II. The apostolic evidence for the fact. — i. The pri.mary evidence.— In proceeding to examine the evidence for the fact it should be remarked, to begin with, that this is much wider than is often represented. The historical evidence presented in the NT narratives — upon the examin- ation of which the truth of the Resurrection is often decided — is after all but a small part of the witness by which the fact is established. The primary evidence lies further back, in the trans- formation eft'ected in the lives of the apostles.
giving ri.se to the Christian Church ; in the fullness of that energizing life and power of which the NT writings are themselves but the product. To realize the greatness of this transformation we have hut to take the picture of the apostles after the event as given in the Acts, and compare it with that before as given in the Gospels. .Sadness has given place to joy, weakness to strength, cowardice to courage, despair to confidence. The men who, timorous and nn-understanding, had forsaken their Master in His h<jur of utmost need, who counteil all their ho|>es in Him lost when He was put to death, who, disillusioned and hopeless, had for fear of the Jews shut themselves up within closed doors, now face the rulers of the larul pro- claiming that He whom they had condemned and crucified was indeed the Clirist, the Messiah, in whom alone there was salvation (Ac 4'-'), and summoning them to repentance and to baptism in His name for the remission of their sins and the receiving of the gift of the Holy Ghost ('2™).
Such a change, such a moral and spiritual trans- formation, witli the results following, demands a sufiicient cause. What the apostles' own explana- tion was we know — the Kesurreclion 'whereof we are Avitnesses' (Ac 2^^ 3'" 5'- 10^", etc.). They believed that the Crucified Jesus was now the Risen and Exalted Lord, raised from the dead on the third day by the power of the Father — a belief which early found institutional expression in the observance of the first day of the week as ' the Lord's Day.' Whether they were deceived or not, is not now the question. It is sufficient at present to note that this is the primary evidence in relation to which all other evidence must be seen. ' It is not this or that in the New Testament — it is not the story of the empty tomb, or of the appearing of Jesus in Jerusalem or in Galilee — which is the primary evidence for the resurrection ; it is . . . the existence of the Church in that extraordinary spiritual vitality which confronts us in the New Testament' (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, ]k inf.). This is where the apostles them.selves placed the emphasis. ' He hath poured forth this which ye both see and hear' (Ac 2^), says St. Peter in his first sermon, referring to the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost as proof of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ ; and in his second sermon or address the healing of the cripple is adduced as further proof (3'*). In his view the evidence of the Resurrection was not merely a past event 'on the third day,' but present religious experience. ' The Resurrection was not an isolated event. ... It was the beginning of a new and living relation between the Lord and His people. . . . The idea may be expressed by saying that the apostolic conception of the Resurrection is rather "the Lord lives" than "the Lord was raised" . . . Christ lives, for He works still' (Westcott, The Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 294 f.). Thus it is that the continued existence of the Church, anil of the moral miracle in which the Church consists, is a vital part of the evidence for the Resurrection. If the Resurrection were not a fact continued into the present, the historical incidents recorded would soon have faded, like all merely historical facts, into a past significance.
The remembrance of this primary evidence for the Uosurrec- tion has important consequences. (1) The Ajiostolie Church, the Christian society, existed before atiy of the NT narra- tives were written, and essentiatly is independent of ttn-ni. Therefore even if the narratives were, as alleged, ' contlietinpf and confused ' — nay, even if it could lie shown that there are features in tliem wiiose historical value is doubtful, this would not of itself disprove the fact of the Ilesurreetion. We should in that case know less than we thou|;rht we did about the mode of the Resurrertion life of Christ, but our faith in the Resurrec- tion itself, of which the existence of the Church is the (irimary evidence, wovild not be disturbed. (2) It is only in relation to this primary evidence that the ' historical evidence ' presented in the narraliives can be estimated aright. The narratives were
332 KESURRECTION OF CHRIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
written from within the Church, they were the product o( the faith created by the Resurrection. Further, they relate to a fact which is no mere event of the past, but cotiliimes as a Iivin(f power in the present, andsonmstbe viewed in the context of livinjf history and experience. Historical criticism, tlierefore, which isolates the narratives from this living; context, and analyzes them out of relation on the one hand tfl the e.vperiencc of which they are the outcome, and on the other to the experience in which they result, is in ita nature abstract, and can give only a limited or partial view of the facts.