Resurrection of Jesus Christ : an historical fact, with an examination of naturalistic hypotheses /

Front matter

JOHN KENNEDY, M.A., I). D.

' I

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Chapter I. Fage

What we mean by the Resurrection of Christ . . . 9

What tests shall we apply to a Historic fact ? . . .11

Is the Supernatural ipso facto unhistorical ? . .11

The duty of science to ascertain facts . . . .12

The Resurrection not to be rejected on abstract grounds . 13

Dr. Thomas Arnold on Historic evidence . . . 1 5

Sir George Cornewall Lewis on same . . .16

Canon Rawlinson on same . . . . .18

Mr. Isaac Taylor on same . . . . .21

Demonstration not applicable . . . . 23

Dr. Whately’s “Historic Doubts” . . . -23

Illustration from Dr. Johnson . . . .23

The amount of evidence cannot be pre-determined . . 24

Historic documents on which we rely . . . *25

Four Epistles by Paul . . . . . 25

The Four Gospels . . . . . .26

Even if of later origin . . . . .28

The Acts of the Apostles . . . . .30

Paley’s Horcz Paulina . . . . . 31

No radical difference between Peter and Paul . . *32

CHAPTER II. The testimony of Paul partly personal and partly secondary . 34

His words quoted . . . . . <35

Significant points inferred . . . . .38

Paul’s testimony : What and Who ? . . . *39

Contents .

viii

FAGS

Renan on character of Paul’s Writings . . .40

The Author of “ Supernatural Religion” on Paul . . 40

How he would reduce the value of Paul’s testimony . *41

Paley and Lord Lyttelton . . . . . 41

Paul not careless or indifferent as to evidence . . .44

The Author of “ Supernatural Religion ” answered by himself 46 Keim more appreciative . . . . .48

Paul’s own averment of sincerity . . . . 51

Paul’s personal testimony . . . . ,52

Story of his Conversion three times told . . *53

Differences and Harmony . . . . .54

The form in which Christ appeared to Paul . . . 56

Could Paul be mistaken? . . . . *57

Was he given to seeing Visions? . . . . 58

The attempt to explain Paul’s conversion on natural prin¬ ciples examined . . . . . *59

1. No evidence of mental struggle . . -59

2. The idea of convulsions scouted . . .60

3. Misuse of the word “ Vision ” . . .61

4. Paul’s “seeing Christ ’’not to be confounded with ■

his “Visions” . . . . .63

Baur’s acknowledgment . . . . .64

CHAPTER IIL

The words of the Apostle recalled . . . *65

Some preliminary objections . . . . .65

1. The Appearances to the Apostles and to Paul of

the same character . . . .66

How far this is true . . . .66

But the differences . . . -67

2. Paul was only “told” that Jesus had appeared to

3. Paul gives us no particulars . . .68

Paul’s statements reviewed . . . . .69

1. He was seen of Cephas . . . .69

Christ’s Resurrection a constant and ruling idea in

Peter’s mind . . . . .70

2. “Then of the Twelve” . . . *73

3. Seen by Five hundred . . . -73

Matthew’s Eleven in Galilee . . . 74

No attempt to make out a case . . *75

4. Seen by James . . . . *75

5. Then of all the Apostles . . . *76

Contents.

IX

PAGE

The principles of Dr. Arnold and Sir G. Cornewall Lewis

The testimony of Paul to be dated from the period of his

conversion . . . . . , 78

Chapter IV

me mstimcmt) of the (gospels artii ef the Jlcts.

The passages which contain this testimony

The end of Luke and beginning of Acts compared

Summary of the facts recorded

Probable order of the appearances

The Disciples going to Emmaus

The same evening in Jerusalem . .

One week after, Thomas being present

“ My Lord and my God ” .

By the Sea of Tiberias

Two things to be noted of all these appearances (a) Something Supernatural Explanations (1 b ) Evidence of Identity

Corporeal and Mental . .

88 89

92 92 94 94

CHAPTER V. doiToborntitic (Ebibciuc.

We admit that so extraordinary a fact needs extraordinary

Mere prodigies scarce worth study . . . .98

The Resurrection of Christ has many relations and bearings . 9S I. — The wonderful change in the Apostles . . .99

Dates from “the Third Day” . . . .99

Illustrated in history of Peter .... loo The Resurrection alone not the cause . . .101

IT. — The place of the Resurrection in Christianity . . 103

1, Its Foundation ..... 103

The “Fact” not the mere “Belief” in it the

foundation ..... 104

If “ Belief ” merely, what follows ? . . . 106

Dr. Caipenter’s distinction between the Resurrection

and other miracles .... 107

2. Incorporated with both the historic and doctrinal

teaching of the Apostles . . . 108

Its reflex light on the Supernatural Life . . 108

X

Contents.

The miraculous birth and the sinless character Reflex light on the work of Christ .

What was His special work

Connection of the Resurrection with it We do not assume what has not been proved .

Prophetic light on the future .....

In three particulars ......

Unanswered questions .....

Strauss saw the importance of the Resurrection

Not Paul’s doing ......

The keystone of a mighty arch ....

The bearing of all this on the evidence of the fact

1. The Apostles could not but take the utmost pains

to be assured of its reality ....

2. Difficult to suppose that a mistaken belief could be

worked up into such a system At best such a belief could only restore the Apostles to what they had been before the Death of Christ

3. Helps to correct the impression that what we have

to do with is simply the restoration of a dead man to life ......

4. Suggests the presumption which may be drawn from

the harmony of all the parts of Christianity

PAGK

1 10 112

1 13

1 17

118 118

1 iS

CHAPTER VI. (Exceptions taken to the (Ehibence

I. — It was an age of ignorance and superstition . . 123

An alternative . . . . . .124

First, Jesus Christ and His religion the natural products

of that age. What follows? . . . 124

Second, Jesus Christ and His religion to be ascribed to

the will and love of God. What follows? . .124

Easy to charge every age with ignorance and superstition 125 Another aspect of the age of Christ . . . 126

Nothing “ puerile or ignoble ” in the Gospels . . 126

II. — Objected that no one saw Jesus coming out of His grave. 127

The soldiers probably did . . . .127

The Apostles did not expect His rising . . .127

If the Apostles had assembled around the grave, what

They saw Him risen though not rising . . .130

III. — The fragmentary character of the History of the re¬

surrection . . . . , .130

Suppose an elaborate and complete story , .130

Contents . xi

PAGE

Special evidential value as it is .... 131

Diversities, but substantial agreement . . .132

IV. — The Witnesses were all friends . . . .132

They were Christians because sincere • 133

Remember their mental attitude at the time . . 133

V. — Why did He not show Himself to His enemies ? .134

This not in keeping with the manner of His teaching . 136

His enemies not entitled to more evidence . .136

Might have produced tumult .... 136

Would not have believed . . . . 137

Not fit to be the witnesses to the world . . .137

VI. — More evidence demanded . . . . 137

Strauss’s mis-statement . . . . . 1 39

Confesses he would receive no evidence . . . 139

The argument of our first chapter . . .140

An honest desire for more evidence . . . 140

CHAPTER VII. ‘tEhc (Exhaustion of .Sceptical hypotheses

Strauss undertakes to explain the origin of the belief without Miracle .......

Objects to those who evade the question The “firm belief” of the Apostles the starting-point of inquiry .......

This implies their honesty and sincerity That the Gospel narratives are at least honest .

I. — First Hypothesis, Jesus only in a swoon .

Ignores the positive evidence of death Rejected by Strauss .....

Pronounced untenable by the author of “ Supernatural Religion; ” but to be preferred to miracle ! .

II. — The Visionary Hypothesis ....

Renan and Strauss quoted ....

Assumptions —

(1) The Disciples in a state of expectancy

(2) That they went immediately into Galilee ; time

being required to explain this .

Violence to the Gospel narratives Emmaus and Sea of Galilee .

The conversation with Peter a dream John deliberately makes it a fact The appearances in Jerusalem, how explained away Renan’s imagination . . . . .

Difficult to suppose he believes his own imaginings ,

143 147 iSo

153 153

Contents .

Xll

PAGE

An insuperable difficulty . . . . 156

What became of the Body? . . . • rS7

The pledge of Strauss unfulfilled . . . . 159

III.— A new visionary hypothesis, the spiritualistic . .160

A spiritual resurrection proved by “apparitions . 160

1. The term Resurrection utterly misapplied in this

hypothesis . . . . .160

As well speak of the resurrection of Stephen . . 161

Peter’s argument from Psalm xvi. . . .161

If this hypothesis true, Peter and Paul both wrong in

their interpretation . . . . .162

2. This hypothesis as irreconcilable with the Gospel

narratives as the former . . .163

To be supported only by the arbitrary rejection of history 163 Paul must be got rid of as well . . .164

3. Leaves the ultimate destination of the body unac¬

counted for . . . .164

4. It fails to do what it proposes, to explain the belief

in the Resurrection without a corresponding

Apparitions not natural, but supernatural . . . 166

This hypothesis not harmless . . . .167

Paul’s strong assertion in 1 Cor. xv. 14-17 . .167

The “letter ” or “fact” gone, the spirit is not retained . 167

The “ spirit ” of the Resurrection is its moral significance 167 “Apparitions” of a glorified spirit do not answer the

ends or teach the lessons of the Resurrection . 168

This hypothesis fatal to the spirit or meaning of the

Resurrection . . . . . .168

CHAPTER VIII. (Conclusion

The tests of history recalled, and the result . . .170

Collapse of naturalistic hypotheses . . . .172

Our corroborative evidence not “ circumstantial ” . . 173

Godet on the central position of the Resurrection . .174

Blot not out the Christ . . . . ■ 1 75

THE

RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST

AN HISTORICAL FACT.

Chapter I

Che Costs of Jfjistotn mib the Crne principles o t Historic Criticism.

Y the Resurrection of Jesus Christ we mean what has been understood by it in all ages, • — with some recent exceptions, which we shall consider before we conclude, by believers and unbelievers alike, — namely, that the body which was taken down from the cross lifeless, and was laid in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, was restored to life, and that Jesus appeared to His disciples in that body, and remained on earth for forty days after He had left His grave. This is what the Gospels intend to set forth. Their state¬ ment is that Joseph “ besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus,” and that he and Nicodemus, having wound it in linen clothes, with spices, laid it in a rock-tomb belonging to Joseph. On the morning of the third day, the stone which closed the entrance to the tomb was displaced,

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

and the body which had been laid in the tomb with reverent care was not to be found. The explanation of the displacement of the stone, and of the disappearance of the body, had not to be waited for long. On that same day Jesus appeared to His disciples in bodily form. They were terrified and affrighted, we are told,1 and He said unto them, “ Why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself : handle Me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.” And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and feet. This, then, whether true or not, is the averment of the Gospels, — that the body of Jesus was restored to life, and that in this restored body He conversed with His disciples.

We are not called on to determine what change, if any, the body of Christ underwent when restored to life. Whether it was still subject to all the limitations to which, like other bodies, it was subject before His death, or whether it was en¬ dowed with some new powers, anticipating, to some extent, the great change which took place when He was glorified, we need not determine. All that we are concerned with is, that it was the same body, the body that had been crowned with thorns, that had been nailed to the cross, out of whose side, when pierced by the soldier’s spear, came forth blood and water, — that this body was restored to

1 Luke xxiv, 37.

II The Tests of History

life without seeing corruption, and that from the lips of this body Jesus spoke to His disciples gracious words, which have been preserved, and which we now cherish as a precious heritage. It is of this material or bodily rising again that we say : It is an historical fact.

Now, by what means may an historical fact be established ? What tests shall we apply to it ?

I.

There is one test, boldly asserted by certain critics, which we consider unscientific and illegiti¬ mate — namely this, that all that is supernatural in any narrative is legendary and unhistorical. Before this test all the alleged miracles and revelations of both the Old and New Testaments are swept away : Judaism and Christianity perish together. The critics who adopt this test call themselves scientific, and call their ideas of history scientific, and look with something like compassion on those who will not or cannot rise to their high platform. And the air of superiority and self-complacence with which they write imposes on many. But their dogma — that what is supernatural is ipso facto unhistorical — is a sheer begging of the question. It has no basis in reason or philosophy. And, on this account, we, with boldness equal to their own, pronounce it unscientific. It would divert us too far from our present purpose to attempt anything like a general discussion of the question of miracles. But so long as we believe in God, we cannot believe

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

that a miracle is impossible. And if it be possible, it may be actual ; and, if actual, it may be capable of proof. Even the improbability of a miracle may be turned into probability, by considerations arising from the character of God and the necessities of mankind.

The first duty of science is to ascertain facts. And on these, when sifted and certified, it grounds its conclusions. The critics who, offhand and a priori , declare they will accept nothing as historical which is supernatural, not only prejudge the great question between them and those who believe in a Divine revelation, but incapacitate themselves to fairly estimate the evidence for such a revela¬ tion. They are in no true sense free-thinkers. They are the slaves of a foregone conclusion. Having made up their minds that certain things are impossible, they are compelled to reject every¬ thing that is presented in the form of evidence in support of these things. Per fas aut nefas , the evidence must be rejected. It ca7inot be true, they say, for the thing itself is impossible. Better to accept the most improbable hypothesis, than to accept a statement as true which implies anything supernatural. “Hypothesis,” says Renan, “is in¬ dispensable in histories of this character [the Gospels], where only the general effect is certain, and where almost all the details are more or less dubious, in consequence of the legendary nature of the authorities.” The “ authorities ” for the life of Jesus Christ are thus assumed to be “legendary,” because they contain supernatural narratives. And

The Tests of History.

by a "hypothesis” Renan means not what is meant by the word either in scientific or in historic investi¬ gations, but any dream or fancy which his imagina¬ tion can substitute for the literal narrative which the first principle of his critical code requires him to reject. Guided by this principle, he has added fancy to fancy of the most extravagant, and, it is not too much to say, impossible kind, to get rid of the facts by which the resurrection of Christ is attested. Approaching these facts from his standpoint, he was incapable of estimating them aright, and assigning to them their proper evidential value.

This incapacity is common to all who assume that the supernatural is of necessity legendary. "The belief that a dead man rose from the dead, and appeared to several persons alive,” says one of them, “ is at once disposed of on abstract grounds.” And having disposed, on abstract grounds, of the alle¬ gation that Jesus rose from the dead ; being satisfied, before, and without, any examination of evidence, that the thing could not be, and that the witnesses must be either deceivers or deceived, he proceeds to consider the narrative of the resurrection and the subsequent testimony of those who believed in it, not in an impartial or judicial spirit, but with all the eagerness of a detective to discover and expose the falsity of the witnesses. It could not be other¬ wise. Those who believe the resurrection of Christ to be in itself a thing impossible and in¬ credible, must reject all the evidence, of whatso¬ ever kind, or of whatsoever degree of strength, that may be alleged in support of it. Let twelve men say that they saw Him dead, and laid in His grave — that they saw Him rise before their eyes to a new life, and conversed with Him for many days thereafter. Let these men show moral cause why, however improbable the restoration of a dead man to life may be in itself, yet in this particular case there was no improbability, but the reverse. Let them persevere to their dying day in telling the one tale that they saw Jesus die, that they saw Him dead, that they saw Him rising, that they saw Him risen ; let them assert that the circum¬ stances in which they saw Him rendered mistake impossible ; and let them die a martyr’s death rather than abate one iota of their testimony. All this, and much more, would not avail to shake the convictions of those who, “on abstract grounds ,” believe that the alleged resurrection was impossible. Even if they saw with their own eyes the grave opening and the dead coming forth, they could not believe. It was more likely, they would assert, that their eyes deceived them than that the dead should come to life again ; more likely that a thousand eyes should be thus deceived, than that one dead man should live again. Some of the dilemmas which this position, at once sceptical and credulous, creates, will be considered at a later stage of our argument. The point insisted on now is, that those who, on abstract grounds, — that is on the assumption that all miracle is impossible or incre¬ dible, — prejudge the question of the resurrection

Dr. Arnold on Historic Evidence. 15

of Jesus Christ, cannot fairly examine the evidence. They are bound to find it false or faulty. And they must study it, not to know what it amounts to, but to find out wherein its assumed fault or falsity consists.

We, Christians, are willing to conduct our histo¬ rical investigations without any predetermination on the subject. Instead of presuming to say what God can or cannot do, what He will or will not do, we hold ourselves prepared to receive evidence of what He has, or may have, done.

II.

The question then returns — By what tests shall we determine the claim of an alleged fact to be accepted as historical ? Let us hear what writers on history and historical science have said on the subject.

Dr. Thomas Arnold says :

“ In estimating whether any history is trustworthy I should not ask whether it was written by a contem¬ porary, or by one engaged in the transaction which it describes, but whether it was written by one who loves the truth with all his heart, and cannot endure error. For such an one, we may be sure, would never attempt to write a history if he had no means of writing it truly ; and therefore though distant in time or place, or both, from the events which he describes, yet we may be satisfied that he had good sources of information at hand, or else he would not have written at all. Such an historian is not indeed infallible, or exempt from actual error, but yet he is deserving of the fullest confidence in his general narrative ; to be believed safely, unless we happen to have strong reasons for doubting him in any particular point.” 1

Sir George Cornewall Lewis says :

“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 con¬ temporary 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 , there¬ fore, an historical account can be traced by probable proof, to the testimony of contemporaries , the first condition of historical credibility fails.” 2

Sir Cornewall Lewis says further :

“ The credibility of a witness to a fact seems to depend mainly on the four following conditions, namely, i. 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. 4. That he is free from any sinister

1 Lectures on Modern History, Lect. viii.

2 Credibility of Early Roman History, p. 1 6.

Sir C. Lewis on Historic Evidence. 17

or misleading interest ; or, if not, that he is a person of veracity. If a person was present at an event, so as to see or hear it ; if he availed himself of his opportunity, so as to take note of what passed ; if he has sufficient mental capacity to give an accurate report of the occurrence ; and if he is not influenced by personal favour or dislike or fear, or the hope of gain, to misreport the fact; or if, notwithstanding such influence, his own conscience and moral or religious principle, or the fear of public opinion, deters him from mendacity, such a person is a credible witness.”1

Of certain reconstructors of ancient history, Sir Cornewall Lewis says :

“ Instead of employing those tests of credibility which are consistently applied to modern history, they attempt to guide their judgment by the in¬ dications of internal evidence, and assume that the truth can be discovered by an occult faculty of historical divination. Hence the task which they have undertaken resembles an inquiry into the in¬ ternal structure of the earth, or into the question whether the stars are inhabited. It is an attempt to solve a problem, for the solution of which no sufficient data exist. The consequence is, that in¬ genuity and labour can produce nothing but hy¬ potheses and conjectures, which may be supported by analogies, and may sometimes appear specious and attractive, but can never rest on the solid

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

foundation of proof. There will therefore be a series of such conjectural histories ; each successive writer will reject all or some of the guesses of his predecessors, and will propose some new hypothesis of his own. It is not enough for a historian to claim the possession of a retrospective second-sight, which is denied to the rest of the world, of a mysterious doctrine revealed only to the initiated. Unless he can prove as well as guess ; unless he can produce evidence of the fact, after he has intuitively per¬ ceived its existence, we have no certainty that these ‘green spots in memory’s waste,* may not be mere mirage and optical delusion.”1

Canon Rawlinson describes “ the laws of the modern historical criticism, so far as they seem to be established ” thus :

“ I. When the record which we possess of an event is the writing of a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible witness, and had means of observing the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be accepted, as possessing the first or highest degree of historical credibility. Such evidence is on a par with that of witnesses in a court of justice, with the drawback, on the one hand, that the man who gives it is not sworn to speak the truth, and with the advantage on the other, that he is less likely than a legal witness to have a personal in¬ terest in the matter concerning which he testifies.

1 Credibility of Early Roman History , p. io, etc.

Canon Rawlinson on Historic Evidence. 19

“ 2. When the event recorded is one which the writer may be reasonably supposed to have ob¬ tained directly from those who witnessed it, we should accept it as probably true, unless it be in itself very improbable. Such evidence possesses the second degree of historical credibility. When the inquiry appears to have been carefully con¬ ducted, and the judgment of the writer seems sound, we give very nearly as full credence to his statements founded upon inquiry as to those of an eye-witness.

“ 3. When the event recorded is removed con¬ siderably from the age of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to believe that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, but the probable source of his information was oral tradition ; still, if the event be one of great importance and of public notoriety, if it affected the national life, or prosperity, — especially if it be of a nature to have been at once commemorated by the establishment of any rite or practice, — then it has a claim to belief as probably true ; at least, in its general out¬ line. This, however, is the third, and a compara¬ tively low, degree of historical credibility.

“4. When the traditions of one race, which, if unsupported, would have had but little claim to attention, and none to belief, are corroborated by the traditions of another, especially of a distant or hostile race, the event which has this double testi¬ mony obtains thereby a high amount of probability and if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly deserves acceptance. The degree of historical credibility in this case is not exactly commensurate with that in the others, since a new and distinct ground of like¬ lihood comes into play. It may be as strong as the highest, and it may be almost as weak as the lowest, though this is not often the case in fact.”1

“ Historical materials,” we are reminded by Canon Rawlinson, “ may be divided into direct and in¬ direct — direct, or such as proceed from the agents in the occurrences ; indirect, or such as are the embodiment of inquiries and researches made by persons not themselves engaged in the transactions.”

We are further reminded of “the force of cumu¬ lative evidence.” “ No account of the grounds of historic belief would be complete, even in outline, which failed to notice its application to this field of investigation, and its great weight and importance in all cases where it has any plan. ‘ Probable proofs/ says Bishop Butler, ‘by being added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply it.’2 When two independent writers witness to the same event, the probability of that event is increased, not in an arithmetical but in a geometrical ratio, not by mere addition, but by multiplication. ‘ By the mouth of two or three witnesses,’ the word to which such witness is borne is ‘ established l And the agreement is more valuable if it be, so to speak,

1 Bampton Lectures on the Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records , Sect i. 2 Analogy, part II. chap. vii.

Mr. Isaac Taylor on Historic Evidence. 21

incidental and casual ; if the two writers are con¬ temporary, and their writings not known to one another ; if one only alludes to what the other narrates ; if one appears to have been an actor, and the other merely a looker-on ; if one gives events and the other the feelings which naturally arise out of them ; in these cases the conviction which springs up in every candid and unprejudiced mind is absolute ; the element of doubt which hangs about all matters of mere belief being re¬ duced to such infinitesimal proportions as to be inappreciable, and so, practically speaking, to dis¬ appear altogether.”