  was  a  preaching  of  the  cross."  ^ 
He  also  points  out  that  the  idea  that  Jesus  preached  to 
*' the  spirits  in  prison"  (1  Peter  iii.  19)  was  *' a  very 
popular  second-century  doctrine."^  The  fragment  is 
considered  to  bear  numerous  traces  of  a  Docetic  origin, 
and  Professor  Harris  freely  admits  the  very  early  and 
widespread  prevalence  of  this  heresy. 

We  need  not  direct  attention  to  the  incident  that  at 
the  death  of  Jesus,  as  related  in  this  Gospel,  he  cries 

^  Professor  J.  Eendel  Harris,  A  Poinilar  Account  of  the  Neicly-Eecovered 
Gospel  of  Peter  (1893),  pp.  50-56. 
2  Ibid,  p.  96.  3  nici^  p.  95, 


264  BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS 

out :  '' '  My  Power,  my  Power,  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?'^ 
And  u'licn  he  had  said  this  he  icas  taken  up.''  The 
reference  to  the  twelve  disciples  again  reminds  us  of  the 
unsettled  state  of  the  Gospel  tradition.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  the  authorship  is  expressly  attributed  to  the  Apostle 
himself.  No  one  contends  that  the  Gospel  accounts  were 
copied  from  these  legends.  Doubtless  it  was  the  other 
way.  But  the  point  is  this — the  Apocryphal  Gospels 
merely  carry  further  a  process  of  myth-making  of  which 
clear  traces  are  discernible  in  the  New  Testament  itself. 
Essentially,  both  are  products  of  a  common  tradition, 
the  precise  nature  and  origin  of  which  no  one  has 
ascertained. 

Substantial  grounds  have  now  been  shown  for  holding 
that  the  conception  of  a  Messiah  which  forms  the  clue 
to  the  resurrection-belief  was  a  purely  natural  one, 
brought  about  by  prior  religious  and  political  conditions. 
Like  all  other  religious  ideas,  it  passed  through  a  slow 
process  of  development.  It  was  first  a  national  aspira- 
tion of  a  temporal  and  earthly  nature,  kindled  into 
warmth  by  suffering  and  wrong.  In  the  course  of  time 
the  Messiah  came  to  be  conceived  of  as  an  individual, 
an  ideal  person,  partaking  of  both  divine  and  human 
qualities.  The  temporal  deliverer  was  thought  to  have 
been  found  in  Judas  Maccabaeus,  but  after  his  death  the 
pious  Jews  took  refuge  from  earthly  ills  in  the  dream  of 
a  happier  life  in  heaven.  To  the  disciples  of  Jesus  this 
idea  of  the  Messiah  furnished  a  powerful  inspiration. 
If  at  first  they  hoped  that  he  would  have  redeemed 
Israel  from  oppression,  they  shortly  perceived  that  such 
a  thought  conflicted  with  the  spirit  of  his  teaching,  and 
they  were  compelled  either  to  abandon  their  fidelity  to 

^  This  appears  to  tone  down  the  expression  of  God-forsakenness,  and 
thus  shows  a  dogmatic  tendency. 


BOOK  OF  ENOCH  &  UNCANONICAL  GOSPELS    265 

him,  or  to  regard  him  as  a  saviour  from  sin  and  the  victor 
over  death.  It  was  supposed  that  God  could  not  suffer 
his  Messiah  to  see  corruption — that  Jesus  must  have 
transcended,  and  therefore  did  transcend,  the  law  of 
death,  and  go  before  them  into  heaven,  there  to  prepare 
places  for  those  who  loved  him. 

In  the  light  of  these  ideas  the  growth  of  the  belief 
that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  becomes  intelligible.  The 
vague,  scanty,  and  unconfirmed  accounts  in  the  Gospels 
are  precisely  such  as  would  result  from  the  action  of 
earnestly  religious,  but  ignorant  and  superstitious,  minds 
upon  the  materials  before  them.  The  first  believers  did 
not  explain  or  define  the  terms  of  their  announcement, 
and  thus,  a  generation  or  two  later,  the  original  facts 
were  insensibly  mingled  with  elements  purely  traditional 
and  of  unknown  origin. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  vast  majority  of  the 
Jewish  nation  rejected  the  prophet  of  Nazareth.  He 
did  not  fulfil  their  expectations  of  a  temporal  saviour  ; 
he  overturned  many  of  their  cherished  prepossessions, 
and,  indeed,  does  not  appear  to  have  made  the  precise 
nature  of  his  mission  clear  to  them.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  perception  of  the  higher  truth  and  purity  of  the  idea 
of  a  suffering  Messiah,  and  of  the  spiritual  aspect  of 
his  triumph  over  death,  blinded  the  small  body  of  his 
adherents  to  the  necessity  of  strict  examination  of  the 
evidence  for  the  historical  event,  and  of  precise  accuracy 
in  proclaiming  it.  In  the  prevailing  materialism  the 
thought  of  a  risen  saviour  was  a  great  and  glorious 
inspiration,  which  constrained  them  to  preach  "  Jesus 
Christ  and  him  crucified."  Their  invincible  belief  that 
he  had  ascended  into  heaven  was  the  surest  evidence 
that  he  had  risen  from  the  dead.  This  spiritual  belief 
enshrines  the  idea  of  his  bodily  reappearance. 


Chapter  III. 

CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE 
VISION  HYPOTHESIS 

It  has  already  been  noted  that  there  exists  among 
Christian  scholars  a  growing  tendency  to  explain  the 
belief  in  the  resurrection  by  the  theory  of  subjective 
impressions.  If  the  New  Testament  supplies,  in  the 
visions,  the  Messianic  expectations,  and  the  bias  towards 
supernaturalism  of  its  writers  and  characters,  a  reason- 
able basis  for  a  subjective  explanation,  that  is  as  much 
as  w^e  can  fairly  expect. 

In  the  present  chapter  we  shall  adduce  a  few  (out  of 
many)  testimonies  in  support  of  the  subjective  theory 
from  the  writings  of  authors  whose  prepossessions  and 
interests  would  seem  to  lead  them  in  an  023posite  direction, 
and  whose  candour  is,  for  that  reason,  above  suspicion. 

In  his  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  New  Testament 

Dr.  Davidson  asks  : — 

Was  the  structure  of  flesh  and  blood  existing  at  death 
essential  to  personal  identity  in  heaven  ?  Was  not  the 
living  spirit  the  person  ?  A  miracle  should  not  be  hastily 
assumed The  absence  of  clear  testimony,  the  incon- 
gruity of  the  Gospel  narratives,  the  body  of  flesh  and 
blood  presupposed  in  some  passages  compared  with  the 
ethereal  body  implied  in  others,   throw  doubt  over  the 

whole If  we  consider  that  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to 

Paul  on  his  journey  to  Damascus  was  an  m^er  revelation, 
as  the  Apostle  himself  states  (Gal.  i.  16),^  and  that  he 

1  Many  apologists  deny  that  this  passage  relates  to  the  Damascus 
incident.     If  that  is  so,  Paul  never  alludes  to  Luke's  accounts  at  all. 

266 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  267 

puts  it  in  the  same  category  with  all  other  appearances, 
including  those  in  the  Gospels,  we  are  led  to  assign  the 
character  of  inward  visions  to  all  the  manifestations  of 
Christ  after  his  death,  to  whomsoever  they  were  made. 
The  difficulties  against  the  physical  reanimation  of  the 
crucified  one  overbalance  those  on  the  other  side,  and 

can  only  be  resolved  by  assuming  a   miracle The 

vision  theory  is  the  only  one  that  explains  most  of  the 
phenomena,  though  it  does  not  account  for  all.  Objections 
to  it  there  are,  which  Keim  has  advanced  with  his  usual 
acuteness.  Admitting,  as  he  does,  the  mythical  character 
of  the  narratives,  he  declares  his  inability  to  arrive  at  an 
incontestable  result.  But  is  such  a  result  attainable  ? 
The  subject  hardly  admits  of  it.  If  a  sanguine  tempera- 
ment, an  excited  imagination,  a  state  of  mind  ready  to 
confuse  objective  and  subjective,  a  tendency  to  see  visions, 
a  facile  metamorphosis  of  fancy  into  fact — if  these  psycho- 
logical phenomena  are  insufficient  to  account  for  the 
belief  which  spread  from  Mary  Magdalene  to  the  circle  of 
her  friends  and  took  full  possession  of  them,  we  cannot 
explain  it.  The  vision  theory  is  the  most  probable 
solution.  We  reject  the  idea  that  the  manifestation  was 
a  real,  objective  appearance  of  Christ's  spirit  from  the 
unseen  sphere.^ 

While  agreeing  with  Dr.  Davidson  that  the  question 
''hardly  admits"  of  complete  solution,  we  would  point 
out  that  this  imimsse  results  less  from  the  nature  of  the 
subject  than  from  the  imperfect  character  of  the  New 
Testament  records.  The  presumption  against  miracle 
is,  however,  so  strong,  while  the  naturalistic  explanation 
goes  so  far  towards  removing  the  perplexing  features  of 
the  case,  that  no  unbiassed  inquirer  acquainted  with  the 
facts  can  long  hesitate  as  to  which  view  he  should  prefer. 

The  influence  on  the  resurrection  belief  of  supposed 
predictions  in  the  Old  Testament  is  thus  referred  to  by 
Dr.  Orello  Cone  : — 

Since  no  proof  could  be  more  effective  for  a  Jew  than 

^  Davidson's  Introduction,  vol.  ii. ,  pp.  365-67. 


268  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 


that  derived  from  his  sacred  books,  passages  were  found 
in  the  Old  Testament  which,  when  treated  by  the 
methods  of  interpretation  then  in  vogue,  could  easily  be 
made  to  yield  the  desired  confirmation.  The  pre- 
dominant tendency  to  establish  this  doctrine  distin- 
guishes the  first  Gospel,  which  shows  an  extensive 
perversion  of  Old  Testament  texts  in  this  interest,  and, 
in  the  discourse  of  Peter  in  the  Acts,  passages  from 
Psalms  xvi.  and  ex.  are  very  arbitrarily  forced  into  the 
service  of  the  demonstration  in  question  by  a  method 
which,  if  admitted  to  be  valid,  would  put  an  end  to  the 

rational    interpretation    of     ancient    writings. ^ The 

strength  of  this  tendency  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  in 
this  discourse  of  Peter,  he  does  not  appear  to  be  willing 
to  leave  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension  of  Jesus  to  rest 
upon  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  but  seeks  to  support 
them  by  an  unwarrantable  exegesis  of  words  supposed  to 
have  been  written  by  the  "  patriarch  "  and  "  prophet  " 
David.  The  significance  of  this  procedure  is  manifest 
when  we  consider  that  the  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament 
shows  the  conviction  that  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension 
were  a  necessity  from  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  and  the 
fulfilment  of  a  divine  decree  and  fore-ordination.- 

With  regard  to  the  conversion  of  Paul,  Dr.  Cone 
remarks  that  "  every  materialistic  construction  of  the 
event  is  excluded  by  the  words  *  to  reveal  His  Son  in 
me,'  which  may  be  cited  as  Paul's  own  application  of 
it."^  And  he  arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  "the 
conversion  of  Paul  does  not  appear  inexplicable  from  the 
psychological  point  of  view,  when  it  is  considered  that 
Judaism  contains  theological  ideas  which,  to  a  logical 
mind,  facilitated  the  transition  to  Christianity."* 

The  Rev.  G.  L.  Gary  considers  that  there  are  features 
in  the  Emmaus  story  "  which  are  best  ascribed  to  the 
reflective  imagination  of  a  later  time."     It  was  felt  by 

^  The  Gospel  and  its  Interpretations,  pp.  141-42, 

2  Ibid,  p.  145.  a  Ibid,  p.  158.  ^  Ibid,  p.  164. 


CHEISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  269 

the  disciples  to  be  "necessary  that  the  temporary  defeat 
of  their  master  should  be  shown  to  be  in  accordance  with 
the  teachings  of  prophecy";  that  their  conceptions  of 
"the  coming  one"  had  been  erroneous,  and  that  they 
should  have  known  that  the  Scriptures  had  spoken  of  a 
suffering  as  well  as  a  conquering  Messiah."^  This 
writer  regards  Luke's  account  of  the  ascension  as  of 
doubtful  genuineness,  especially  as  it  is  omitted  from 
many  good  manuscripts.  He  also  points  out  that 
Matthew  and  Mark,  who  best  embody  the  Apostolic 
tradition,  say  least  about  the  resurrection.  The  latter 
Gospel  is  supposed  to  have  been  derived  from  the 
teaching  of  Peter,  yet  of  the  resurrection  Peter  says 
nothing  !  And  Luke  expressly  gives  him  as  a  witness  of 
the  event.  It  is  a  very  significant  fact  that  it  is  the  late 
compilers  who  give  the  most  complete  accounts  of  it.^ 

Mr.  Gary  regards  the  visions  of  angels  at  the  resur- 
rection as  standing  on  the  same  plane  as  those  of  the 
birth  stories.^  In  each  case  the  Gospel  authors  do  not 
hesitate  to  put  spoken  words  into  the  mouths  of  beings 
whose  existence  is  purely  hypothetical.  Were  they 
likely  to  refrain  from  doing  so  in  the  case  of  Jesus  ? 
Further,  Mr.  Gary  considers  that  the  accounts  of  sudden 
appearances,  at  one  moment  bodily,  at  the  next  ghost- 
like, show  "an  utter  absence  of  truly  historical  condi- 
tions."^ To  the  objection  that  the  disciples  trusted  their 
senses  he  rejoins :  "  This  answer  confuses  two  very 
different  things — the  real  testimony  of  the  senses  and 
the  inferences  drawn  from  them."^  Men  in  that  age,  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  and  untrained  to  habits  of  careful 
observation,  were  incapable  of  drawing  this  necessary 
distinction. 

1  The  Sijnoinic  Gospels,  p.  321.  2  j^id^  p,  325. 

=^  Ibid,  p.  326.  *  Ibid.  s  Ibid,  p.  317. 


270  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

**  To  speak  of  a  supernatural  body,"  says  Mr.  Gary, 
"  is  to  use  language  quite  devoid  of  intelligible  meaning. 
Paul's  language  cannot  be  reconciled  with  passages  in 
the  Gospels  representing  Jesus  as  living  again  under 
ordinary  human  conditions."^ 

M.  Albert  Reville  remarks  :  "  It  appears  that  there 
circulated  in  the  primitive  communities  numerous 
traditions,  very  little  coherent  and  very  little  in  harmony, 
concerning  the  appearances  of   Jesus  after  his   death. 

There  is  a  tendency  common  to  them  all  to  dismiss 

from  the  mind  of  the  reader  the  notion  that  it  would  be 
possible  to  believe  in  subjective  appearances  without 
material  reality — in  one  word,  internal  visions  of  an 
ecstatic  nature.  But  this  the  various  narratives  endeavour 
to  do,  even  while  containing  details  which  we  believe  leave 
no  room  for  any  other  explanation."^ 

Some  of  the  objections  to  the  Vision  Theory  are  thus 
dealt  with  by  the  eminent  French  theologian.  It  is  said 
that  such  a  view  is  inconsistent  w^ith  the  prostration  of 
the  disciples.  But  ''  no  one  can  say,  when  there  are 
favourable  circumstances,  if  a  profound  discouragement 
will  not  be  followed  after  a  short  interval  by  a  return  of 
confidence,  ardour,  and  faith,  all  the  more  intense  that 
one  reproaches  himself  as  a  coward  or  traitor  for  having 
yielded  for  a  time  to  the  temptations  of  despair.  We 
believe  that  the  impression  left  by  Jesus  upon  the 
consciousness  of  his  disciples  was  too  profound  not  to 
reawaken  sooner  or  later,  after  the  first  season  of  stupor, 
their  original  love  and  enthusiasm.  Here  was  the  empty 
tomb,  the  declarations  of  the  pious  women,  less  downcast 
than  the  men;  the  remembrance  thus  refreshed  by  them 
of   the  intention  expressed   by  Jesus  of   uniting   them 

1  T]ie  Synoinic  GospeU,  p.  330. 

2  "The  Kesurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,"  New  World,  1894,  p.  509. 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  271 

again  near  him  in  Galilee — and  such  were  the  stimulants 
that  hastened  the  revival.  Exaltation  succeeded  to 
discouragement,  and  exaltation  engendered  ecstasy."^ 

*'It  is  said  that  the  Apostles  were  simple,  prosaic 
men,  very  unlikely  to  have  become  a  prey  to  ecstatic 
visions.  But  were  vision  and  ecstasy  foreign  to  the 
state  of  mind  of  the  first  disciples  ?  What,  then,  was  the 
scene  of  the  Transfiguration,  the  walking  on  the  lake  by 
night,  the  Pentecostal  scene  and  the  tongues,  the  vision 
of  Peter  about  Cornelius,  and  Paul's  experiences  ? 

*'  It  is  said  that  visions  are  not  shared  by  many  people 
at  once.  But  this  fails  to  recognise  the  contagious 
nature  of  ecstasy,  and  its  different  forms  among  those 
animated  by  the  same  disposition.  The  persecuted 
French  Protestants  gathered  in  the  mountains,  and 
heard  the  songs  of  angels.  Many  of  these  collective 
visions  are  known.  No  specialist  will  contradict  us 
when  we  lay  it  down  as  a  fact  that,  if  circumstances  are 
favourable  to  its  communication,  vision  may  be  shared 
by  an  indefinite  number  of  persons  at  the  same  time."^ 

''  There  is  one  characteristic  of  the  appearances  of 
Jesus  which  comes  within  collective  visions — the  gradual 
character  of  several  of  these  apparitions,  which  are  not 
evident  to  all  from  the  first,  and  which  only  slowly  take 
possession  of  all  present  "^  (Matt.xxviii.  17,  Luke  xxiv.41, 
John  xxi.  7-12).  Some  hardy  apologists  may  deny  that 
the  circumstances  were  favourable  to  the  production  of 
visions.  We  assert  that  they  were  so  in  a  most  unusual 
degree,  and  we  think  the  New  Testament  itself  affords 
conclusive  evidence  on  this  point.  And  it  must  be 
remembered  that  we  have  to  investigate  the  accounts  in 
the  absence  of  their  original  nucleus.    Late  compilations 

1  "The  Eesurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,"  New  World,  1894,  p.  525. 

2  Ibid,  p.  526.  3  Ibid. 


272  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

like  the  Gospels  never  escape  from  the  mouldmg 
influence  of  materialistic  traditions,  and  in  the  first 
century  belief  in  the  supernatural  dominated  almost 
every  mind.  M.  Keville  states :  '*  To  our  mind,  the 
early  belief  in  the  resurrection  was  much  more  the  result 
than  the  foundation  of  the  faith  of  the  disciples,  which 
had  revived  in  great  intensity."^ 

Keferring  to  those  apologists  who  attempt  to  demon- 
strate the  resurrection  "  as  the  most  certain  of  all 
historical  events,"  and  who  treat  it  as  proving  the 
divinity  of  Jesus,  a  Christian  defender  of  the  doctrine 
remarks  that  "  on  every  ground  the  attempt  must  fail." 
*'  Though  a  fact,  it  was  different  from  all  other  facts,  in 
that  its  real  significance  lay  in  its  spiritual  content ;  and, 
apart  from  that  content,  the  fact  remains  no  Christian 

fact  at  all A  man  will  not  be  able  to  accept  this  most 

mysterious  of  all  supernatural  manifestations  if  he  has 
not  first  been  led  up,  as  the  disciples  were,  to  find  the 
supernatural  in  the  life  and  person  of  Jesus ;  to  find  it, 
that  is,  in  the  form  in  which  it  can  be  verified  by  human 
experience."^  It  is,  in  fact,  the  "miracle  of  Christ's 
holiness  "  which  "  alone  gives  reality  and  intelligibility 
to  the  exceptional  miracle  of  the  resurrection."^  This 
is  the  primitive  fallacy  that  the  holy  man  is  the  favourite 
of  the  gods,  and  rises  superior  to  the  law  of  death. 

In  our  own  times  psychological  experiences  analogous 
to  those  related  in  the  Gospels  have  taken  place  with 
considerable  frequency.  The  Rev.  C.  E.  Beeby,  in  dis- 
cussing the  resurrection,  mentions  the  following  : — "  The 
late  Mr.  C.  H.  Spurgeon  relates  how  he  once  had  a 
similar  experience"  to  that  of  Paul.     "While  crossing 

1  "The  Eesurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,"  Neiv  World,  1894,  p.  499. 
'^  D.  W.  Forrest,  The  Christ  of  History  and  Experience,  p.  157. 
8  Ibid,  p.  158. 


CHEISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  273 

a  common  near  Chesterton  to  keep  a  preaching  engage- 
ment, '  I  was  startled,'  he  says,  '  by  what  seemed  a  loud 
voice,  but  which  may  have  been  a  singular  illusion  ; 
whichever  it  was,  the  impression  was  vivid  to  an  intense 
degree.  I  seemed  very  distinctly  to  hear  the  words  : 
'  Seekest  thou  great  things  for  thyself  ?  Seek  them 
not.'  Now,  St.  Paul's  experience  was  no  different.  He 
heard  a  voice.  That  to  him  was  seeing  Jesus,  and  being 
convinced  of  his  resurrection."^  We  perceive  that,  in 
the  case  of  even  so  pronounced  a  believer  in  supernatural 
religion  as  Mr.  Spurgeon,  the  influence  of  modern  ideas 
prevented  him  from  positively  assigning  an  objective 
cause  for  the  phenomenon.  We  cannot  assume  that  such 
an  influence  would  operate  upon  the  first  disciples  of 
Jesus  or  on  the  Apostle  Paul. 

From  the  Birmingham  Daily  Post  of  February  13th, 
1893,  Mr.  Beeby  extracts  an  account  of  a  vision  which 
occurred  at  Dorrengrund,  in  Bohemia,  in  the  preceding 
autumn.  A  lady  appeared  to  a  peasant  girl,  disappeared, 
came  again  a  few  days  later,  and  made  arrangements 
for  subsequent  meetings.  "  The  reports  of  these  visions 
soon  spread,  and  were  believed  by  thousands  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  neighbourhood.  The  last  vision  which 
occurred  took  place,  it  is  said,  in  the  presence  of  no  less 
than  five  thousand  persons.  They  were  profoundly 
thrilled  by  what  they  saw."^  Here  the  mythical  five 
hundred  witnesses  mentioned  by  Paul  are  multiplied 
tenfold,  with  far  greater  facilities  for  ascertaining  who 
they  were  and  the  nature  of  their  testimony.  On 
apologetic  grounds,  therefore,  we  ought  at  once  to  accept 
this  modern  miracle  (presumably  an  appearance  of  the 
Virgin  Mary),  unless  some  authoritative  contradiction 
had  at  once  been  placed  on  record. 

1  Creed  and  Life,  p.  78.  2  j^j^^  p.  79, 

T 


274  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

A  still  more  remarkable  instance  is  that  of  an  actress 
whose  conversion  is  related  in  the  Birmingham  Daily 
Mail  of  March  2nd,  1897.  She  was  an  occasional 
attendant  at  services  of  the  Salvation  Army,  and  informed 
a  reporter  that  ''It  was  on  the  night  of  the  6th  of  last 
January  I  was  in  the  meeting,  when  I  felt  something 
touch  me.  Thinking  it  was  someone  wanting  to  pass,  I 
looked  up  with  the  intention  of  moving,  when,  right  in 
front  of  me,  I  saw  the  figure  of  the  Saviour  as  distinctly 
and  plainly  as  I  see  you  now.  I  got  up,  and  went  to 
the  penitent-form.  Something  led  me,  and  the  feeling 
was  such  a  peculiar  one  that  I  cannot  describe  it ;  but 
the  presence  has  never  left  me."^  Now,  if  this  were  a 
scientifically  accurate  statement  of  an  objective  fact,  it 
would  be  better  evidence  for  the  resurrection  than  any- 
thing in  the  Gospels.  But  it  clearly  falls  within  the 
category  of  those  subjective  and  emotional  phenomena 
which  are  so  frequently  observed  in  connection  with 
the  religious  impulse,  and  there  is  no  good  reason  for 
doubting  that  the  New  Testament  manifestations  were 
of  the  same  order.  "  How  could  the  evangelist,  always 
assuming  that  he  was  not  a  modern  psychologist  or 
philosopher,  set  down  the  story  as  related  to  him  in 
other  terms  than  those  in  which  he  has  done  it?"^ 

"  Colonel  Gardiner  saw  a  vision  of  Christ,  which  he 
never  doubted  was  external  to  his  mind ;  and  that  vision 
changed  the  whole  course  of  his  life,  turning  him  from  a 
soldier,  given  over  to  licentiousness,  into  a  Protestant 
saint.  Whether  the  figure  of  Christ  was  external  or  not, 
to  my  mind,  is  unimportant.  It  is  the  spiritual  revela- 
tion which  is  primary  and  convincing.  The  spiritual 
world  is  the  real  world  to  me."^ 

1  Creed  and  Life,  p.  83.  ^  j^j^^  p   92.  »  Ibid,  p.  83. 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  275 

The  same  writer  considers  the  account  in  the  third 
Gospel   of   the   journey  to  Emmaus  "  conclusive   as   a 

psychological  explanation  of   the   events   recorded 

The  story  of  the  temptation  is  clearly  a  dramatic  repre- 
sentation, as  in  the  physical  world,  of  the  inner  spiritual 
struggle.  And  why  not  understand  the  story  of  the 
resurrection  in  the  same  way  ?  What  the  compiler 
wishes  to  impress  upon  the  readers  is  the  vivid  con- 
sciousness of  the  disciples  that  Jesus  was  alive,  and  the 
strong  assurance  they  had  of  his  real  presence  in  their 
midst,  according  to  promise.  This  revelation  of  Jesus 
to  the  disciples  (however  spiritually  discerned,  as 
Westcott  says),  when  related  to  others  and  set  down  in 
writing,  must  necessarily  take  the  form  of  an  event 
occurring  in  the  physical  world,  and  be  expressed  in  the 
language  of  the  senses."^ 

While  thus  fervently  believing  in  the  resurrection  as 
a  fact  of  spiritual  life,  Mr.  Beeby  clearly  discerns  the 
inadequacy  of  the  historical  evidence.  '*  The  grounds 
of  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  as  commonly  set 
forth,  are  absolutely  worthless."^ 

Ewald  powerfully  states  the  subjective  aspect  of  the 
resurrection  belief,  though  in  lumbering  and  involved 
language.  He  points  out  that  it  was  only  those  who 
had  beheld  Jesus  "  truly  in  his  terrestrial  form  "  who 
"saw  him  again  in  his  spiritual  form."^  This  was  a 
psychological  consequence  of  their  previous  mental  and 
emotional  state.  "  If  the  Invisible  himself  in  former 
days  became  visible  to  the  prophets  and  saints  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  fervour  of  their  devotion,  and  their 
eye  in  the  rapture,  even  with  greatest  vividness,  beheld 
all  things  that  were  at  other  times  beyond  mortal  ken, 

1  Creed  and  Life,  p.  81.  2  md,  p.  74. 

2  History  0/  Israel^  vol.  vii. ,  pp.  57-58. 


276  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

how  can  we  maintaiu  that,  to  the  agonismg  prayer  of 
these  disciples,  that  Being  whose  terrestrial  image  had 
just  before  shone  so  clearly  before  them  could  never 
appear  and  come  before  their  longing  eyes  with  irresist- 
ible power  ? 

*'  It  was,  moreover,  an  ancient  and  quite  natural  belief 
that  the  spirit,  on  its  separation  from  the  body,  still 
moved  for  a  time  as  between  heaven  and  earth  before  it 
entered  completely  into  its  rest;^  that  the  immortal 
counterpart  of  the  body  could  therefore  more  easily 
appear  during  this  period.  And  it  is  impossible  not  to 
see  that  this  belief  plays  its  part  in  a  suitably  exalted 
manner  in  the  case  of  these  appearances  of  Christ. 

"  We  cannot  maintain  that  all  this  was  the  means  of 
giving  rise  to  the  belief  in  Christ's  resurrection ;  but  it 
might  be  facilitated  thereby,  and  made  so  natural  that 
even  the  slightest  impulse  from  another  quarter  could 
quickly  call  it  into  existence."^ 

This  impulse  Ewald  considers  w^as  probably  supplied 
by  the  discovery  that  the  sepulchre  was  empty.  "  How 
great  must  have  been  the  astonishment  of  the  women 
and  of  the  two  disciples,  Peter  and  John,  who  arrived 
shortly  after  them,  when  they  found  the  stone  rolled 
away  and  the  vault  open  ;  within,  however,  no  corpse, 
but  only  the  grave-clothes  of  a  buried  person,  as  if  he 
had  left  the  place  !  And  what  was  to  be  done  when, 
after  repeated  searches,  they  still  could  not  find  him  ? 
The  only  thing  possible  was  that  which  actually  occurred: 
further  search  of  the  agonising  soul,^  further  reflection 

1  Jewish  traditions  held  that  the  soul  remained  adjacent  to  the  body 
for  three  days,  and  then  entered  the  unseen  world.  Does  this  idea  enter 
into  the  conception  of  the  three  days  between  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus  ? 

2  Ibid,  pp.  60-61. 

8  This  search  (if  it  really  took  place)  must  have  materially  aided  the 
production  of  visions. 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  277 

under  the  most  intense  suspense  of  living  desire,  the 
reflection  that  he  had  promised  to  reveal  himself  to  them 
again,  and,  above  all,  the  intrinsic  power  of  the  truth 
itself ;  and  then  he  whose  bodily  image  was  so  well 
known  to  them,  whom  they  had  known  as  the  Son  of 
God  and  immortal  Lord,  actually  presented  himself  to 
their  sight  in  his  new  and  glorified  life  ;  and  as  they  had 
thus  seen  him  again,  and  believed  in  this  his  utmost 
power  over  death,  it  must  then  have  been  as  if  the  flash 
of  an  unseen,  celestial  light  darted  through  their  heart. 
He  whose  death  they  had  heard  of,  and  in  whose  death 
they  might  find  it  so  hard  to  believe,  by  whom  they 
supposed  themselves  forsaken,  and  whose  greatness  and 
glory  had  suddenly  become  so  enigmatical  to  them,  but 
w^ho  they  had  long  ago  begun  to  feel  might  be  the  in- 
comparable and  purely  celestial  Messiah — him  they  now, 
on  the  contrary,  actually  saw  once  more  before  their 
eyes  as  the  celestial  Messiah,  in  order  to  give  them, 
as  victorious  over  death,  that  certainty  and  power  which 

they  could  not  of  themselves  find Never  before  had 

such  rapture  followed  immediately  the  most  j^earning 
desire  of   the   spirit,   such   pure   and  spiritual  joy  the 

profoundest  sorrow It  was  soon  believed  that  words 

from  the  lips  of  the  glorified  one,  similar  to  those  which 
he  had  once  spoken  in  the  flesh,  and  yet  much  loftier 
than  those  uttered  then,  had  been  quite  plainly  heard." ^ 
Anyone  can  well  understand  that  in  an  age  when  a 
spiritual  appearance  was  not  expressly  distinguished  from 
a  physical  appearance  the  mere  announcement  that 
Jesus  had  been  "  seen  "  would  not  be  qualified  by  the 
explanation  "  as  a  spirit."  The  majority  of  hearers 
would  at  once  infer  a  bodily  appearance,  and  in  that 

1  History  of  Israel,  pp.  62-63. 


278  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

light  tradition  would  shape  the  written  accounts.  *'  The 
recognition  of  the  risen  Christ,  which  was  at  first  purely 
spiritual,  gradually  sought  and  found  support  in  a 
physical  seeing  and  kindred  reflections."^  It  should  be 
added  that  this  spiritual  sense  of  the  word  ''  seen  "  is 
expressly  attributed  to  Jesus  himself  in  John  xiv.  9  : 
"  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father." 

We  must  not  forget  that  in  the  first  century,  as  in  all 
other  epochs,  there  were  two  classes  of  minds  at  work, 
each  helping  to  form  and  mould  the  Christian  tradition. 
The  literature  of  the  age  clearly  shows  that  in  the  midst 
of  a  debasing  materialism  many  minds  vividly  appre- 
hended the  spiritual  idea  that  lay  behind  the  resurrection 
belief.  In  the  exaltation  produced  by  the  personality  of 
Jesus  the  thought  that,  despite  his  death,  he  was 
spiritually  present  with  them  must  have  made  itself  felt 
with  a  force  that  we  cannot  altogether  realise.  This 
was  the  power  that  animated  the  hearts  of  the  disciples, 
caused  the  fountain  of  their  faith  to  spring  into 
new  life,  and  inspired  them  to  carry  on  the  work  of 
Jesus.  In  their  dead  master  they  at  length  saw,  not  the 
worldly  conqueror  invoked  by  a  despairing  people,  but 
the  heavenly  Messiah  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God, 
and  sending  his  peace  and  joy  into  the  hearts  of  his 
little  flock.  Of  this  idea  there  are  the  clearest  traces  in 
that  wonderful  book,  the  Fourth  Gospel,  written  a 
hundred  years  later.  "  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he 
shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  be  with 
you  for  ever,  even  the  Spirit  of  Truth";^  "the  Comforter, 
even  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my 
name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things";^  "  If  a  man  love 
me,  he  will  keep  my  words :  and  my  Father  will  love  him, 

1  History  of  Israel,  p.  08.         2  John  xiv.  16-17.         ^  John  xiv.  26. 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  279 

and  ive  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with 
him."^  In  this  last  passage  we  see  that  the  presence  of 
the  Father,  which  must  of  necessity  have  been  under- 
stood in  a  spiritual  sense,  is  promised  equally  with  that 
of  Jesus  himself,  so  that  the  latter  cannot  relate  to  a 
supposed  post-resurrection  return  in  physical  form. 
The  whole  of  this  part  of  John,  indeed,  seems  evidently 
intended  to  embody  the  final  and  farewell  words  of 
Jesus.  Its  historical  accuracy  is,  of  course,  more  than 
doubtful,  and,  in  view  of  its  late  origin  and  dogmatic 
tendency,  the  conclusion  is  almost  unavoidable  that  the 
nebulous  promise  of  the  Comforter  simply  embodies  the 
idea  of  the  continued  spiritual  presence  of  Jesus,  and 
must  be  regarded  as  merely  the  form  in  which  the  faith 
of  the  disciples  found  compensation  for  his  disappear- 
ance. It  is  not  surprising  that  some  confusion  of 
thought  existed  with  regard  to  the  "  Comforter  "  when 
we  find  Jesus  promising  at  one  moment  to  come  himself 
(John  xiv.  18,  28),  and  at  another  moment  to  send 
someone  else  in  his  place  (John  xvi.  7).  It  may  be 
added  that  the  disciples  seem  to  have  fully  expected  that 
they  would  share  the  glory  of  their  master  :  "  The  glory 
which  thou  hast  given  me  I  have  given  unto  them,  that 
they  may  be  one  even  as  we  are  one."^  Did  this  idea 
afford  them  no  joy,  no  spiritual  consolation? 

Orthodox  writers,  who,  of  course,  maintain  that  the 
jpromise  of  the  Comforter  was  really  given  by  Jesus,  hold 
also  that  it  was  fulfilled  when  the  disciples  were  gathered 
together  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost.  Of  this  we  shall  say 
nothing  further  than  that  Professor  Ewald  contends  that 
it  was,  "  after  all,  only  a  purely  inward  and  spiritual 
experience."^ 

1  John  xiv.  23,  '^  John  xvii.  22. 

3  History  of  Israel,  vol.  vii.,  p.  88. 


280  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

In  a  sermon  on  the  resurrection,  Canon  Henson  regards 
it  solely  as  a  fact  of  the  religious  consciousness. 
Referring  to  the  conversion  of  Paul,  he  says:  "The 
Apostle,  in  classing  his  own  vision  of  the  risen  Saviour 
on  the  road  to  Damascus  with  the  other  Christophanies, 
allows  us  to  conclude  that  in  all  the  appearances  there 
was  nothing  of  the  nature  of  a  resuscitated  body,  which 
could  be  touched,  held,  handled,  and  could  certify  its 
frankly  physical  character  by  eating  and  drinking,  but 
always  the  vision  of  the  Christ  in  glory,  flashing 
wondrously  on  the  spiritual  eyesight,  and  coming  and 
going  through  all  material  barriers  in  the  perfect  liberty 
of  supra-physical  life.  It  seems  plain,  to  my  thinking, 
that,  with  the  Pauline  list  of  Christo^Dhanies  before  us, 
we  are  justified  in  thinking  that  the  earliest  statements 
of  the  Apostles  on  the  Resurrection  emphasised  the 
glorified  life  of  the  Crucified  Lord,  and  made  no  mention 
of  those  materialistic  details  which  were  gradually  built 
up  into  the  narratives  w^hich  have  sunk  so  deeply  into 
the  mind  of  Christendom."^  He  thus  accounts  for  these 
materialistic  details:  "The  Apostolic  Church  may  be 
compared  to  a  child  striving  to  describe  some  astonishing 
experience.  The  childish  vocabulary  is  too  limited,  the 
childish  intelligence  is  too  undeveloped,  to  dispense  w4th 
the  aid  of  the  childish  imagination ;  and  the  story  which 
the  child  succeeds  in  telling  certifies  by  its  embellish- 
ment the  great  impression  made  on  the  childish  mind."^ 

Dr.  Percy  Gardner,  in  his  Jowett  Lectures,  expresses 
the  following  opinion  : — 

It  seems  to  me  that  amid  existing  intellectual  condi- 
tions the  wisest  plan  by  far  is  to  regard  the  spiritual 
presence  of  Christ  in  His  Church  as  the  essential  fact, 

1  Tlie  Value  of  the  Bihle,  and  Other  Sermons,  pp.  204-5. 
-  Ibid,  p.  208  ;  see  ante,  p.  24. 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  281 

and  the  tales  of  the  corporeal  resurrection  as  results  of 
the  experience  of  Christians — results  moulded  by  the 
beliefs  of  the  time  as  to  the  nature  of  spirit  and  its 
relations  to  a  material  body.  The  view,  often  held,  that 
it  was  in  a  changed  and  spiritual  body  that  Jesus  appeared 
to  His  followers — such  a  body  as  Paul  speaks  of  in  his 
Corinthian  Epistle — is  quite  untenable.^ 

The  following  quotation  from  the  same  writer  may  be 
added :  "  The  tale  of  the  physical  resurrection  of  Jesus 
belongs  evidently  to  the  same  circle  of  thought  as  that 
of  the  miraculous  birth.  This  tale  also  shows  a  love  of 
the  marvellous,  is  deeply  tinged  with  materialism,  and 
rests  on  a  historical  substruction  which  falls  to  pieces  on 
a  careful  examination."^ 

The  Dean  of  Ripon,  two  or  three  years  ago,  admitted 
that  "  the  Resurrection  was  not  a  return  to  the  material 
conditions  of  this  life,  but  a  manifestation  of  the  spiritual 
state  and  the  spiritual  life." 

In  his  larger  work,  Exploratio  EvangcUca,  Dr.  Gardner 
argues  against  the  "  radical  materialism  of  the  orthodox 
view,"  and  implies,  as  we  have  maintained,  that  the 
supposed  re-appearances  of  Jesus  were  similar  to  that 
continued  spiritual  presence  which  is  held  to  be  a  fact  of 
Christian  experience.^ 

As  the  result  of  a  careful  attempt  to  discover  in  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  the  common  basis  on  which  they  were 
elaborated,  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that  "  the  original  tradition  which  is  common  to  the 
first  three  Gospels  contains  no  record  of  any  appearance 
of  Jesus  to  the  disciples,  nor  even  a  statement  that  the 
sepulchre  was  found  empty.""*  If  this  startling  verdict  is 
correct,  it  follows  that  we  have  no  genuinely  scriptural 

^  A  Historic  View  of  the  Neic  Testament,  p.  166. 
2  Exploratio  Evanrielica,  p.  255.  3  Ibid,  p.  261. 

■*  Through  Nature  to  Christ,  p.  373. 


282  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

accounts  of  the  resurrection  bej^ond  the  statements  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  and  those  of  the  AjDOstle  Paul — the 
first  formhig  part  of  a  doctrinal  and  apologetic  treatise; 
the  second  tending,  in  the  opinion  of  many  Christian 
scholars,  to  favour  the  theory  that  the  belief  originated 
in  subjective  experiences. 

We  have  thought  it  worth  while  to  give  these  quota- 
tions at  some  length  because  the  ideas  they  represent 
seldom  meet  with  sympathy  from  avowedly  apologetic 
writers,  who,  as  a  rule,  either  quibble  about  points  of 
minor  importance  or  misrepresent  the  most  weighty 
arguments  of  their  opponents. 

An  ingenious  expositor  of  the  spiritual  teaching  of 
Jesus,  in  dealing  with  the  resurrection  and  ascension, 
contents    himself    with    saying :    "  He    went   into    the 

Beyond,  into  which  we  have  all  to  go He  went,  like 

all  other  human  spirits  that  have  for  this  present  world 
died,  into  regions  yet  hidden  from  us,  which  he,  in  his 
prophetic  insight,  had  looked  forward  to  as  other 
'  mansions '  of  his  Father.  That  in  these  mansions 
his  spirit  rose  again  into  active  personal  life  is  the 
fact  on  which  we  must  lay  hold."^ 

Of  the  theory  of  a  physical  resurrection  of  human 
beings  the  late  Rev.  A.  W.  Momerie,  an  earnest  believer 
in  immortality^  wrote  :  "It  is  a  travesty,  a  burlesque,  of 
the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  Immortality."^  "  The  Resur- 
rection is  a  rising  not  of,  hut  from ,  the  flesh. "^  ''The 
dissolution  of  the  body  is  the  resurrection  of  the  soul. 
Physical  death  is  spiritual  birth."*  This  was  taught  by 
Philo  before  the  time  of  Jesus. 


1  Rev.  Alex.  Robinson,  A   Study  of  the  Saviour  in  the  Newer  Light, 
p.  341. 

2  Immortality f  and  Other  Sermons,  p.  83. 

3  Ibid,  p.  91.  4  jijid^  p,  97, 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  283 

The  American  theologian  Dr.  Newman  Smyth  holds 
a  somewhat  ambiguous  position  concerning  the  resur- 
rection. It  was  "  part  of  the  appointed  order  of  nature," 
yet  a  miraculous  process,  which  w^as  *'to  the  disciples 
the  pledge  of  full,  rounded,  complete  personal  existence 
after  death.  The  next  life  is,  in  every  thread  of  it, 
continuous  with  this ;  and  the  whole  life  passes  on  into 
the  glory  of  the  celestial."-^  The  body  of  Jesus  which 
rose  was  transformed  into  a  "spiritual  body";  *' the 
Lord  who  left  the  tomb  entered  heaven  in  the  glory  of 
the  celestial  body."^  These  mystical  assumptions  rest 
on  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  presumably 
should  be  received  without  a  particle  of  evidence. 

Keferring  to  the  ascension.  Dr.  A.  Sabatier  asks  :  "  Are 
we  to  picture  it  to  ourselves  as  a  real,  material  ascension 
in  the  outer  space  ?  If  Jesus  went  up  in  that  way, 
where  did  he  stop  ?  Where  was  it  possible  for  him  to 
meet  with  God,  even  if  he  had  passed  through  all 
physical  space  up  to  infinity  ?  Here,  again,  although 
affirming  the  spiritual  and  moral  glorification  of  Christ 
in  God,  I  doubt  whether  any  enlightened  Christian  can 
represent  to  himself  the  ascension  of  Christ  exactly  in 
the  same  way  as  Luke  did  when  he  wrote  the  first 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."^ 

The  German  theologian  Keim,  who  has  produced  a 
Life  of  Jesus  in  six  volumes,  rejects  the  vision  theory 
in  its  ordinary  form,  because  he  thinks  he  has  a  better 
explanation  to  offer.  The  latter,  however,  he  supports 
only  by  a  few  bare  assertions,  while  the  rejected 
hypothesis  is  discussed  with  so  much  insight  and  sym- 
pathy as  to  make  the  reader  think  the  critic  favours  it 
until   his    own   view    is   suddenly   announced.      Thus, 

1  Old  Faiths  in  Neio  Light,  pp.  158,  159.  ^  j^^v^^  p^  159^ 

'  The  Vitality  of  Christian  Dogmas,  pp.  64-65. 


284  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

according  to  Keim,  the  incident  of  doubting  Thomas 
is  an  arbitrary  introduction  of  the  Evangehst.^  Paul 
"determinedly  excludes"  the  speaking  and  eating  of 
Jesus.^  The  Apostle  could  better  have  established  the 
divine  authority  of  his  mission  if  he  could  have  referred 
to  a  commission  given  to  him  in  words.  Yet  he  merely 
says,  "  I  have  seen  Jesus." ^  We  may  add  the  reminder 
that  Paul  himself  never  explains  when,  where,  or  under 
what  circumstances  he  had  seen  Jesus.  Again,  the 
Emmaus  incident  Keim  pronounces  to  be  unhistorical.^ 
He  states  that  "  the  whole  history  of  the  Apostolic  time 
is  rich  in  appearances  due  to  excited  nerves  ;  it  is  full 
of  visions  and  ecstasies."^  In  the  book  of  Acts,  for 
example,  Peter,  Paul,  Philip,  Stephen,  Ananias,  and 
Cornelius,  all  experience  visions.  "  While  Paul  and 
Peter  and  James  exhibited  a  sober  habit  of  contem- 
plation, extravagance  nevertheless  prevailed  at  the  same 
time."^  It  cannot  be  properly  objected  that  they  dis- 
tinguished between  visions  and  real  events.  "  On  the 
contrary,  both  in  the  Old  Testament  and  to  Paul  that 
which  was  seen  in  visions  passed  as  reality,  and  not 
merely  as  non-material  mental  reality,  but  as  something 
sensibly  perceptible,  yet  super-material,  and  which 
sometimes  descended  to  a  man  upon  earth,  and  at  others 
was  manifested  to  him  when  caught  up  into  heaven. 
Though  Paul  might  on  his  own  part  distinguish  the 
super-material  which  he  saw  in  a  vision  of  the  night  or 
with  his  eyes  by  day,  or  with  his  spirit  when  transported 
out  of  his  body  into  heaven,  who  can  guarantee  the 
specific  difference  of  what  was  perceived,  and  who  does 
not  detect  the  mistake  when  Paul   postulates,  for   the 

1  Jemaof  Nazara,  vol.  vi.,  p.  288.  ^  jHfj^  p^  290. 

3  Ibid,  p.  291.  ■*  Ibid,  p.  294.  ^  jj^id^  p,  335, 

G  Ibid,  p.  337. 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  285 


processes  of  his  own  inner  life,  a  real  transference  to 
heaven — a  sort  of  preliminary  ascension  ?  Can  we 
establish  a  remote  possibility  that  what  was  seen  by  the 
eye  on  the  journey  to  Damascus  had  a  firmer,  more 
objective,  more  materially  real  ground  than  what 
was  seen  in  his  ascension  to  heaven,  or  in  the  visions  of 
the  night  ?"^  It  was,  in  fact,  Keim  states,  "  simply  the 
impossible,  materialistic,  Jewish,  primarily  the  Persian- 
Gentile  dogmatic  of  the  resurrection  doctrine,  afterwards 
inherited  by  primitive  Christianity,  that  created  the 
picture  of  the  risen  Jesus,  and  that  transformed  the  still 
intelligible  cry,  '  The  Lord  lives,  the  Lord  has  revived, 
we  have  seen  the  Lord,'  into  the  dogma,  '  The  Lord  has 
risen  with  his  body  out  of  the  grave.'  "^ 

Referring  to  the  difficulty  which  the  disciples  felt  in 
believing  that  Jesus  was  utterly  dead,  Keim  illustrates 
it  by  the  following  examples :  *'  After  the  death  of  Rabbi 
Judas  the  hero,  in  Sepphoris,  near  Nazara,  the  citizens 
of  that  place  swore  :  '  Whoever  shall  say  to  us  that  the 
Rabbi  is  dead,  we  will  put  him  to  death.'  And,  after  the 
death  of  Mohammed,  Abubekr  and  Omar  prepared  the 
sword  for  the  heads  of  those  who  denied  that  the  prophet 
lived.  Of  Aristeus,  the  ancient  Greek  poet,  and  a  man 
of  miraculous  adventures,  it  is  related  not  merely  that 
the  civic  announcement  of  his  death  was  strongly  denied 
in  the  neighbouring  district  where  he  had  been  seen  and 
spoken  with,  but  also  that  he  was  not  to  be  found  either 
alive  or  dead  in  the  house  where  he  died."^  Keim  also 
recognises  the  wonderful  power  with  which  religious 
ecstasy  is  diffused,  even  among  those  who  do  not  at  first 
participate  in  it.^ 

1  Jesus  of  Nazara,  vol.  vi.,  p.  338.  ^  Ibid. 

3  Ibid,  p.  344.     This  bears  directly  on  the  supposed  effect  of  the  non-pro- 
duction of  the  body  of  Jesus,  on  which  some  apologists  are  so  dogmatic. 
*  Ibid,  p.  348. 


286  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

One  would  have  thought  that  to  such  a  reasoner  the 
vision  theory  could  present  no  insurmountable  difficulty. 
Keim's  own  view,  however,  is  that  the  appearance  of 
Jesus,  although  spiritual,  was  objectively  real.  He  holds 
**  the  conviction  that  it  was  Jesus  and  no  other  who,  as 
dead  yet  risen  again,  as  celestially  glorified  even  if  not 
risen,  vouchsafed  visions  to  his  disciples,  revealed  himself 
to  his  community."^  He  believes  in  "  a  spiritual  influence 
of  Jesus,  who  continued  to  live  on  in  a  higher  form  of 
existence — an  influence  which,  according  to  the  law  of 
eccentric  projection  of  overpowering  soul-impressions, 
embodied  itself  in  ocular  visions."^  ''  All  evidence  goes 
to  prove  that  the  belief  in  the  Messiah  would  have  died 
out  without  the  living  Jesus."  That  he  still  lived  the 
disciples  evidently  believed.  Would  not  their  belief 
have  had  the  same  effect  as  a  few  isolated  spectral 
manifestations  ?  The  reality  of  apparitions  is  frequently 
believed  on  very  doubtful  grounds.  The  inquirer  must 
decide  for  himself  whether  a  real  spiritual  appearance 
of  Jesus  was  in  that  age  more  probable  than  an  erroneous 
belief  in  it. 

"  The  evidence,"  says  Keim,  "  that  Jesus  was  alive, 
the  telegram  from  heaven,  was  necessary  after  an  earthly 
downfall  which  was  unexampled,  and  which,  in  the  child- 
hood of  the  race,  would  be  convincing;  the  evidence  that 
he  was  alive  was,  therefore,  given  by  his  own  impulsion  and 
by  the  will  of  God."^  The  evidence  was  "  necessary." 
It  is  not,  we  think,  an  unfair  conjecture  that  this 
strongly-felt  necessity  created,  or  helped  to  create,  the 
idea  that  it  had  been  supplied  ;  if  by  subjective  impres- 
sions, the  necessity  also  existed  for  their  being  translated 
into  objective  realities. 

'  Jesus  of  Nazara,  p.  360.  2  m^^  p,  351^  s  j^jd,  p.  364. 


CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES  287 

Keim's  view  has  not  met  with  general  acceptance  by 
either  orthodox  or  advanced  theologians.  It  has  a  closer 
affinity  with  the  vision  theory  than  with  the  traditional 
view.  Spirit-manifestations  are  themselves  so  debat- 
able, so  intimately  connected  with  morbid  psychological 
conditions,  that  Keim  may  perhaps  be  claimed  as 
logically  a  supporter  of  the  view  which  is  now  so  com- 
monly held  by  the  advanced  schools  of  theology.'^ 
Obvious  difficulties  in  the  "  telegram  from  heaven " 
theory  present  themselves.  It  assumes  that  heaven  is 
a  place,  God  a  person,  that  a  "spirit"  can  possess 
conscious  existence  apart  from  bodily  conditions,  that 
Jesus  was  a  divine  being  and  held  direct  relations  of 
some  undefined  sort  with  his  followers  after  his  death — 
all  which  matters  are,  we  will  not  say  false,  but  doubtful. 

As  we  are  dealing  with  the  subject  of  visions,  it  may 
be  well  to  quote  a  passage  or  two  from  the  work  of  a 
specialist  in  that  department.  Professor  William  James 
says  :  "  There  is  one  form  of  sensory  automatism  which 
possibly  deserves  special  notice  on  account  of  its 
frequency.  I  refer  to  hallucinatory  or  pseudo-halluci- 
natory luminous  phenomena.  St.  Paul's  blinding 
heavenly  vision  seems  to  have  been    a  phenomenon  of 

this  sort;  so  does  Constantino's  cross  in  the   sky 

President  Finney  writes  :  '  All  at  once  the  glory  of  God 
shone  upon  and  round  about  me  in  a  manner  almost 

marvellous A  light  perfectly  ineffable  shone  in  my 

soul   that    almost   prostrated   me    on   the   ground 

This  light  seemed  like  the  brightness  of  the  sun  in  every 
direction.     It  was  too  intense  for  the  eyes I  think  I 

1  His  objections  to  it  would  perhaps  be  removed  if  the  facts  had  been 
fully  recorded.  One  of  his  points  is  that  the  disciples  were  in  a  frame  of 
mind  too  calm  to  admit  of  visions.  Where  is  the  evidence  of  this  ?  Only 
in  accounts  written  long  afterwards.  It  was  perfectly  natural  for  the 
Evangelists  to  write  calmly  after  the  lapse  of  half  a  century. 


288  CHRISTIAN  TESTIMONIES 

knew  something  then,  by  actual  experience,  of  that  light 
that  prostrated  Paul  on  the  way  to  Damascus.  It  was 
surely  a  light  such  as  I  could  not  have  endured  long 
f  Memoirs  of  President  Finney  J  y^ 

Another  account  is  still  more  striking  :  '*  There  was 
no  fire  and  no  light  in  the  room ;  nevertheless,  it 
appeared  to  me  as  if  it  were  perfectly  light.  As  I  went 
in  and  shut  the  door  after  me,  it  seemed  as  if  I  met  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  face  to  face.  It  did  not  occur  to  me 
then,  nor  did  it  for  some  time  afterwards,  that  it  was 
wholly  a  mental  state.  On  the  contrary,  it  seemed  to 
me  that  I  saw  him  as  I  would  see  any  other  man.  He 
said  nothing,  but  looked  at  me  in  such  a  manner  as  to 

break  me  right  down  at  his  feet It  seemed  to  me 

that  I  bathed  his  feet  with  my  tears ;  and  yet  I  had  no 
distinct  impression  that  I  touched  him,  that  I  recollect 
C  Finney's  Memoirs  J.' '^ 

These  strange  experiences  are  ascribed  b}^  Professor 
James  to  their  subjects  "  having  a  large  subliminal 
region  involving  nervous  excitability."  This  peculiarity 
has  been  exhibited  by  human  beings  in  all  ages,  and  in 
the  first  century  it  would  seem  to  have  been  frequently 
manifested.  If  mental  states  could  have  then  been 
carefully  analysed,  we  might  never  have  heard  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  or  required  a  "  telegram  from 
heaven  "  to  explain  it. 


1  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  pp.  251-52. 
2'  Ibid,  p.  255. 


Chapter  IV. 

CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

The  trouble  with  Christians  is  that  they  do  not  under- 
stand the  Bible.  In  its  interpretation  they  customarily 
ignore  all  such  qualifications  as  are  necessary  for  a 
European  mind  to  understand  the  Asiatic  temperament ; 
they  leave  severely  alone  all  questions  relating  to  the 
doubtful  date  and  authorship  of  the  New  Testament 
writings,  and  in  particular  the  well-known  practice 
of  the  first  century  to  attribute  anonymous  works  to 
traditional  authors ;  and  they  treat  as  literally  accurate 
the  numerous  passages  in  which  facts  are  unconsciously 
distorted  by  figurative  modes  of  expression.  They  take 
symbol  for  reality,  poetry  for  fact,  legend  and  allegory 
for  history,  dreams  and  visions  for  divine  communica- 
tions ;  they  personify  abstractions,  and,  generally,  apply 
inappropriate  methods  to  fluctuating  and  imaginative 
traditions. 

Metaphorical  language  is  often  capable  of  more  than 
one  interpretation.  In  God  and  the  Bible  Matthew  Arnold 
has  pointed  out  the  errors  that  may  arise  from  undue 
literalism.  Jesus,  he  thinks,  did  predict  his  resurrection, 
but  only  in  a  spiritual  sense.  The  words  in  John  xx.  9, 
"  as  yet  they  knew  not  the  scripture  that  he  must  rise 
again  from  the  dead,"  supply  ''  irrefragable  proof  that 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  about  his  Resurrection  cannot 
originally  have  been  just  what  our  Gospels  report ;  that 
these  sayings,  as  they  now  come  to  us,  must  have  been 
somewhat  moulded  and  accentuated  by  the  belief  in  the 

289  U 


290  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

Resurrection."  In  like  manner  the  phrase  "  and  the 
third  day  I  shall  be  perfected,"  which  is  a  reminiscence 
of  the  prophet  Hosea,  is  in  other  places  given  "the  third 
day  I  shall  rise  again."  *'  Here,"  says  Arnold,  "  we  lay 
our  finger,  almost  certainly,  upon  the  veritable  foundation 
for  the  belief  that  Jesus  had  himself  announced  he  would 

rise  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day Inevitably  the 

disciples  materialised  it  all,  wrested  it  all  into  a  prophesy- 
ing of  bodily  re-appearance  and  miracle.  And  they  did 
the  like  also  with  the  words :  '  I  go  to  the  Father  ;  I  go 
away  and  come  again  to  you ;  a  little  while  and  ye  see 
me  not,  and  again  a  little  while  and  ye  shall  see  me.' 
To  these  words  the  disciples  gave  a  turn,  they  placed 
them  in  a  connection  to  suit  the  belief  which  alone,  after 
the  death  of  Jesus,  could  reassure  and  console  them — the 
belief  in  his  speedy  resuscitation  and  bodily  re-appearance 
on  earth,  his  temporary  re-withdrawal  and  ascension  into 
heaven,  to  be  followed  soon  by  his  triumphal  bodily 
advent  to  avenge  and  judge. 

"  It  could  not  but  be  so.     It  7vas  ivritten  that  in  Ids 
name   should  be  ineached  to  all  nations  repentance  unto 

remission   of  sins The    genuine    promise   of    Jesus 

was  the  promise  of  a  spiritual  resurrection  ;  and  this 
promise  his  disciples  misapprehended,  misconnected,  and 
obscured.  Only  on  this  supposition  is  even  their  own 
version  of  the  history  intelligible."^  As  we  have 
suggested,  the  existence  of  this  tendency  to  misunder- 
standing seems  to  be  shown  by  the  confusion  between 
the  promise  of  the  Comforter  and  the  promise  of  a 
personal  return.  The  repeated  promise  of  the  latter  does 
not  harmonise  with  the  words:  "  If  I  go  not  away,  the 
Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you,"  which  imply  only  a 

^  God  and  the  Bible,  p.  181. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  291 

spiritual  presence,  to  which  physical  absence  was  a  con- 
dition precedent. 

After  all,  however,  the  misconception  is  probably 
chargeable  against  the  later  Gospel-compilers  rather  than 
against  the  personal  companions  of  Jesus.  What  proof 
have  we  that  the  Apostles  did  not  interpret  the  Messianic 
anticipations  of  Jesus  in  the  fluid  and  poetic  senses  in 
which  they  were  evidently  announced  ?  And  what  proof 
have  we  that  events  were  not  made  to  correspond  with 
supposed  predictions  of  them  ? 

It  is  to  the  modern  inquirer  a  defect  in  the  so-called 
evidence  for  the  resurrection  that  it  rests  on  authority, 
and  on  authority  alone.  That  is,  we  are  asked  to  believe 
that  a  particular  person  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  mere 
statements,  and  far  from  explicit  statements,  of  men  who 
were  totally  incompetent  judges,  and  not  one  of  whom 
even  claims  to  be  an  eye-witness. 

Now,  authority  may  be  a  good  principle  as  long  as 
there  is  nothing  safer  to  be  had.  But  what  if  the 
authority  be  mistaken  ?  To  be  valid  authority  must  be 
infallible,  and  to  be  infallible  no  human  authority  can, 
without  presumption,  claim.  We  have  to  see  that 
authority  rests  on  fact  and  reason,  and  to  ascertain  this 
the  evidence  must  be  examined.  A  good  and  pious  man 
tells  us  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead.  Does  he  know 
this?  No.  He  believes  it.  His  belief  is  based,  not  on 
personal  knowledge,  but  on  the  similar  belief  of  others. 
Does  he  know  these  others  ?  No.  Who  were  they  ? 
Did  they  claim  to  know,  or  merely  to  believe  ?  If  so,  on 
what  evidence  did  they  believe?  Is  the  whole  of  the 
evidence  they  had  available  for  us  ?  If  not,  why  not  ? 
If  it  is  available,  we  may  estimate  it  quite  differently 
from  them.  If  it  is  not  available,  we  cannot  be  asked  to 
believe  as  they  did. 


292  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

Thus,  not  even  an  infallible  authority  can  relieve  us 
from  the  labour  of  investigation.  The  infallibility  has  to 
be  proved.  And  even  a  perfect  authority  would  have  its 
disadvantages.  Personal  investigation  is  the  surest  way 
known  to  us  of  arriving  at  truth.  The  acquirement  of 
knowledge,  the  culture  of  the  faculties,  is  the  wise,  the 
natural,  the  only  way  by  which  we  can  perceive  the  true 
relations  of  things.  On  the  other  hand,  reliance  upon 
authority  naturally  tends  to  the  disuse  and  consequent 
degradation  of  thought.  Men  accustomed  to  bow  before 
authority  become  disinclined  and  unable  to  examine  its 
claims,  submissive  to  its  decrees,  and  prone  to  think 
them  final.  Authority  is  valuable  only  as  its  bases  are 
capable  of  verification.  In  religious  teaching  it  affords 
but  a  provisional  resting-place.  "  Its  chief  use  is  to 
guide  action,  and  assist  the  formation  of  habits,  before 
the  judgment  is  ripe.  As  applied  to  mere  ojyinion,  its 
sole  function  is  to  guide  inquiry."-^  The  authority  of 
truth  itself,  so  far  as  known,  must  always  be  paramount 
to  that  of  its  individual  interpreters.  Has  not  the  world 
had  enough  of  authority  in  religion  ? 

Like  everything  else,  theology  is  subject  to  the  laws 
of  evolution.  The  extent  to  which  the  dogma  of  the 
resurrection  has  shifted  from  a  physical  fact  to  a 
spiritual  experience  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the 
ofiicial  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  with  the 
present  belief  of  its  cultured  adherents.  Of  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles  the  fourth  bluntly  declares  that  "  Christ 
did  truly  rise  again  from  death,  and  take  again  his  body, 
with  flesh,  bones,  and  all  things  appertaining  to  the 
perfection  of  man's  nature,  wherewith  he  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  there  sitteth  until  he  return  to  judge  all 

^  F.  W.  Newman,  Phases  of  Faith,  p.  137. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  293 

men  at  the  last  day."  A  similar  view  is  unflinchingly 
held  by  Bishop  Pearson,  while  even  a  learned  writer  of 
our  own  time  can  assert  that  the  resurrection  was  ''  a 
reanimation  of  the  dead  body  of  Jesus  by  a  return  of  his 
soul  from  the  spirit-world  and  a  rising  of  body  and  soul 
from  the  grave  to  a  new  life."^  The  materialism  of  the 
orthodox  doctrine  must  appear  distressingly  crude  to  the 
author  of  Philochristus,  who  writes  :  "The  essence  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  is  that  His  Spirit  should  have 
really  triumphed  over  death,  and  not  that  his  body 
should  have  risen  from  the  grave. "^ 

Equally  noticeable  is  the  fact  that,  whereas  the  Gospel 
accounts  were  once  relied  upon  as  sufficient  and  accurate, 
the  main  effort  of  modern  apologists  is  directed  to 
establish  the  belief  of  Paul  as  a  satisfactory  foundation 
for  ours.  This  change  of  front  indicates  that  the  weak- 
ness of  the  Gospel  evidence  has  become  more  perceptible 
to  its  defenders.  It  is  to  Paul's  teaching  that  we  owe 
that  notion  of  a  "spiritual  body"  which  is  thought  to 
reconcile  the  strange  contradictions  of  the  Evangelists. 
This  conception  is  somewhat  crudely  embodied  in  the 
following  words  of  the  late  Dr.  Harold  Browne,  Bishop 
of  Winchester :  "  We  must  therefore  conclude  that, 
though  Christ  rose  with  the  same  body  in  which  he  died, 
and  that  body  neither  did  nor  shall  cease  to  be  a  human 
body,  still  it  acquired,  either  at  his  resurrection  or  at  his 
ascension,  the  qualities  and  attributes  of  a  spiritual  as 
distinguished  by  the  Apostle  from  a  natural  body,  of 
an  incorruptible  as  distinguished  from  a  corruptible 
body."  3 

Such  a  conclusion,  unintelligible  in  itself,  and  disputed 

^  Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  i.,  p.  175. 

2  Dr.  E.  A.  Abbott,  The  Kernel  and  the  Husk,  p.  247. 

3  Exposition  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  p.  107. 


294  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


as  it  is  by  many  Christian  scholars,  justifies  our  argument 
that  the  "  spiritual  body  "  is  a  doctrinal  necessity  rather 
than  a  fact  of  experience.  Evidently  the  assertion  that 
Jesus  "  rose  with  the  same  body  in  which  he  died  "  is 
made  merely  because  certain  Gospel  statements  imply 
it ;  while  the  assumption  that  his  body  gradually  or 
suddenly^  underwent  some  indefinable  change  is  made 
merely  because  certain  other  Gospel  statements  indicate 
that  the  appearances  of  Jesus  were  non-material.  How 
a  body  can  continue  to  be  a  human  body  when  it  no 
longer  possesses  the  attributes  of  a  human  body  is  for 
the  apologist  to  explain.  Nor  is  it  quite  correct  to  say 
that  the  Apostle  really  "  distinguishes "  between  a 
corruptible  and  an  incorruptible  body.  He  merely 
asserts  their  existence,  without  defining  in  what  respect 
they  differ.  We  have  no  experience  of  an  incorruptible 
human  body.  It  is  manifest  that  the  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester had  not  the  slightest  idea  of  the  time  at  which 
the  attributes  of  a  spiritual  body  were  "  acquired,"  or 
the  nature  of  the  supposed  change.  The  New  Testament 
writers  imagined  that  this  mysterious  change  could  take 
effect  during  a  person's  earthly  life.  The  transfiguration 
myth  implies  it,  and  the  Apostle  Paul  boldly  asserts  it, 
though  it  turned  out  that  he  was  mistaken.^  Dr.  Browne 
postulates  unknown  qualities  superadded  by  unknown 
means  to  a  dead  body  at  an  unknown  time,  and  that  on 
the  authority  of  unknown  informants,  who  contradict 
one  another  with  entire  unconcern. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  first  century  was  pre- 
eminently a  time  of  abnormal  religious  conditions.  A 
great  wave  of  religious   emotion  swept  over  Judea,  of 

1  On  this  point  the  usual  divergences  prevail,  Weiss  and  Martensen, 
for  example,  taking  exactly  opposite  views. 
■^  1  Cor.  XV.  52. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  295 


which  the  Christian  cult  formed  only  one  manifestation. 
The  evidence  of  writings  emanating  from  that  age  is 
throughout  tainted  with  superstition  and  error.  Consider 
one  feature  only — the  implicit  belief  in  angelic  appear- 
ances. Angels  look  very  pretty  in  pictures;  but  we 
require  some  better  evidence  for  their  real  existence  than 
artistic  fancy.  Nowadays  we  get  along  very  well  without 
angels;  modern  knowledge  has  banished  them,  along 
with  the  demons  who  were  thought  by  Jesus  to  cause 
diseases.  To  the  Gospel  writers  angels  were  manifestly 
real  beings.  They  are  represented  as  visible  to  the 
naked  eye,  and  as  repeatedly  uttering  words  in  a 
particular  human  dialect.^  However  firmly  we  may 
hold  to  the  good  faith  of  the  Gospel  writers,  we  are 
compelled  to  admit  that  this  belief  of  theirs  was,  in  an 
objective  sense,  erroneous. 

In  discussing  the  resurrection  we  have  to  consider  not 
merely  the  alleged  event,  but  its  causes.  The  apologist 
insists  upon  a  miracle.  Obviously  a  miracle  assumes  the 
interposition  of  a  personal  deity.  In  order,  then,  to  prove 
the  reality  of  the  event,  we  must  prove  also  the  reality 
and  operation  of  the  only  cause  which  could  produce  the 
event.  There  are,  indeed,  at  least  five  postulates 
concerning  which  the  apologist  may  fairly  be  called  upon 
for  proof.  In  the  case  of  such  a  miracle  as  a  dead  man 
returning  to  life,  assumptions  and  inferences  must  be 
pronounced  utterly  insufficient.  What  should  be,  not 
taken  for  granted,  but  proved,  are  these  five  points  : — 

(1)  The  existence  of  an  efficient  cause  of  the  miracle. 

(2)  That  this  cause  actually  operated. 

1  A  similar  power  of  vocal  utterance  is  several  times  attributed  to 
devils,  whose  real  existence  no  enlightened  person  can  admit  (see 
Matt.  viii.  31;  Mark  iii.  11,  etc.)-  Even  orthodoxy  must  perceive  the 
anachronism  of  attributing  to  devils  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  before 
it  had  been  arrived  at  by  his  own  disciples. 


296  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

(3)  That  the  death  of  eJesus  should  be  clearly  ascer- 
tained. 

(4)  That  his  body  was  seen  to  leave  the  tomb  alive. 

(5)  That  his  body  floated  away  into  the  sky. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  elaborate  these  points  in  detail. 
With  regard  to   the  first,  setting   aside   all  the  philo- 
sophical difficulties  involved,  it  is  to  us  inconceivable 
that,  if  God  intervened  to  work  a  miracle,  he  would  not 
have  ensured  the  records  of  his  action  being  faithfully 
and  sufficiently  transmitted  for  the  benefit  of  all  whom 
they  might  concern.     As  the  matter  stands,  these  records 
are  in  such  a  state  that  they  arouse  endless  perplexities 
among  those  who  desire  to  know  the  truth.     That  any 
infraction  of  the  law  of  death  took  place  in  the  case  of 
Jesus  cannot  for  a  moment  be  admitted.     It  is  not  only 
that  the  evidence  is  meagre,  indirect,  contradictory,  and 
emanates  from  credulous  sources.     We  cannot  get  away 
from  the   fact    that    the   conception  of    universal    law 
constitutes   by  its  very  nature  a   presumption   against 
miracle  which    no   testimony  whatever   can   set   aside. 
Such  a  conception  could  not  have  been  formed  by  the 
Evangelists. 

That  Jesus  actually  died  on  the  cross  seems,  on  the 
whole,  probable,  though  it  is  far  from  proved  by  the 
Gospel  statements.  Strong  though  the  objections  to  the 
Swoon  Theory  are,  they  might  not  prove  insurmount- 
able if  the  facts  were  fully  known,  and  that  view  is 
preferable  to  the  untenable  supposition  of  a  miraculous 
return  to  life.  The  difficulties  of  the  Reanimation 
Theory  lie  in  its  incompatibility  with  the  only  accounts 
we  have  of  the  events ;  but,  as  the  truth  of  these  accounts 
is  an  unknown  quantity,  they  cannot  be  held  to  refute 
any  particular  view.  What  the  Gospel  narratives  omit 
may  be  so  material,  what  they  relate  may  be  so  modified 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  297 

4 

by  tradition,  that  we  should  hesitate  to  assert  the  falsity 
of  the  supposition  that  Jesus  revived  after  his  crucifixion, 
retired  to  Galilee,  and  died  in  an  obscurity  which 
neither  the  Evangelists  nor  anj^one  else  was  able  to 
penetrate.-^ 

That  any  human  being  saw  the  body  of  Jesus  rise 
from  the  tomb  is  nowhere  stated  in  the  New  Testament. 
The  accounts  to  that  effect  in  some  of  the  apocryphal 
Gospels  are  universally  admitted  to  be  legendary. 
Evidence  of  identity,  therefore,  we  do  not  possess. 

That  the  body  of  Jesus,  whether  "  glorified  "  or  not, 
went  up  into  the  airless  space  by  which  the  earth  is 
surrounded  is  quite  incredible.  'Persons  who  imagined 
that  "  heaven  "  was  a  locality  a  little  way  beyond  the 
clouds  found  no  difficulty  at  all  in  believing  that  the 
ascension  actually  took  place.  This  consideration  alone 
shows  the  wide  difference  between  their  point  of  view 
and  ours.  In  the  light  of  modern  knowledge  it  may 
fairly  be  termed  surprising  that  apologetic  writers  are 
still  content  to  adopt  the  standpoint  of  a  bygone  and 
credulous  epoch,  and  to  believe  in  such  a  miracle  on 
practically  no  evidence  whatever.  We  hold  that  the 
ascension  is  nothing  more  than  a  pious  fiction,  framed 
in  order  to  account  for  that  disappearance  of  the  body  of 

1  A  recent  writer,  Mr.  P.  E.  Vizard,  has  shown  that  the  Swoon  Theory 
is  not  so  baseless  as  is  commonly  supposed  [The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  :  A 
Plea  for  the  Eeanimation  Theory,  1906).  In  early  times  the  actuality  of 
the  death  of  Jesus  was  frequently  disputed.  Farrar  mentions  that  the 
early  Fathers  all  appeal  to  the  spear- thrust  as  proof  of  death.  They 
would  not  have  done  this  had  the  death  been  universally  admitted;  and, 
of  course,  the  spear-thrust  is  itself  doubtful.  Mr.  Nesbit's  Christ, 
Christians,  and  Christianity  also  argues  with  some  cogency  for  the 
Eeanimation  Theory,  and,  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  he  is  the  only  writer 
who  contends  that  Paul  met  Jesus  in  the  flesh  after  the  latter's  supposed 
death,  and  received  his  "revelations"  from  him  by  word  of  mouth. 
Paul,  it  is  true,  says  that  he  had  "known  Christ  after  the  flesh";  but  this 
appears  to  imply  merely  that  he  had  formerly  held  sensuous  views 
regarding  the  nature  of  the  kingdom. 


298  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

Jesus  which  the  dogmatist  is  no  more  able  than  the 
unbeliever  to  explain  with  any  approach  to  certainty. 

One  important  feature  in  the  resurrection  narratives 
is  usually  quite  ignored  by  their  defenders.  Where  was 
Jesus  during  the  intervals  between  his  appearances  ?  If 
he  went  about  with  a  semi-physical  body,  he  must  have 
been  perceptible  to  the  senses  of  other  persons  than  his 
followers.  There  is  no  record  that  anyone  else  saw  him. 
If  he  continued  to  teach  his  disciples  for  several  weeks,  it 
is  simply  incredible  that,  with  far  stronger  reasons  than 
before  for  the  preservation  of  the  teaching  given  during 
that  period,  it  should  have  been  utterly  lost.  The 
inference  is  that  the  ascription  of  the  forty  days'  super- 
natural tuition  in  "  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God"  is  nothing  more  than  a  product  of  pious  and 
ignorant  imagination. 

As  to  the  duration  of  Jesus'  supposed  sojourn  on  earth 
after  his  death  the  greatest  latitude  of  opinion  prevailed 
in  the  early  Church.  According  to  Irenaeus,  the  Valen- 
tinians  believed  that  Jesus  remained  on  earth  for  a  year 
and  a  half.  The  Ascension  of  Isaiah  puts  the  period  at 
about  the  same — 545  days ;  while  the  Pistis  Sophia 
assumes  it  as  prolonged  to  eleven  years. ^  These  curious 
discrepancies  in  the  tradition  make  it  rationally  impos- 
sible to  accept  any  part  of  it,  even  that  embodied  in  the 
Gospels,  as  bearing  the  impress  of  historic  truth. 

We  have  throughout  proceeded  on  the  recognised 
principle  that  an  alleged  fact  of  history  must  be 
elucidated  by  critical  methods.  This  question  of  the 
resurrection  is  not  one  to  be  settled  merely  by  a 
quibbling  textual   criticism  of   doubtful  copies  of  non- 

^  Nesbit,  Chrifit,  CJiriatianx,  and  Chriatianiiij,  p.  300.  It  has  even  been 
held  by  a  German  writer,  J.  A.  Brennecke,  that  Jesus  remained  on  earth 
in  bodily  form  for  twenty-seven  years. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  299 

existent  books.  Evidence  is  something  more  than  this. 
Evidence  inckides  the  experience  of  those  untold  millions 
to  whose  senses  no  such  phenomenon  has  ever  been 
presented.  Evidence  means  also  an  intelligent  percep- 
tion of  that  continuity  of  natural  processes  which  this 
larger  experience  has  furnished.  And  that  evidence  must 
be  viewed,  not  in  the  luminous  haze  of  mystical  aspira- 
tion, but  in  the  clear  sunlight  of  unclouded  reason. 
All  historical  facts  must  be  established  by  historical 
methods. 

Strauss  has  well  summed  up  the  inadequacy  of  the 
New  Testament  accounts  : — 

The  various  evangelical  writers  only  agree  as  to  a  few 
of  the  appearances  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection  ;  the 
designation  of  the  locality  in  one  excludes  the  appear- 
ances narrated  by  the  rest ;  the  determination  of  time  in 
another  leaves  no  space  for  the  narratives  of  his 
fellow  Evangelists  ;  the  enumeration  of  a  third  is  given 
without  any  regard  to  the  events  reported  by  his 
predecessors;  lastly,  among  several  appearances  recounted 
by  various  narrators,  each  claims  to  be  the  last,  and  yet 
has  nothing  in  common  with  the  others.  Hence  nothing 
but  wilful  blindness  can  prevent  the  perception  that  no 
one  of  the  narrators  knew  and  presupposed  what 
another  records  ;  that  each  again  had  heard  a  different 
account  of  the  matter ;  and  that,  consequently,  at  an 
early  period  there  were  current  only  uncertain  and  very 
varied  reports  concerning  the  appearances  of  the  risen 
Jesus.i 

On  the  positive  side  we  maintain  that  the  evidence — 
even  the  evidence  of  the  New  Testament  alone — strongly 
favours  the  presumption  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  arose  in  subjective  impressions.  Of  the 
true   nature   of   these   impressions   we   have    not   been 

1  Life  of  Jesus,  p.  727, 


300  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

sufficiently  informed  to  justify  any  dogmatic  pronounce- 
ment ;  but  the  evidence  that  they  were  experienced  is,  in 
any  case,  complete  enough  to  bar  assent  to  the  supposi- 
tion of  a  miraculous  variation  of  natural  law.  Taken  in 
conjunction  with  the  unanswerable  negative  criticism, 
and  bearing  in  mind  that  the  strong  but  limited 
Messianic  prepossessions  of  the  first  Christians  formed 
an  important  element  in  the  case,  the  Vision  Theory 
may  be  said  to  afford  the  most  probable  and  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  problem.  It  should  always  be  recognised, 
however,  that  any  theory  we  may  adopt  cannot  be  other 
than  tentative,  and  should  never  be  allowed  to  blind  us 
to  the  imperfections  of  the  historical  evidence. 

In  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  we  have  found 
many  obvious  indications  that  the  point  of  view  of  the 
writers  was  essentially  different  from  our  own,  and  that 
their  statements,  therefore,  cannot  be  interpreted  without 
reference  to  the  mental  environment  in  which  they  were 
made.  The  extent  to  which  symbolical  language  is 
employed  in  the  Christian  records  is  little  suspected 
by  those  whom  custom  has  made  familiar  with  its 
phraseology.  That  spiritual  relations  are  commonly 
expressed  in  terms  of  material  facts  it  needs  but  the 
merest  glance  at  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  perceive.  Such 
words  as  "  bread,"  "  water,"  ''  flesh,"  "  leaven,"  ''  blood," 
"vine,"  *'  sheep,"  are  said  to  have  been  persistently  and 
without  explanation  used  by  Jesus,  in  spite  of  frequent 
misapprehension  on  the  part  not  only  of  hostile  Jews, 
but  of  his  own  sympathetic  followers.  It  would  not 
be  surprising  to  find  the  terms  **  resurrection "  and 
*'  ascension "  used  in  a  similarly  undefined  spiritual 
sense.  John's  slip,  in  his  third  chapter,  we  have  already 
noticed ;  and  in  the  account  of  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
we  meet  the  expression  :  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  301 

the  life " — a  phrase  which  plainly  emphasises  that 
spiritual  aspect  of  the  raising  from  the  dead  of  which 
the  disciples  are  sometimes  said  to  have  been  ignorant. 

An  undoubted  clue  to  the  genesis  of  the  resurrection 
belief  has  been  discovered  in  those  apocryphal  writings 
with  which  the  first  century  was,  one  might  say,  flooded. 
With  Jews  and  Christians  these  were  equally  popular, 
and  it  is  clear  that  religious  conceptions  evolved  by  the 
former  were  freely  appropriated  by  the  latter.  Contrary 
to  the  literary  customs  of  modern  times,  it  was  a  well- 
recognised  practice  for  works  to  be  composed  and  issued 
in  the  names  of  saints  and  heroes  who  had  died  long 
before.  No  sense  of  impropriety  was  felt  in  doing  this  ; 
on  the  contrary,  the  supposed  author  was  thought  to  be 
honoured  by  propagating  in  his  name  the  opinions  which 
the  current  tradition  attributed  to  him.  Almost  every 
one  of  the  Apostles  had  a  Gospel  fathered  upon  him  at 
some  time  or  another.  The  unique  religious  conditions 
of  the  first  Christian  century  and  its  predecessor  must, 
in  fact,  be  duly  considered  before  we  have  a  right  to 
frame  any  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Christian  faith. 

Nor  can  we  disregard  the  unquestionable  fact  that  the 
Gospel  writers  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  expressions 
which  there  is  good  reason  to  suppose  that  he  never 
uttered.  Even  if  this  conclusion  is  demurred  to,  it 
seems  impossible  for  any  candid  controversialist  to  deny 
that  the  late  appearance  and  dubious  authorship  of  the 
Gospels  render  their  literal  accuracy  highly  proble- 
matical. This  matter  can  easily  be  brought  to  the  test. 
Is  it  possible  that  Jesus  spoke  of  his  ascension  as  a  past 
event  long  before  its  supposed  occurrence,  or  that  he 
referred  to  the  martyrdom  of  Zacharias  as  a  fact  of  past 
history  nearly  forty  years  before  it  happened  ?  Could 
he,  while  John  the  Baptist  was  still  alive,  have  said  that 


302  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

from  the  days  of  John  "  until  now "  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  suffered  violence  ?  Is  it  reasonably  credible  that 
those  long  discourses  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  which  are 
thought  to  convey  the  finest  spiritual  teaching  of  Jesus 
were  really  spoken,  when  the  other  three  Evangelists 
give  not  the  faintest  inkling  of  even  their  general  purport  ? 
Did  Jesus  give  to  his  disciples  a  power  to  raise  the  dead 
which  they  did  not  exercise  ?  Did  he  actually  term 
''children  of  the  devil "  those  Jews  "who  believed  on 
him  "?  Is  it  true  that  he  deliberately  made  his  public 
teaching  obscure  in  order  that  his  hearers  might  not  be 
converted  ?  Did  he  tell  his  simple-minded  peasant 
followers  that  they  should  sit  on  thrones  and  judge  the 
tribes  of  Israel  ? 

It  is  useless  to  multiply  instances ;  enough  has  been 
said  to  show  that  the  Gospel  writers  frequently  blundered. 
To  use  their  careless  and  contradictory  statements  as 
evidence  for  a  miraculous  variation  of  the  laws  of  nature 
is  the  height  of  presumption  and  the  triumph  of  un- 
reason. 

The  extraordinary  degree  in  which  the  New  Testament 
writers  were  determined  towards  belief  in  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  by  their  strange  methods  of  interpreting  the 
Jewish  scriptures  must  be  obvious  to  every  reader  of  the 
Gospels  and  Book  of  Acts.  Both  directly  and  indirectly, 
the  formation  of  the  belief  seems  to  have  been  facilitated 
by  these  methods — in  the  first  case  by  finding  definite 
predictions  where  none  existed ;  in  the  second  by  assum- 
ing that,  as  a  spiritual  Messiah,  Jesus  was  a  being  of 
greater  glory  than  the  prophets  of  old  whom  he  super- 
seded. According  to  the  Gospel  statements,  the  Apostles 
had,  previously  to  the  death  of  Jesus,  formed  the  con- 
ception that  he  was  the  Messiah.  As  a  worldly  ideal 
this  conception  was  put  an  end  to  by  his  crucifixion. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  303 

Thrown  back  upon  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  his 
mission,  they  found,  in  the  idea  that  he  was  the  heavenly 
Messiah  foreshadowed  by  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  source 
of  their  revived  faith  and  zeal.  And,  as  the  legends  of 
the  transfiguration  and  ascension  indicate,  it  was  as  the 
heavenly  Messiah  that  the  disciples  believed  Jesus  to  have 
appeared.  The  nature  of  the  appearances  was  deter- 
mined by  the  nature  of  the  ideas  they  had  already  formed, 
and  in  accordance  with  these  preconceptions  the  facts 
were  moulded.  The  mind  of  the  age  habitually  trans- 
lated psj^chological  processes  into  external  events,  and  in 
that  sense  the  visions  were  the  "product  of  the  mental 
condition  of  the  seers."  A  few  observations  by  M.  Renan 
may  be  useful  in  showing  how  the  resurrection  belief 
came  to  be  formed  : — 

Jesus,  although   constantly   speaking   of   resurrection 
and  of  the  new  life,  had  never  said  quite  distinctly  that 

he  would   rise   again   in  his  flesh Several  remarks 

recalled  of  the  Master — those,  above  all,  in  which  he  had 
foretold  his  future  advent — might  be  interpreted  in  the 
sense  that  he  would  come  forth  from  the  tomb.  Such  a 
belief  was,  moreover,  so  natural  that  the  disciples'  faith 
would  have  sufficed  to  create  it  in  all  completeness.  The 
great  prophets,  Enoch  and  Elijah,  had  not  known  death. 
People  were  even  beginning  to  believe  that  the  patriarchs 
and  chief  men  of  the  ancient  law  were  not  really  dead, 
and  that  their  bodies  were  in  their  sepulchres  at  Hebron 

living  and  animated To  admit  that  death  could  be 

victorious  over  Jesus,  over  him  who  came  to  destroy  its 
empire,  was  the  pitch  of  absurdity.  The  very  idea  that 
he  was  capable  of  suffering  had  formerly  revolted  his 
disciples.  They  had,  then,  no  choice  between  despair 
and  a  heroic  affirmation.  A  shrewd  man  might  have 
predicted  from  the  Saturday  that  Jesus  would  live  again.i 

With  the  pious  of  those  days  visions  were  frequent.^ 

1  The  Apostles,  Hutchison's  translation,  6d.  ecL,  pp.  33,  34. 

2  At   a  later   date  Tertullian  remarked  that  the   greater  number  of 
converts  came  to  the  knowledge  of  God  by  means  of  visions. 


804  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

Who  shall  say  that  the  tragic  death  of  their  Master  was 
not  the  event  that  called  the  sub-conscious  self  of  the 
disciples  into  warmth  and  activity?  Faith,  not  sight, 
is  the  keynote  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  To  the  pious  mind 
death  is  resurrection,  because  the  soul  is  then  freed  from 
fleshly  shackles  to  rise  into  the  higher  life  of  heaven, 
though  whether  ''  heaven  "  is  a  locality  or  a  condition 
no  one  seems  to  know.-^  Nor  did  Jesus,  though  he  is 
said  to  have  come  from  heaven,  throw  much  light  on  the 
obscurity.  "  A  singular  feeling  began  to  come  to  light ; 
all  hesitation  seemed  a  lack  of  loyalty  and  love ;  men 
felt  ashamed  to  hang  back ;  the  desire  to  see  was  for- 
bidden. The  saying,  'Blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
seen,  and  yet  have  believed,'  summed  up  the  situation. 
It  was  held  more  generous  to  believe  without  proof. 
True-hearted  friends  did  not  wish  they  had  had  a  vision, 
even  as,  later,  St.  Louis  refused  to  witness  an  ecclesiastical 
miracle,  that  he  might  not  be  robbed  of  the  merit  of  faith."  ^ 
Kenan's  expressions  are,  perhaps,  here  and  there  open 
to  objection  ;  but  his  explanation  is  not  wholly  fanciful. 
It  has  been  verified  in  the  experience  of  thousands. 
The  mystic  rises  superior  to  the  trammels  of  the  physical 
senses.  Such  a  view  is  really  in  harmony  with  that 
symbolical  method,  that  spiritual  teaching,  recorded  of 
Jesus  which  seems  to  bear  the  clearest  impress  of  his 
personality.  The  question  whether  the  whole  of  the 
Gospel  records  constitute  a  synthesis  of  current  ethical 
and  religious  teachings  attributed  to  a  purely  ideal  figure 
is  one  that  cannot  be  discussed  here. 

If  the  conclusion  of  many  modern  critics  is  just,  that 
the  resurrection  belief  arose  in  Galilee,  that  is  a  further 

1  As  Luke  XX.  shows,  Jesus  unquestionably  used  the  term  '*  resurrec- 
tion "  in  this  purer  spiritual  sense. 

2  Eenan,  The  Apostles,  p.  39. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  305 

point  in  favour  of  the  subjective  explanation.  At  the 
apprehension  of  Jesus  his  disciples  "  forsook  him  and 
fled."  Several  expressions  in  the  Gospels  favour  the 
presumption  that  it  was  to  their  native  province  that  the 
disciples  made  their  way.  There,  amid  the  old  familiar 
surroundings,  in  its  quiet  fields  and  green  valleys,  their 
minds  must  have  dwelt  on  the  spiritual  teaching  of 
Jesus,  grasped  for  the  first  time  its  deeper  significance, 
and  pondered  upon  its  fulfilment  of  their  scriptural 
ideals.  External  scenes  often  powerfully  assist  in  the 
revival  of  past  associations ;  and  it  would  be  but  natural 
if  the  former  communion  of  spirit,  the  idea  of  the  Master's 
continued  presence,  gave  rise  to  visions  of  his  bodily 
form  on  the  mountain  slopes  or  the  lake  shores  where 
he  had  taught  them  the  parables  of  the  kingdom. 

The  evidence  we  have  examined  forces  upon  us  the 
conclusion  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  as  a  physical 
event  never  happened.  But  the  reasons  why  it  was 
believed  to  have  happened  can  be  approximately  known, 
and  are  partially  revealed  by  the  Christian  scriptures 
themselves.  As  these  documents  are  the  product  of  a 
later  generation,  it  is  impossible  to  be  sure  that  the 
exact  words  of  either  Jesus  or  his  original  followers  have 
come  down  to  us,  while  the  negative  presumption  is 
overpowering.  If  Jesus  was  far  greater  than  his 
reporters,  misunderstandings  were  inevitable,  and  we 
cannot  suppose  that  these  were  removed  by  the  super- 
natural agency  in  which  they  so  firmly  believed.  We, 
in  fact,  have  to  contemplate  Jesus  "  through  the  medium 
of  modes  of  conception  vitally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of 
his  teaching."  To  the  resurrection,  in  fact,  we  have  not 
a  single  trustworthy  witness.  Even  Paul  cannot  be 
accepted  as  such,  because  he  arrived  at  his  belief  by 
processes   which   were   independent    of,    and    in    some 

X 


306  CONCLUDING  REMAEKS 

respects  opposed  to,  those  of  the  older  Apostles. 
Evidently  the  great  religious  reformation  of  the  first 
century  took  various  forms.  The  significant  reference 
to  Apollos  in  the  eighteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  confirms 
this  view.  Twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus  this 
man,  an  ardent  preacher  of  the  new  faith,  had  not  been 
baptised  into  it,  and  knew  only  "  the  baptism  of  John." 
He  probably  knew  very  little  of  the  career  of  Jesus,  and 
may  never  have  heard  of  such  an  event  as  the  resurrec- 
tion. Yet  he  was  "  mighty  in  the  scriptures  "  (that  is, 
of  course,  the  Jewish  scriptures),  and  from  those 
ambiguous  oracles  proved  *'  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ." 
As  he  was  "born  in  Alexandria,"  we  cannot  suppose 
that  he  was  unaffected  by  the  speculations  then  common 
in  that  city.  And  it  should  be  noted  that  when,  in  the 
next  chapter  of  Acts,  Paul  arrives  for  the  first  time  at 
Ephesus,  he  meets  there  with  "certain  disciples"  who 
had  never  heard  of  the  "  Holy  Ghost."  These  also  knew 
only  of  "  the  baptism  of  John."  If  the  disciples  of  the 
Baptist  were  so  widely  spread  as  this  implies,  it  is  clear 
that  an  important  religious  movement  parallel  with 
Christianity  must  have  been  long  in  progress,  that  there 
were  at  least  two  partially  independent  "  streams  of 
Messianic  faith." ^  And  the  facility  with  which  Paul 
made  his  Ephesian  converts  suggests  that  this  move- 
ment had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  his  success. 

The  resurrection  faith  illustrates  on  a  great  scale  a 
persistent  tendency  of  human  nature.  That  is  the  chief 
reason  of  its  prolonged  survival.  It  pathetically  embodies 
the  nobler  as  well  as  the  inferior  religious  emotions. 
With  all  its  sins  and  failures,  humanity  has  a  passionate 
faith  in  the  never-dying  power  of  purity  and  goodness. 

1  Martineau,  Studies  of  Christianity,  p.  424. 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  307 

And  its  craving  for  the  marvellous  is  gratified  by  the 
thought  that  the  wonderful  peasant  of  Galilee  has 
revealed  to  man  a  glorious  and  illimitable  life  beyond 
the  tomb. 

Yet  this  tendency  has  not  been  concentrated  upon  the 
figure  of  Jesus  alone.  To  the  devotee  of  old  the  object 
of  his  worship  could  not  die,  and  pass  like  other  men 
through  Death's  unrelenting  portals.  The  subjective 
yearning  for  what  ought  to  be  animates  the  pious 
Hindoo  who  holds  that  Chrishna  lives  again  in  repeated 
avatars.  With  the  Greeks  and  Syrians  Adonis  blooms 
again  in  fresher  life.  The  Egyptian  Osiris  treads  once 
more  the  happy  fields.  To  the  Romans  Romulus,  ere 
ascending  to  heaven,  is  for  a  time  restored,  and  during 
a  country  walk  converses  with  a  friend.^  The  life  of 
Gautama  Buddha  exhibits  many  striking  analogies  with 
that  of  Jesus,  and  after  his  death  similar  legends 
clustered  round  his  memory,  and  the  same  deifying 
process  went  on.  It  may  be  that  all  these  myths  are 
survivals  of  primitive  nature-cults,  and  certain  features 
of  the  Gospel  story,  especially  the  accounts  of  the  birth 
and  death  of  Jesus  and  the  traditional  dates  of  those 
events,  suggest  the  influence  of  earlier  pagan  concepts.- 

Nor  are  such  myths  confined  to  any  Eastern  people. 
*'  In  every  part  of  the  world,  and  among  peoples  in  every 
stage  of  civilisation  or  barbarism,  we  find  legends 
relating  how  some  national  hero  or  sage,  at  the  end  of 
his  earthly  career,  is  transported  to  some  supernatural 
abode  without  having  tasted  of  death.  The  story  often 
concludes  with  a  prophecy  that  the  vanished  hero  shall 

1  For  a  parallel  to  the  Emmaus  story  see  Plutarch's  life  of  Romulus. 

2  For  information  on  these  subjects  the  reader  is  referred  to  Mr.  J.  M. 
Robertson's  Pagan  Christs  and  Christianity  and  Mythology. 


308  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

some  day  come  again  to  establish  a  reign  of  righteous- 
ness and  prosperity  among  his  people.  This  myth,  in 
one  form  or  another,  exists  among  the  Hebrews,  Greeks, 
Romans,  Hindus,  Persians,  Germans,  Franks,  Irish, 
Welsh,  Cornish,  Bretons,  Danes,  Finns,  Aztecs,  Algon- 
quins,  Hurons,  and  many  other  nations,  both  civilised 
and  savage."^     Thus  King  Arthur  reposes  in 

the  island- valley  of  Avilion, 
Where  falls  not  hail,  or  rain,  or  any  snow. 
Nor  ever  wind  blows  loudly — 

whence  he  was  expected  to  return  in  majesty.  Or, 
according  to  the  Cornish  legend,  he  hovers,  in  the  shape 
of  a  raven,  about  the  storm-beaten  rocks  of  Tintagel  till 
the  day  of  judgment.  Barbarossa  sleeps  in  his  mountain 
cave,  and  Charlemagne  among  his  priceless  treasures, 
until  the  time  of  their  awakening  in  renewed  glory. 
Olger  Danske  lies  in  an  enchanted  cavern  till  the  time 
of  his  country's  sore  need,  when  he  will  reappear  and 
vanquish  her  enemies.  It  was  even  believed  that  this 
hero  was  seen  fighting  against  the  English  at  the 
Battle  of  Copenhagen.  A  similar  devotion  has  been 
lavished  on  worthless  objects,  such  as  Nero  in  the 
ancient  world,  and  the  Duke  of  Monmouth  in  the 
modern. 

Far  into  the  nineteenth  century  such  beliefs  have  held 
their  ground.     ''  Long  after  Bonaparte  had  been  dead  and 

buried the  veterans  of  the  cjrande  armee  continued  to 

believe  that  their  Emperor  was  still  alive,  and  would 
return  some  day  to  lead  on  the  French  eagles  again  to 
victory."  An  old  soldier  in  a  provincial  town  firmly 
held   this   belief,  and,  on  its   becoming   known  that  a 

^  C.  S.  Boswell,  Mijtlis  of  the  Great  Departed  (Gentleman^s  Magazine, 
November,  1889). 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS  309 

relative  of  Napoleon  who  strikingly  resembled  him  was 
to  enter  the  town  one  night  at  the  head  of  some  troops, 
a  party  of  young  men  determined  to  play  a  trick  on  the 
veteran.  He  was  told  of  the  expected  arrival,  and  placed 
on  duty  at  the  gate  of  the  town  awaiting  the  appointed 
hour.  "  It  came,  the  sound  of  drums  approached,  the 
troops  entered  the  place,  and  at  their  head  rode  one 
whose  calm  face  and  clear-cut  features  awakened  in  the 
old  soldier's  mind  memories  of  the  glorious  past.  In  an 
agony  of  joy  he  exclaimed  '  C'est  luif — he  dropped 
his  musket,  threw  up  his  arms,  and  with  a  cry  of  '  Vive 
VEmpereur  r  fell  dead."^ 

No  one  supposes  that  the  existence  of  such  myths 
alone  disproves  the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  What  they 
do  show  is  the  strength  and  persistence  of  the  myth- 
making  faculty,  of  imagination  giving  "  to  airy  nothing  a 
local  habitation  and  a  name  ";  they  show  how  reluctant 
men  are  to  realise  that  the  dead  hero  is  for  ever  gone. 
We  cannot  suppose  that  they  have  no  analogy  w^ith  the 
faith  that  Jesus  also  returned  to  life,  or  that  this  same 
tendency  did  not  help  to  mould  that  faith  into  a  concrete 
and  materialised  doctrine. 

The  resurrection  belief  is  strong  because  it  fulfils  a 
spiritual  necessity,  because  it  ministers  to  human  weak- 
ness. Men  dread  those  terrors  of  death  and  the  future 
which  Christian  theology  has  mainly  created,  and  fondly 
imagine  that  Jesus  has  for  ever  removed  them.  He  rose 
from  the  dead — that  is  thought  to  be  the  divine  answer 
to  the  cry  of  the  weary  heart  for  aid  and  comfort.  He 
has  ascended  into  heaven — that  responds  to  the  yearning 
of  the  spirit,  and  assures  it  of  a  conscious  immortality  of 
bliss.     But  the  seeker  after  truth  cannot  find  consolation 

1  C.  S.  Boswell. 


310  CONCLUDING  REMARKS 

in  hopes  which  reason  pronounces  fallacious.  If  men 
insist  that  Jesus  rose  hecause  he  was  deity  incarnate,  his 
resurrection  can  he  no  pledge  of  theirs.  If  he  saw  not 
corruption,  we  know  that  our  hodies  dissolve  into  those 
earthly  elements  from  which  they  mysteriously  came. 
To  the  modern  Christian  his  own  resurrection  means 
the  continued  life  of  the  spirit  after  death.  Why  should 
he  he  so  reluctant  to  adopt  the  same  conception  in  the 
case  of  Jesus  ?  The  Jew  of  old  hoped  from  age  to  age 
for  a  deliverer  from  oppression  who  never  appeared.  If 
the  Christian  looks  for  the  return  of  his  Saviour  in 
hodily  form,  will  he,  too,  not  hope  in  vain  ? 


LIST  OF  WORKS  CONSULTED 


Abbott  (Dr.  E.  A.),  Philochristus. 

Through  Nature  to  Christ. 

St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury. 

The  Kernel  and  the  Husk. 

Art.    "  Gospels  "   in   Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica. 

Art.    "  Gospels "    in    Encyclo- 


paedia Biblica. 

Abbott  (Dk.  Lyman),  Jesus  of 
Nazareth. 

Addis  and  Arnold,  Catholic  Dic- 
tionary. 

Alford  (Dean),  Greek  Testament. 

How  to  Study  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

Amberley  (Viscount),  Analysis  of 
Eeligious  Belief. 

Andrews  (S.  J.),  Life  of  Our  Lord. 

Annet  (Peter),  The  Resurrection  of 
Jesus  Considered. 

Arnold  (Matthew),  Literature  and 
Dogma. 

God  and  the  Bible. 

St.  Paul  and  Protestantism. 

A  Psychological  Parallel.  Con- 
temporary Eeview,  November, 
1876. 

Athenagoras,  On  the  Resurrection. 
(Ante-Nicene  Library.) 

Bartlet  (J.  v.).  The  Apostolic  Age, 

Baur  (F.  C.  von).  The  Church 
History  of  the  First  Three  Cen- 
turies. 

Paul    the    Apostle    of    Jesus 

Christ. 

Beeby  (Rev.  C.  E.),  Creed  and  Life. 

Benham  (Rev.  W.),  Dictionary  of 
Religion. 

Benn  (A.  W.),  History  of  English 
Rationalism  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century. 


Blatchford  (R.),  God  and  My 
Neighbour. 

Blunt  (Rev.  J.  H.),  Dictionary  of 
Doctrinal  and  Historic  Theology. 

BoisjioNT  (Brikre  de),  Des  Hallu- 
cinations. 

Boswell  (C.  S.),  Myths  of  the 
Great  Departed.  Gentleman's 
Magazine,  November,  1889. 

Briggs  (Professor  C.  A.),  Messianic 
Prophecy. 

The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels. 

Browne  (Dr.  Harold),  Exposition 
of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles. 

Bruce  (Professor  A.  B.),  Apolo- 
getics. 

Art.  "  Jesus  "  in  Encyclopaedia 

Biblica. 

Carpenter     (Professor     W.    B.), 

Principles  of  Mental  Physiology. 
Fallacies  of  Supernaturalism. 

Contemporary  Review,  1876. 
Carpenter  (Professor  J.  E.),  The 

First  Three  Gospels. 
The  Relation  of  Jesus  to  His 

Age  and  Our  Own. 
Cary   (Rev.  G.  L.),  The  Synoptic 

Gospels. 
Cassels     (W.     R.),     Supernatural 

Religion. 
Chalmers  (Rev.  T.),  Evidence  and 

Authority      of       the      Christian 

Revelation. 
Charles  (Rev.  R.  H.),  The  Book  of 

Enoch. 
The  Book  of    the    Secrets  of 

Enoch. 

The  Assumption  of  Moses. 

The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch. 

The  Ascension  of  Isaiah. 

The  Book  of  Jubilees. 


311 


312 


LIST  OF  WORKS  CONSULTED 


Charles  (Rev.  R.  H.),  Critical  His- 
tory of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future 
Life. 

Cheyne  (John),  Essays  on  Partial 
Derangement. 

Clodd  (Edward),  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

Childhood  of  Religions. 

Thomas  Henry  Huxley. 

Combe  (Andrew),  Observations  on 
Mental  Derangement. 

Cone  (Dr.  Orello),  Paul  the  Man. 

The  Gospel  and  its  Interpreta- 
tions. 

Gospel  Criticism  and  Historical 


Christianity. 

Cooper  (Thomas),  The  Verity  of 
Christ's  Resurrection  from  the 
Dead. 

Cowper  (B.  H.),  The  Apocryphal 
Gospels. 

Cox  (Homersham),  The  First  Cen- 
tury of  Christianity. 

Dale  (R.  W.),  The  Living  Christ 

and  the  Four  Gospels. 
Davidson  (Dr.  S.),  Introduction  to 

the  New  Testament. 
Denney  (Professor  J. ),  The  Death 

of  Christ. 
DoDS     (Professor    Marcus),     The 

Trustworthiness  of  the  Gospels. 
Donaldson    (Professor   James),   A 

Critical     History    of      Christian 

Literature  and  Doctrine. 
Drummond  (Professor  James),  The 

Jewish  Messiah. 
Dupuis  (C.  F.),  Origine  de  Tous  les 

Cultes. 

Edersheim  (A. ),  Life  and  Times  of 
Jesus  the  Messiah. 

Edgar  (R.  McCheyne),  The  Resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ.  Present 
Day  Tracts,  No.  45. 

Ellicott  (C.  J.),  New  Testament 
Commentary. 

Eusebius,  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Fairbairn     (Professor     A.      M.), 

Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ. 
Farrar  (Dean),  Life  of  Christ. 
Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul. 


Firth  (J.  B.),  Life  of  Constantino 
the  Great. 

Forester  (G.),  The  Faith  of  an 
Agnostic. 

Forrest  (D.  W.),  The  Christ  of 
History  and  Experience. 

Frayssinous  (D.),  Defence  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

Froude  (J.  A.),  Short  Studies  on 
Great  Subjects. 

Gardner   (Dr.    Percy),  Exploratio 

Evangelica. 
A  Historic  View  of   the  New 

Testament. 
The    Origin     of     the     Lord's 


Supper. 

Geikie  (Dr.  Cunningham),  Life  of 
Christ. 

Gibbon  (Edward),  Decline  and  Fall 
of  the  Roman  Empire. 

Gilbert  (Professor  G.  H.),  The 
Student's  Life  of  Jesus. 

The  Student's  Life  of  Paul. 

Giles  (Dr.  J.  A.),  Hebrew  and 
Christian  Records. 

Gill(C.),  The  Evolution  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

Glanville  (W.),  The  Web  Un- 
woven. 

GoDET  (F.),  Lectures  in  Defence  of 
the  Christian  Faith. 

Gore  (Dr.  C),  The  Resurrection  a 
Historical  Fact.  St.  Giles's  Hall 
Lectures. 

Lux  Mundi. 

GouDGE  (Rev.  H.  L.),  The  First 
Epistle  of  Paul  the  Apostle  to  the 
Corinthians. 

GouLBURN  (E.  M.),  The  Doctrine 
of  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body. 

Gould  (F.  J.),  A  Concise  History  of 
Religion. 

Graetz  (Professor),  History  of  the 
Jews. 

Greg  (W.  R.),  The  Creed  of  Chris- 
tendom. 

The  Prophetic  Element  in  the 

Gospels.  Contemporary  Review, 
November,  1876. 

Hardwicke  (W.  W.),  The  Ration- 
alist's Manual. 


LIST  OF  WORKS  CONSULTED 


313 


Haenack  (A.),    The  Expansion   of  ' 

Christianity. 

A  History  of  Dogma. 

Harris  (Professor  J.  Kendel),  The 

Gospel  of  Peter. 
Hastings  (Dr.),  Dictionary  of  the 

Bible. 
Hausrath    (Adolf),   A  History  of 

New  Testament  Times. 
Hexnell  (C.  C),  An  Inquiry    into 

the  Origins  of  Christianity. 
Henson  (Canon  H.  H.),  Apostolic 

Christianity. 

The  Value  of  the  Bible. 

HoLTZHAN  (Oscar),  Life  of  Jesus. 
Hook  (Dean),  A  Church  Dictionary. 
Hume  (David),  Essays. 
HuTTON  (R.  H. ),  Theological  Essays. 
HuxEEY  (Professor  T.  H.),  Hume. 
Science  and  Christian  Tradi- 
tion. 

Illingworth  (Rev.W.),  Fieason  and 

Revelation. 
The  Divine  Immanence. 

James  (Professor  W.),  Varieties  of 
Religious  Experience. 

Jaugey  (J.  B,),  Dictionnaire  de  la 
Foi  Catholique. 

Jekyll  (W.),  The  Bible  Untrust- 
worthy. 

Jones  (E.  Griffith),  The  Ascent 
through  Christ. 

Josephus,  The  Wars  of  the  Jews. 

Jo-R-ETT  (B.).  Essays  on  the  Interpre- 
tation of  Scripture,  etc. 

Justin  Martyr,  Fragment  on  the 
Resurrection  (Ante  -  Nicene  Li- 
brary). 

Kalthoff  (Albert),  The  Rise  of 
Christianity. 

Keim  (C.  T.),  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

Kennedy  (Rev.  J.),  The  Resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ. 

Kitto  (Rev.  J. ),  Biblical  Cyclopaedia. 

Knowling  (R.  J.),  The  Witness  of 
the  Epistles. 

Laing  (S.),  Problems  of  the  Future. 
Modern   Science   and  Modern 

Thought. 


Lake    (KiRsopr),     The     Historical 

Evidence  for  the  Resurrection  of 

Jesus  Christ.     1907. 
Lange  (J.  P.),  The  Life  of  Christ. 
Laedner  (De.  T.),  Credibility  of  the 

Gospels. 
Latham     (Rev.     H.),    The    Risen 

Master - 

Mac  AN  (R.  W.),  The  Resurrection  of 

Jesus  Christ. 
McCabe  (J.),  Modern  Rationalism. 

St.  Augustine. 

The  Bible  in  Europe. 

McGiFFERT    (Professor  A.    C),  A 

History    of    Christianity  in    the 

Apostolic  Age. 
Mackay    (R.    W.),   The    Tubingen 

School. 

The  Progress  of  the  Intellect. 
Sketch  of  the  Rise  and  Pro- 


gress of  Christianity. 

Mackintosh  (W.),  The  Natural 
History  of  the  Christian  Religion. 

Macpherson  (Rev.  R.),  The  Resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ. 

Mansel  (Dean),  Gnostic  Heresies. 

Marchant  (James),  Theories  of  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Marsh  (Dr.  G.  W.  B.),  The  Resur- 
rection :  Is  it  a  Fact  ? 

Maetineau  (Rev.  J.),  Studies  of 
Christianity. 

The    Seat    of    Authority    in 

Religion. 

Mather  (Cotton),  The  Wonders  of 
the  Invisible  World. 

Maurice  (Rev.  F.  D.),  Theological 
Essays. 

Meredith  (E.  P.),  The  Prophet  of 
Nazareth. 

Meslier  (Jean),  Le  Bon  Sens  et 
Testament. 

Mill  (J.  S.),  Three  Essays  on  Reli- 
gion. 

Milligan  (Professor  W.),  The 
Resurrection  of  Our  Lord. 

MiLMAN  (Dean),  History  of  the  Jews. 

History  of  Latin  Christianity. 

MoMEEiE  (Dr.  a.  W.),  Immortality. 

Myers  (F.  W.),  Phantasms  of  the 
Living. 


314 


LIST  OF  WORKS  CONSULTED 


Neander  (J.  A.  W.),  Life  of  Jesus 

Christ. 
Nesbit  (E.  p.),  Christ,  Christians, 

and  Christianity. 
Neujiann  (Arno),  Jesus. 
Newman    (Cardinal),    Essays     on 

Miracles. 

The  Grammar  of  Assent. 

Newman  (F.  W.),  Christianity  in  its 

Cradle. 

Phases  of  Faith. 

Miscellanies. 

Oliphant  (Mrs.),  Jeanne  d'Arc. 

Orr  (Professor  James),  The  Super- 
natural in  Christianity. 

The  Christian  View  of  God  and 

the  World. 

Paine  (Thomas),  The  Age  of  Eeason. 

Paley  (Archdeacon),  Evidences  of 
Christianity. 

Parker  (Theodore),  A  Discourse  on 
Matters  Concerning  Keligion. 

Parsons  (J.  D.),  The  Non-Christian 
Cross. 

Paul  (H.  W.),  Matthew  Arnold. 

Pfleiderer  (Otto),  Paulinism. 

Christian  Origins. 

PiCTON  (J.  A.),  The  Religion  of 
Jesus. 

Podmore  (F.),  Studies  in  Psychical 
Research. 

Pressense  (E.  de),  Jesus  Christ. 

Pdrves  (Professor  G.  T.),  Chris- 
tianity in  the  Apostolic  Age. 

Reimarus,  Fragments  from.    Edited 

by  Rev.  C.  Voysey. 
Renan  (Ernest),  Life  of  Jesus. 

The  Apostles. 

St.  Paul. 

Antichrist. 

R^iviLLE  (A.),  Histoire  du  Dogme  de 

la  Divinite  de  J^sus-Christ. 

Jesus  de  Nazareth. 

The  Resurrection     of     Jesus. 

The  New  World,  1894. 
Rhees   (Professor   Rush),  Life   of 

Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
RoRBiNS    (Rev.    Wilford     L.),    A 

Christian  Apologetic. 


Robertson  (J.  M.),  Studies  in  Reli- 
gious Fallacy. 

A  Short  History  of  Christianity. 

Christianity  and  Mythology. 

Pagan  Christs. 


Robinson  (J.  Armitage),  A   Study 

of  the  Gospels. 
Some   Thoughts   on   Incarna- 


tion. 
Some  Thoughts  on  the  Apostles' 

Creed. 
Robinson  (Rev.  A.),  A  Study  of  the 

Saviour  in  the  New  Light. 
Row  (Rev.  C.  A.),  The  Jesus  of  the 

Evangelists. 
The  Supernatural  in  the  New 

Testament. 

The  Credentials  of  Christianity. 

The    Resurrection     of     Jesus 

Christ.     (Popular   Objections    to 

Revealed  Truth.) 

Sabatier  (L.  A.),  The  Apostle  Paul. 
Essai  sur  les  Sources  de  la  Vie 


de  J^sus. 

Sabatier  (Paul),  Life  of  St.  Francis 
of  Assisi. 

Salmond  (Professor  S.  D.  F.),The 
Christian  Doctrine  of  Immortality. 

Salvador  (J.),  Jesus-Christ  et  ses 
Doctrines. 

Sanday  (Professor  W.),  The 
Oracles  of  God. 

Inspiration. 

Art.  "  Jesus  Christ "  in  Hast- 
ings' Dictionary. 

SciiAFP  (Dr.  Philip),  History  of  the 
Christian  Religion, 

Schenkel  (D.),  a  Sketch  of  the 
Character  of  Jesus. 

Schmidt  (Professor  N.),  The 
Prophet  of  Nazareth. 

ScHMiEDEL  (Professor  P.  W.), 
Articles  "  Gospels  "  and  "  Resur- 
rection and  Ascension  Narratives  " 
in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica. 

Scott  (Thomas),  The  English  Life 
of  Jesus. 

Scott  (Sir  Walter),  Letters  on 
Demonology  and  Witchcraft. 

Sherlock  (Dr.  T.),  The  Tryal  of 
the  Witnesses. 


LIST  OF  WORKS  CONSULTED 


316 


Simpson  (W.  J.  Sparrow),  Our 
Lord's  Resurrection. 

Smith  (Professor  Gold  win),  In 
Quest  of  Light. 

Smith  (Rev.  Sydney,  S.J.),  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  on  the  Resurrec- 
tion.    The  Month,  June,  1889. 

Smith  (Dr.  W.),  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible. 

Smyth  (Newman),  Old  Faiths  in 
New  Light. 

Somerset  (Duke  of),  Christian 
Theology  and  Modern  Scepticism. 

Spencer  (Herbert),  Principles  of 
Sociology. 

Starbuck  (Professor  E.  D,),  The 
Psychology  of  Religion. 

Steinmeyer  (F.  L.),  History  of  the 
Passion  and  Resurrection  of  Our 
Lord. 

Strauss  (D.  F.),  The  Old  Faith  and 
the  New. 

Life  of  Jesus. 

Sully  (James),  Illusions. 

Sumner  (Archbishop),  The  Evi- 
dence of  Christianity. 

SwETE  (Professor  H.  B.),  The 
Apostles'  Creed. 

Tolstoy  (Leo),  La  Foi  Universelle. 
ToRREY  (R.  A,),  The  Divine  Origin 

of  the  Bible. 
TuRTON  (Major  W.  H.),  The  Truth 

of  Christianity. 
Tylor  (E.  B.),  Primitive  Culture. 
Tymms  (Rev.  T.  V.),  The  Mystery  of 

God. 


Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dog- 
matics. 

VicKERS  (John),  The  Real  Jesus. 

Vivian  (P.),  The  Churches  and 
Modern  Thought. 

Vizard  (P.  E.),  The  Resurrection  of 
Jesus. 

Voltaire,  Philosophical  Dictionary. 

VoYSEY  (Rev,  C),  The  Sling  and  the 
Stone.     (Theistic  Sermons.) 

Watson  (Bishop),  Apology  for  the 
Bible. 

Watts  (Charles),  The  Meaning  of 
Rationalism. 

Weiss  (Bernhard),  Life  of  Jesus. 

Weizsacker  (C.  von).  The  Apos- 
tolic Age  of  the  Christian  Church. 

West  (Gilbert),  Observations  on 
the  History  and  Evidence  of  the 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Westcott  (B.  F.,  Bishop  of 
Durham),  The  Historic  Faith. 

The  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection. 

Whately  (Archbishop)  ,  Historic 
Doubts  Relative  to  Napoleon 
Bonaparte. 

Wilson  (Rev.  C.  W.),  Some  Evi- 
dences for  the  Resurrection. 
(Christian  Apologetics,  1903.) 

WooLSTON  (T.),  A  Discourse  on  the 
Miracles  of  Our  Saviour. 

Wright  and  Neil,  A  Protestant 
Dictionary. 

Zeller  (Eduard),  The  Acts  of  the 

Apostles  Critically  Investigated. 
Zola  (Emile),  Lourdes. 


ANONYMOUS  AND  OTHER  WORKS 


As  Others  Saw  Him. 

The  Evidence  for  the  Resurrection 

of       Jesus       Christ      Critically 

Examined  (I860). 
Aids  to  Faith  (1861). 
Essays  and  Reviews  (1860). 
Contentio  Veritatis. 
Modern  Scepticism  (1872). 


Chambers'  Encyclopaedia. 

Hibbert  Journal. 

The  Jewish  Encyclopaedia. 

Rabbi  Jeshua. 

Easter  Sermons  (1835),  by  Barrow, 

South,  Tillotson,  Beveridge,  and 

others. 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Dr.  E.  A.,  80,  281,  293 
Acts,  Book  of,  5,  18,  19,  24-28,  37- 

39,  50,  51,  58,  64,  155,  163,  195- 

97,  203,  212,  240,  245,  284,  302, 

306 
Addeiiey,  Hon.    and   Rev.  J.,  158, 

159, 160,  161 
Alford,  Dean,  165 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  26,  27 
Ananias  of  Damascus,  38,  44,  45, 

50,  200 
Angels,  3,  217,  295 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  251 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  256-64,  301 
Apollos,  306 
Apostles,  35,  78,  79,  82,  85,  89,  135, 

149,  153,  155,  156,  271 
Aristeus,  285 
Aristides,  Apology  of,  100 
Arnold,  Matthew,  289,  290 
Ascension,  94-99,106, 133,  178,  258, 

301 
Ascension    of     Isaiah,     251,    252, 

298 
Assumption  of  Moses,  250 
Augustine,  101,  162,  223 
Authority,  291,  292 

Babel,  25 

Barnabas,  39,  54 

Baur,  F.  C,  231,  232 

Beeby,  Rev.  C.  E.,  270-75 

Benn,  A.  W. ,  230 

Blunt,  Rev.  J.  H.,  220,  221 

Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  308,  309 

Boswell,  C.  S.,  308 

Browne,  Bishop  Harold,  223,  293, 

294 
Bruce,  Prof.  A.  B.,  234 
Buddhism,  21,  105,  307 


Candlish,  Rev  A.  S.,  103 


Gary,  Rev.  G.  L.,  268-70 
Cerinthus,  222 
Chalmers,  Rev.  T.,  103 
Charles,  Rev.  R.  H.,  241-55 
Christian  Church,  148-52,  171 
Christian  Evidences,  155 
Christianity,  22,  41 
Clemens  Romanus,  100 
Clementine  Homilies,  66,  220,  221 
Cleopas,  6,  177,  215 
Clodd,  E.,  110 
Codex  Bobbiensis,  100 
Comforter,  80,  290 
Cone,  Dr.  0.,  267-68 
Constantine,  23,  24,  124,  287 
Corinthians,  161-63 
Cornelius,  94 
Cowper,  B.  H.,  257-64 
Cox,  Homersham,  150,  151 

Damascus,  37,  39,  45,  50 
Daniel,  Book  of,  63,  242,  247 
David,  26 
Davidson,   Rev.    S.,  98,   192,    198, 

266 
Denney,  Prof.  J.,  133 
Devils,  295 
Didache,  100 
Disciples,  14,  15,  17 
Docetffi,  220-24,  263 
Drummond ,  Professor  J. ,  235 

Easter,  13,  14 

Ebionites,  221 

Edersheim,  A.,  7, 103 

Edgar,  Rev.  R.  McC,  190 

Eginhard,  183-85 

Elijah,  117 

Ellicott,  Bishop,  61,  73 

Emmaus,    6,    175,    177,    215,   216, 

268,  275 
Empty  tomb,  114,  115,  281 


317 


318 


INDEX 


Encyclopadia  Biblica,  24,  84,   85, 

89,  92,  100,  115,  221,   224,  234, 
238,  239,  247-49,  250,  260,  2G1 

Enoch,  Book  of,  39,  238,  241-49, 

251,  254,  255,  303 
Essenes,  169,  209,  235 
Eusebius,  124,  146 
Evidence,  11-13,  15,  186-88,  210, 

211 
Ewald,  H.,217,  275-79 

Fairbairn,  Professor  A.  M.,  103 
Farrar,  Dean,  103,  297 
Fillingham,  Eev.  E.  C,  213 
Finney,  President,  287,  288 
First    century,    characteristics    of, 

1-6,  48,  207 
First  Christians,  152-54 
Five  hundred  persons,  appearance 

to,  33,  120,  121 
Forrest,  D.  W.,  272 
Forty  days,  114,  115,  202,  203 
Fox,  George,  190 

Galatians,  Epistle  to,  196,  197 
GaHlee,  4,  90,  91,  101,  304,  305 
Gardiner,  Colonel,  274 
Gardner,  Dr.  Percy,  5,  30,  64,  97, 

137,  197,  199,  202,  280,  281 
Genesis,  25 
Gibbon,  E.,  23 
Gilbert,  Professor  G.  H.,  37 
Giles,  Dr.  J.  A.,  145 
Gnostics  and  Gnosticism,  138,  220, 

221 
Godet,  F.,  212 
Gospel  of  Hebrews,  181,  261 
Graetz,  Professor,  20,  209,  221,  234 

Harnack,  a.,  97,  114,  130 

Harris,   Professor    J.  Eendel,   262, 

263 
Hastinf)s^s  Dictionary/  of  the  Bible, 

90,  104,  133,  236,  238,  242 
Hausrath,  A.,72,  81,242 
Hell,  22,  109 

Hennell,  C.  C,  122 
Henson,  Canon  H.  H.,  280 
Hennas,  100 
Herod,  116 
Hilary,  St.,  101 
Homer,  53 


Hosea,  119,  290 
Hume,  D.,  77 

Huxley,  Professor  T.  H.,  183-85, 
190 

Ignatius,  100 
Inge,  Eev.  W.  E.,  226 
Irenaeus,  100,  222 
Isaiah,  9,  247,  249 

Jairus,  daughter  of,  117 

James,  40,  181,  182,  202,  211,  212, 
261 

James,  Professor  W. ,  287,  288 

Jerusalem,  4,  9,  39,  117 

Jesus,  most  credible  passages  relat- 
ing to,  3;  deity  of,  111;  alleged 
predictions  of  death  and  resur- 
rection, 118,  120;  sinlessness  of, 
205  ;  unique  character  of,  208 

the  son  of  Sirach,  53 

Jewish  Encyclopedia,  235,  237,  238 

Jewish  Law,  45,  53,  149 

Joan  of  Arc,  85,  109,  190 

John  the  Apostle,  168,  181,  211, 
212,  217 

the  Baptist,  116,  209,  301,  306 

Epistles  of,  221 

Gospel  according  to,  5,  33,  80, 

92,   98,    113,    145-47,  167,    176, 
216-20,  225,  244,  245,  278,  279, 
282,  289,  300,  302,  304 
of  Jerusalem,  St.,  101 


Joseph  of  Arimathea,  257-59 
Jowett,  Professor  B.,  21 
Jubilees,  Book  of,  250 
Judaism,  conversions  to,  20 
Judas  Iscariot,  25,  32,  66 
Jude,  241 
Justin  Martyr,  23, 100 

Keim,    C.   T.,    97,    213,   267,   283, 

284-86 
Kennedy,  Eev.  J.,  103,  186-214 

Lange,  J.  P.,  103,  138 
Latham,  Eev.  H.,  103,  167-83 
Lazarus,  117,  170 
Lewis,  SirG.  C,  186-88 
Liddon,  Canon,  78 
Louis,  St.,  304 
Lourdes,  191 


INDEX 


319 


Luke,  4-8,  33,  90-92,  95-99,   113, 
116, 118, 141, 145-47, 175-78, 202, 

203,  212,  215-18,  252,  269 
Luther,  199 

Macan,  E.  W.,  78,  79,  85,  86,  97-99 
Maccabasus,  Judas,  244,  264,  285 
Maccabees,  Book  of,  250,  251 
McGiffert,    Dr.   A.   C,    199,    219, 

233 
Mackay,  E.  W.,  81,  220 
Mackintosh,  W.,  51,  52.  54-56,  61- 

63,  82,  216,  228-30 
Macpherson,  Eev.  E. ,  103 
Manichaeans,  99 
Mansel,  Dean,  73,  221 
Marcion,  222 
Mark,  2,  3,  90,  91,  98,  100,  113, 116, 

118,  145,  146,  181,  215,  269,  295 
Marsh,  Dr.  G.  W.  B.,  225 
Martineau,  Eev.  J.,  236,  237,  240 
Mary  Magdalene,  98,  267 
Mary  the  Mother  of  Jesus,  111 
Massey,  Gerald,  221 
Matthew,  4,  10,  33,  90,  91,  98,  113, 

116,  118,  145-47,  176,   201,  202, 

216,  217,  218,  243-45,  250,  257, 

269,  295 
Matthias,  32,  66 
Meredith,  E.  P.,  169 
Messiah   and   Messianic   Kingdom, 

54,  82,   119,   125,   149,  205,  232, 

233, 235-40, 242-50,  252,  253,  255, 

264,  265,  269,  277,  278,  286,  291, 

300,  302,  303 
Messiahshipof  Jesus,  17,  20,  78, 149, 

151,  234-36 
Mill,  J.  S.,  87 
Milligan,  Eev.  W.,  103, 134-36, 139- 

48,  151-58,  163-66,  172 
Milman,  Dean,  190 
Miracles,  12,  16,  18,  19,  21,  188-90, 

204,  295,  296 
Mithraism,  21 
Mohammed,  109,  208,  285 
Mohammedanism,  106 
Momerie,  Eev.  A.  W.,  283 
Moody,  D.  L.,  110 
Mormonism,  115 

Moses,  9 

Mozley,  Canon,  190 

Myths  of  Resurrection,  807-309 


Neander,  96,  103,  256 
Nesbit,  E.  P.,  169,  297,  298 
New  Testament,  82,  300 
Newman,  Prof.  F.  W.,  292 
Nicodemus,  98 
Gospel  of,  257-60 

Old  Testament,  5,  7,  9,  31,  114, 141, 
216,  219,  239,  267,  268,  302,  306 
Origen,  101 
Originistee,  99 
Orr,  Professor  J.,  114 

Paley,  Archdeacon,  103 

Papal  infallibility.  111 

Papias,  145 

Parsons,  J.  D.,  124 

Paul,  on  appearance  to  Peter,  8 ; 
statements  of  resurrection,  14, 
29,  31,  32,  282 ;  willing  to  lie  for 
glory  of  God,  16;  exertions  of, 
23 ;  appearance  to,  35 ;  its 
visionary  and  subjective  char- 
acter, 35-37,  58  :  his  conversion, 
37,  38,  50,  53-62,  65,  164,  165, 
192-94,  198,  199,  266,  268,  273, 
280,  285,  287 ;  his  relations  with 
Peter,  40 ;  visits  to  Jerusalem, 
43,  91  ;  apparent  doubts,  43 ; 
trance  at  Jerusalem,  46  ;  his  per- 
sonality, 49 ;  claims  to  Aposto- 
late  disputed,  66 ;  ambiguous 
language,  68-72,  230,  284  ;  sub- 
jective elements,  82,  85-87 ; 
ignorance  of  evidence,  92 ;  ignores 
ascension,  97 ;  appearance  of 
Jesus  visionary,  99, 100 ;  reference 
to  the  five  hundred,  121-23  ;  on 
spiritual  body,  136,  294  ;  doubtful 
support  of  bodily  resurrection, 
153  ;  would  not  stand  cross-exami- 
nation, 156;  on  resurrection  of 
human  beings,  158,  159 ;  im- 
portance of  his  evidence,  158 ; 
his  arguments  for  the  resurrec- 
tion, 159,  160-63  ;  his  visions, 
164  ;  his  intelligence  and  veracity, 
187  ;  temperament,  198 ;  actual 
knowledge  of  resurrection,  200, 
201 ;  identified  with  Simon 
Magus,  221 ;  refers  to  Gnostics, 
221;     familiar     with    Book     of 


320 


INDEX 


Enoch,  242,  243,  246  ;  personal 
knowleclp;e  of  Jesus,  297 

Pearson,  Bishop,  293 

Pentecost,  9,  20,  33,  79,  164,  279 

Peter,  7,  8,  9,  25,  32,  36,  40,  46,  74, 
91,  93,  94,  146,  153,  177,  181, 
211,  212,  215,  216,  268,  269 

Gospel  of,  100,  261-63 

Pfieiderer,  Professor  O.,  54 

Philetians,  222 

Philo,  21,  39,  53,  242,  249 

Pilate,  261 

Pistis  Sophia,  298 

Plato,  21,  53 

Plutarch,  307 

Podmore,  ¥.,  130 

Poly  carp,  100 

Predisposition  to  belief  in  resur- 
rection, 115-17 

Pressense,  E.,  103 

Psalms  of  Solomon,  248 

Purves,  Professor  G.  T. ,  136 

Reimarus,  176 

Eenan,E.,  303,  304 

Eevelation,  Book  of,  166,  246,  249, 

252 
Reville,  A. ,  83,  89,  99,  234,  270-72 
Kipon,  Dean  of,  281 
Robertson,  J.  M.,  3,  29,  307 
Robinson,  Rev.  A.,  282 
Roman  Empire,  21 
Row,  Rev.  C.  A.,  41,  68,  103 

Sabatier,  A.,  283 
Sabbath,  111 
Sadducees,  223 

Salraond,  Professor  S.  D.  F.,  103 
Sanday,  Professor  W.,  89,  97, 104-6 
Schaff,  Rev.  P.,  51,  99,  293 
Schmidt,  Professor  N.,  30 
Schmiedel,  Professor  P.  W.,  3,  24, 

83,  84,  99,  129,  130 
Scott,  SirW.,  124-29 
Second  coming  of  Jesus,  81 
Seneca,  53 
Simon  Magus,  220 
Smith,  Rev.  S.  F.,184,  185 
Smyth,  Rev.  Newman,  283 
Solomon,  Wisdom  of,  53,  250 
Psalms  of,  53 


Son  of  Man,  242-47 

Southcott,  Joanna,  191 

Spiritual  body,  88,    136,  137,   172, 

173,  293,  294 
Spiritualism,  137 
Spurgeon,  Rev.  C.  H.,  272,  273 
Stanton,  Rev.  V.  H.,  236,  238 
Steinmeyer,  F.  L.,  175 
Stephen,  51,  87, 166 
Stevenson,  R.  L. ,  11,  49 
Strauss,  D.  F.,  131,  230,209 
Subjective  element  in  visions,  129, 

1.32 
Supernatural  Religion,  65,  67,  68, 

77,  164,  223 
Swedenborg,  E.,  190,  198 
Swete,  Professor  H.,  73 
Swoon  theory,  296 

Testimony,  41,  42,  43,  76,  77,  111, 

121,  183 
Theudas,  24 

Thirty-nine  Articles,  292 
Thomas,  178,  179,  211,  284 
Tischendorf,  261 
Tradition,  143 

Transfiguration,  87,  88,  89-90,  174 
Trinity,  111 

Turton,  Major  W.  H.,  137 
Tymms,  Rev.  T.  V.,  231 

Valentinus,  222,  298 

Van  Manen,  74 

Visions,  130,  227,  273,  274,  286,  287 

Vision  Theory,  104,  105,   213,   267, 

270,  271,  283,  300 
Vizard,  P.  E.,  297 
Voysey,  Rev.  C,  10 

Weizsacker.C.  von,  36,  90, 193, 196 

Wesley,  John,  162 

West,  Gilbert,  103,  134 

Westcott,  Bishop,  87,  103,  107,  108, 
112,  114,  115,  117,  119,  120,  124, 
130,  131-33,  170-72,  226 

Woolston,  T.,  101 

Zacharias,  301 
Zerubbabel,  10 
Zola,  E.,  55,  191 


tETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

ro— ^      202  Main  Library 

OAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                                3 

\ 

5                                6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

C  27  1982 a^ 

r" 

■>.^zni  y<7j'2 

-$;/.  y'J.mi 

?h  7/  ^  .1 

1       ^  1 

tecMcircWftHl' 

1983 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  12/80        BERKELEY,  CA  94720 

®$ 

U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDDSDbbabT 


1