{485}
apparition, the sepulchre was found empty and the body gone, not only may it be replied that this very circ.u.mstance may have a.s.sisted in producing a subjective vision, but that, in so far as the disappearance of the body is connected with the appearance of the person apparently alive, the fact has no evidential value. The person supposed to be dead, for instance, may actually not have been so, but have revived; for, although we have no intention ourselves of adopting this explanation of the Resurrection, it is, as an alternative, certainly preferable to belief in the miracle. Or, in the interval, the body may have been removed from a temporary to a permanent resting place unknown to those who are surprised to find the body gone;--and in the Gospels the conflicting accounts of the embalming and hasty burial, as we have seen, would fully permit of such an argument if we relied at all on those narratives. Many other means of accounting for the absence of the body might be advanced, any one of which, in the actual default of testimony to the contrary, would be irrefutable. The mere surprise of finding a grave empty which was supposed to contain a body betrays a blank in the knowledge of the persons, which can only be naturally filled up. This gap, at least, would not have existed had the supposed resurrection occurred in the presence of those by whom it is a.s.serted Jesus "was seen." As it is, no evidence whatever is offered that Jesus really died; no evidence that the sepulchre was even found empty; no evidence that the dead body actually arose and became alive again; but skipping over the intermediate steps, the only evidence produced is the statement that, being supposed to be dead, he is said to have been seen by certain persons.(1)
{486}
There is a peculiarity in the statement to which we must now refer. The words, "according to the Scriptures" [------] are twice introduced into the brief recapitulation of the teaching which Paul had received and delivered: (1) "That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," and (3) "that he has been raised the third day according to the Scriptures." It is evident that mere historical tradition has only to do with the fact "that Christ died," and that the object: "for our sins," is a dogmatic addition. The Scriptures supply the dogma. In the second point, the appeal to Scripture is curious, and so far important as indicating that the resurrection on the third day was supposed to be a fulfilment of prophecy; and we have thus an indication, regarding which we must hereafter speak, of the manner in which the belief probably originated. The double reference to the Scriptures is peculiarly marked, and we have already more than once had occasion to point out that the narratives of the Gospels betray the very strong and constant influence of parts of the Old Testament supposed to relate to the Messiah. It cannot, we think, be doubted by any independent critic, that the details of these narratives were to a large extent traced from those prophecies. It is in the highest degree natural to suppose that the early Christians, once accepting the idea of a suffering Messiah, should, in the absence of positive or minute knowledge, a.s.sume that prophecies which they believed to have reference to him should actually have been fulfilled, and that in fact the occurrences corresponded minutely with the prophecies. Too little is known of what really took place, and it is
{487}
probable that Christian tradition generally was moulded from foregone conclusions.
What were the "Scriptures," according to which "Christ died for our sins," and "has been raised the third day?" The pa.s.sages which are generally referred to, and which Paul most probably had in view, are well known: as regards the death for our sins,--Isaiah liii., Ps. xxii.
and lxix,; and for the resurrection,--Ps. xvi. 10, and Hosea vi. 2. We have already pointed out that historical criticism has shown that the first four pa.s.sages just indicated are not Messianic prophecies at all,(1) and we may repeat that the idea of a suffering Messiah was wholly foreign to the Jewish prophets and people. The Messiah "crucified," as Paul himself bears witness, was "to Jews a stumbling block,"(2) and modern criticism has clearly established that the parts of Scripture by which the early Christians endeavoured to show that such a Messiah had been foretold can only be applied by a perversion of the original signification. In the case of the pa.s.sages supposed to foretell the Resurrection, the misapplication is particularly flagrant. We have already discussed the use of Ps. xvi. 10, which in Acts(3) is put into the mouth of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and shown that the proof pa.s.sage rests upon a mistranslation of the original in the Septuagint.(4) Any reader who will refer to Hosea vi. 2 will see that the pa.s.sage in no way applies to the Messiah,(5) although undoubtedly it has influenced the formation of the doctrine
{488}
of the Resurrection. The "sign of the prophet Jonah," which in Mt. xii.
40 is put into the mouth of Jesus is another pa.s.sage used with equal incorrectness, and a glimpse of the manner in which Christian tradition took shape, and the Gospels were composed, may be obtained by comparing with the pa.s.sage in the first Synoptic the parallel in the third (xi. 29--31).(1) We shall have more to say presently regarding the resurrection" on the third day."
We may now proceed to examine the so-called "very circ.u.mstantial account of the testimony on which the belief in the Resurrection rested." "And that he was seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve. After that he was seen by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the Apostles, and last of all he was seen by me also."(2) There can be no doubt, we think, from the terms in which this statement is made, that Paul intended to give the appearances in chronological order.(3) It would likewise be a fair inference that he intended to mention all the appearances of which he was aware. So far, the account may possibly merit the epithet "circ.u.mstantial," but in all other respects it is scarcely possible to conceive any statement less circ.u.mstantial. As to where the risen Jesus was seen by these persons, in what manner, and under what circ.u.mstances, and at what time, we are not vouchsafed a single particular. Moreover, the Apostle was not
{489}
present on any of these occasions, excepting of course his own vision, and consequently merely reports appearances of which he has been informed by others, but he omits to mention the authority upon which he makes these statements, or what steps he took to ascertain their accuracy and reality. For instance, when Jesus is said to have been seen by five hundred brethren at once, it would have been of the highest importance for us to know the exact details of the scene, the proportion of inference to fact, the character of the Apostle"s informant, the extent of the investigation into the various impressions made upon the individuals composing the five hundred, as opposed to the collective affirmation. We confess that we do not attach much value to such appeals to the experience of 500 persons at once. It is difficult to find out what the actual experience of the individuals was, and each individual is so apt to catch the infection of his neighbour, and join in excitement, believing that, though he does not himself see or feel anything, his neighbour does, that probably, when inquiry is pressed home, the aggregate affirmation of a large number may resolve itself into the actual experience of very few. The fact is, however, that in this "very circ.u.mstantial account" we have nothing whatever except a mere catalogue by Paul of certain appearances which he did not himself see--always excepting his own vision, which we reserve--but merely had "received" from others, without a detail or information of any kind.
If we compare these appearances with the instances recorded in the Gospels, the result is by no means satisfactory. The first appearance is said to be to Cephas. It is argued that Paul pa.s.ses in silence over the appearances to women, both because the testimony of women was
{490}
not received in Jewish courts, and because his own opinions regarding the active partic.i.p.ation of women in matters connected with the Church were of a somewhat exclusive character.(1) The appearance to Cephas is generally identified with that mentioned, Luke xxiv. 34.(2) Nothing could be more cursory than the manner in which this appearance is related in the Synoptic. The disciples from Emmaus, returning at once to Jerusalem, found the Eleven and those who were with them saying: "The Lord was raised indeed, and was seen by Simon." Not another syllable is said regarding an appearance which, according to Paul, was the first which had occurred. The other Gospels say still less, for they ignore the incident altogether. It is difficult to find room for such an appearance in the Gospel narratives. If we take the report of Paul to be true, that Jesus was first seen by Cephas, the silence of three Evangelists and their contradictory representations, on the one hand, and the remarkable way in which the third Gospel avoids all but the mere indirect reference to the occurrence, on the other, are phenomena which we leave apologists to explain.(3)
He is next seen "by the Twelve." This vision is identified with that narrated in John xx. 19 flf. and Luke xxiv. 36 ff,,(4) to which, as Thomas was absent on the first occasion, some critics understand the episode in John xx. 2C if. to be added. On reference to our discussion of
{491}
these accounts, it will be seen that they have few or no elements of credibility. If the appearance to the Twelve mentioned by Paul be identified with these episodes, and their details be declared authentic, the second item in Paul"s list becomes discredited.
The appearance to 500 brethren at once is not mentioned in any of the Gospels, but critics, and especially apologetic critics, a.s.sert with more or less of certainty the ident.i.ty of the occasion with the scene described in Matth. xxviii. 16 ff.(1) We remarked whilst discussing the pa.s.sage that this is based chiefly on the statement that "some doubted,"
which would have been inconsistent, it is thought, had Jesus already appeared to the Eleven.(2) The ident.i.ty is, however, denied by others.3 The narrative in the first Synoptic would scarcely add force to the report in the Epistle. Is it possible to suppose, however, that, had there been so large a number of persons collected upon that occasion, the Evangelist would not have mentioned the fact? On the other hand, does it not somewhat discredit the statement that Jesus was seen by so large a number at once, that no record of such a remarkable occurrence exists elsewhere?(4) How could the tradition of such an event, witnessed by so many, have so completely perished that neither in the Gospels nor Acts,
{492}
nor in any other writing, is there any reference to it, and our only knowledge of it is this bare statement, without a single detail? There is only one explanation: that the a.s.sembly could not have recognized in the phenomenon, whatever it was, the risen Jesus,(1) or that subsequently an explanation was given which dispelled some temporary illusion. In any case, we must insist that the total absence of all confirmation of an appearance to 500 persons at once alone renders such an occurrence more than suspicious. The statement that the greater number were still living when Paul wrote does not materially affect the question. Paul doubtless believed the report that such an appearance had taken place, and that the majority of witnesses still survived, but does it necessarily follow that the report was true? The survivors were certainly not within reach of the Corinthians, and could not easily be questioned. The whole of the argument of Paul which we are considering, as well as that which follows, was drawn from him by the fact that, in Corinth, Christians actually denied a resurrection, and it is far from clear that this denial did not extend to denying the Resurection of Jesus himself.(2) That they did deny this we think certain, from the care with which Paul gives what he considers evidence for the fact.
Another point may be mentioned. Where could so many as 500 disciples have been collected at one time? The author of Acts states (i. 15) the number of the Christian community gathered together to elect a successor to Judas as "about 120." Apologists, therefore, either suppose the appearance to 500 to have taken place in Jerusalem, when numbers of pilgrims
{493}
from Galilee and other parts were in the Holy City, or that it occurred in Galilee itself, where they suppose believers to have been more numerous.(1) This is the merest conjecture; and there is not even ground for a.s.serting that there were so many as 500 brethren in any one place, by whom Jesus could have been seen.
The appearance to James is not mentioned in any of our Gospels. Jerome preserves a legend from the Gospel of the Hebrews, which states that James, after having drunk the cup of the Lord, swore that he would not eat bread until he should see him risen from the dead. When Jesus rose, therefore, he appeared to James; and, ordering a table and bread to be brought, blessed and broke the bread, and gave it to James.(2) Beyond this legendary story there is no other record of the report given by Paul. The occasion on which he was seen by "all the Apostles" is indefinite, and cannot be identified with any account in the Gospels.
It is a.s.serted, however, that, although Paul does not state from whom he "received" the report of these appearances of the risen Jesus, he must have heard them from the Apostles themselves. At any rate, it is added, Paul professes that his preaching on the death, burial, and Resurrection is the same as that of the other Apostles.(3) That the other Apostles preached the resurrection of Jesus may be a fact, but we have no information as to the precise statements they made. We shall presently discuss the doctrine from this point of view, but here we must confine ourselves to Paul. It is undeniable that Paul
{494}
neither enters into details nor cites authority for the particular appearances which he mentions. As for the inference that, a.s.sociating with the Apostles, he must have been informed by them of the appearances of Jesus, we may say that this by no means follows so clearly as is supposed. Paul was singularly independent, and in his writings he directly disclaims all indebtedness to the elder Apostles. He claims that his Gospel is not after man, nor was it taught to him by man, but through revelation of Jesus Christ(1) Now Paul himself informs us of his action after it pleased G.o.d to reveal his Son in him that he might preach him among the Gentiles. It might, indeed, have been reasonably expected that Paul should then have sought out those who could have informed him of all the extraordinary occurrences supposed to have taken place after the death of Jesus. Paul does nothing of the kind. He is apparently quite satisfied with his own convictions. "Immediately,"
he says, in his wondrously human and characteristic letter to the Galatians, "I communicated not with flesh and blood; neither went I away to Jerusalem to them who were Apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and abode with him fifteen days; but other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the brother of the Lord.
Now the things which I write, behold before G.o.d I lie not.... Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem,"(2)--upon which occasion, we know, his business was not of a nature to allow us to suppose he obtained much information regarding the Resurrection. We may ask: Is there that thirst for information
{495}
regarding the facts and doctrines of Christianity displayed here, which ent.i.tles us to suppose that Paul eagerly and minutely investigated the evidence for them? We think not. Paul made up his own mind in his own way and, having waited three years without asking a question, it is not probable that the questions which he then asked were of any searching nature. The protest that he saw none of the other Apostles may prove his independence, but it certainly does not prove his anxiety for information. When Paul went up to make the acquaintance of Cephas his object clearly was not to be taught by him, but to place himself in communication with the man whom he believed to be the chief of the Apostles and, we may a.s.sume, largely with a view to establish a friendly feeling, and secure his recognition of his future ministry. We should not, of course, be justified in affirming that the conversation between the two great Apostles never turned upon the subject of the Resurrection, but we think that it is obvious that Paul"s visit was not in the least one of investigation. He believed; he believed that certain events had occurred "according to the Scriptures;" and the legitimate inference from Paul"s own statements must be that, in this visit after three years, his purpose was in no way connected with a search for evidential information. The author of Acts, it will be remembered, represents him as, before any visit to Jerusalem, publicly and boldly preaching in Damascus that Jesus is the Son of G.o.d, and "confounding the Jews.... proving that this is the Christ."(1) This representation, it will be admitted, shows an advanced condition of belief little supporting the idea of subsequent investigation. When all conjectures are exhausted, however, we have the one distinct fact
{496}
remaining, that Paul gives no authority for his report that Jesus was seen by the various persons mentioned, nor does he furnish any means by which we can judge of the nature and reality of the alleged phenomena.
We continue here to speak of the appearances to others, reserving the appearance to himself, as standing upon a different basis, for separate examination.
What is the value of this evidence? The fact to be proved is that, after a man had been crucified, dead, and buried, he actually rose from the dead, and appeared alive to many persons. The evidence is that Paul, writing some twenty years after the supposed miraculous occurrences, states, without detailed information of any kind, and without pretending to have himself been an eyewitness of the phenomena, that he has been told that Jesus was, after his death and burial, seen alive on the occasions mentioned! As to the Apostle Paul himself, let it be said in the strongest and most emphatic manner possible that we do not suggest the most distant suspicion of the sincerity of any historical statement he makes. We implicitly accept the historical statements, as distinguished from inferences, which proceed from his pen. It cannot be doubted that Paul was told that such appearances had taken place. We do not question the fact that he believed them to have taken place; and we shall hereafter discuss the weight to be attached to this circ.u.mstance.
Does this, however, guarantee the truth of the reports or inferences of those who informed the Apostle? Does the mere pa.s.sage of any story or tradition through Paul necessarily trans.m.u.te error into truth--self-deception or hallucination into objective fact? Are we--without any information as to what was really stated to Paul, as to the personality and character of his
{497}
informants, as to the details of what was believed, to have occurred, as to the means taken or which it might have been possible to take to test the reality of the alleged phenomena, without an opportunity of judging for ourselves on a single point--to believe in the reality of these appearances simply because Paul states that he has been informed that they occurred, and himself believes the report?
So far as the belief of Paul is concerned, we may here remark that his views as to the miraculous Charismata in the Church do not prepare us to feel any confidence in the sobriety of his judgment in connection with alleged supernatural occurrences. We have no reliance upon his instinctive mistrust of such statements, or his imperative requirement of evidence, but every reason to doubt them. On the other hand, without in any way imputing wilful incorrectness or untruth to the reporters of such phenomena, let it be remembered how important a part inference has to play in the narrative of every incident, and how easy it is to draw erroneous inferences from bare facts.(1) In proportion as persons are ignorant, on the one hand, and have their minds disturbed, on the other, by religious depression or excitement, hope, fear, or any other powerful emotion, they are liable to confound facts and inferences, and both to see and a.n.a.lyse wrongly. In the case of a supposed appearance
1 We may merely in pa.s.sing refer to the case of Mary Magdalene in the fourth Gospel. She sees a figure standing beside her, and infers that it is the gardener:--presently something else occurs which leads her to infer that she was mistaken in her first inference, and to infer next, that it is Jesus. It is a narrative upon which no serious argument can be based, but had she at first turned away, her first inference would have remained, and, according to the narrative, have been erroneous. We might also argue that, if further examination had taken place, her second inference might have proved as erroneous as the first is declared to have been.
{498}
alive of a person believed to be dead, it will scarcely be disputed, there are many disturbing elements, especially when that person has just died by a cruel and shameful death, and is believed to be the Messiah.
The occurrence which we at any time see is, strictly speaking, merely a series of appearances, and the actual nature of the thing seen is determined in our minds by inferences. How often are these inferences correct? We venture to say that the greater part of the proverbial incorrectness and inaccuracy which prevails arises from the circ.u.mstance that inferences are not distinguished from facts, and are constantly erroneous. Now in that age, under such circ.u.mstances, and with Oriental temperaments, it is absolutely certain that there was exceptional liability to error; and the fact that Paul repeats the statements of unknown persons, dependent so materially upon inference, cannot possibly warrant us in believing them when they contradict known laws which express the results of universal experience. It is infinitely more probable that these persons were mistaken, than that a dead man returned to life again, and appeared to them. We shall presently consider how much importance is to be attached to the mere belief in the occurrence of such phenomena, but with regard to the appearances referred to by Paul, except in so far as they attest the fact that certain persons may have believed that Jesus appeared to them, such evidence has not the slightest value, and is indeed almost ludicrously insufficient to establish the reality of so stupendous a miracle as the Resurrection.
It will have been observed that of the Ascension there is not a word--obviously, for Paul the Resurrection and Ascension were one act.
Having so far discussed Paul"s report that Jesus rose
{499}
from the dead and was seen by others, we turn to his statement that, last of all, he was seen also by himself. In the former cases, we have had to complain of the total absence of detailed information as to the circ.u.mstances under which he was supposed to have been seen; but it may be expected that, at least in his own case, we shall have full and minute particulars of so interesting and extraordinary a phenomenon.
Here again we are disappointed. Paul does not give us a single detail.
He neither tells us when, where, nor how he saw Jesus. It was all the more important that he should have entered into the particulars of this apparition, because there is one peculiarity in his case which requires notice. Whereas it may be supposed that in the other instances Jesus is represented as being seen immediately after the Resurrection and before his Ascension, the appearance to Paul must be placed years after that occurrence is alleged to have taken place. The question, therefore, arises: Was the appearance to Paul of the same character as the former?
Paul evidently considers that it was. He uses the very same word when he says "he was seen [------] by me," that he employs in stating that "he was seen [------] by Cephas" and the rest, and he cla.s.ses all the appearances together in precisely the same way. If, therefore, Paul knew anything of the nature of the appearances to the others, and yet considers them to have been of the same nature as his own, an accurate account of his own vision might have enabled us in some degree to estimate that of the others. Even without this account, it is something to know that Paul believed that there was no difference between the earlier and later appearances. And yet, if we reflect that in the appearances immediately after the Resurrection the representation is that Jesus possessed the very same body that had
{500}
hung on the cross and been laid in the sepulchre, and that, according to the Gospels, he exhibited his wounds, allowed them to be touched, a.s.sured the disciples of his corporeality by permitting himself to be handled, and even by eating food in their presence, and that in the case of Paul the appearance took place years after Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of G.o.d, the ident.i.ty of the apparitions becomes a suggestive feature.
The testimony of Paul must at least override that of the Gospels, and whatever may have been the vision of Paul, we may fairly a.s.sume that the vision of Peter and the rest was like it. Beyond this inference, however, Paul gives us no light with regard to the appearance of Jesus to himself. He merely affirms that Jesus did appear to him. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" he says in one place.(1) Elsewhere he relates: "But when he was pleased, who set me apart from my mother"s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately, I communicated not with flesh and blood.... but I went away into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus."(2) Various opinions have been expressed regarding the rendering of [------].