The witness to the Resurrection in the Gospels may be thus exhihited : {a) Emiity grave on the third day (Mk 15^--108, Mt 27■''-28^ Lk 2-S''"-24^' *"•-■*', Jn 19^20'^) ; and (b) post-Kesurrection upi)ear. ances {Mk [App.] IG^--^, Mt 28-'--^ Lk 24i'-^, jj^ .2(jN-29 21 [App.], Gospel ace. to Hebrews^ xii. 50-57, Gospel of Peter, xiv. 58-60).
The historical vahie of tlie Gospel witness to the Resurrection has been called in question on various grounds, chief of wliich are : (1) Alleged discrep- ancies between the different accounts. This was already one of the chief objections to the Gospels in the earliest reasoned criticism of Christianity that has come down to us — The True Word of Celsus, written about the end of the 2nd cent, (see Origen, c. Cclsiim, ii. 56-63, v. 56, 58). H. S. Reiinarus, writing nearly a century and a half ago, enumerated ten irreconcilable contradictions or discrepancies in the narratives (G. E. Lessing, Wolfcnbutteler Fragniente, 1774-78). * In reality,' says a more recent critic, ' the number is much greater ' (Schmiedel, EBi iv. 4041). And Harnack, on the basis of examination of the various narra- tives, feels himself driven to an Agnostic despair of history, which regards the problem of what happened on the first Easter morning as absolutely insoluble. (2) The presence of mythical and legendary elements in the accounts. * Even the empty grave on the third day can by no means be regarded as a certain historical fact, because it appears united in the accounts with manifest legendary features' (Hamack, Hist, of Dogma, Eng. tr., 7 vols., London, 1894-99, i. 85 n.). (3) The insufficiency of the evidence, even if allowed, to satisfy the demands of scientific historical inquiry. ' Secure evidence of the resurrection of Jesus would be the attestation of it in a decided and accordant manner by impartial witnesses. But . . . Jesus showed himself to his adherents only : why not also to his enemies, that they too might be convinced, and that by their testimony posterity might be precluded from every conjecture of a designed fraud on tiie part of his disciples?' (Strauss, Life of Jesus, Eng. tr.^ London, 1892, pt. iii. ch. iv. sect. 140, p. 738). To like purpose Renan demands that the evidence for tlie Resurrection be such as would convince ' a commission, composed of physiologists, ])hysicists, chemists, persons accus- tomed to historical criticism,' and on this basis criticizes the NT narratives as not satisfying * scientific conditions ' or ' rational principles ' (Life of Jesus, Eng. tr., London, 1873, Introd., p. 29f.). We shall consider the two parts of the witness separately, keeping these objections in view.
(a) The cttipfi/ grave, — The narratives agree as to the following facts. (1) On the morning of the tirst day of the week, * the third day ' after the Cruciiixion, very early, certain women went to tht: grave (Mt 28', Mk Hi"-, Lk 24'-'", Jn 2o') ; (2) tiiey found the stone rolled away and tlie grave empty (Mt 2S-', Mk 10-^ Lk 24-^ Jn 20'-'"); (3) tiiey were informed by angelic means that Jcmis had risen, and that tliey were bidden to convey the news to the disciples (Mt 28's-s, Mk 16«-«, Lk 24-»-", Jn 20"'*). Divergences in detail have to be acknowledged, thougli they are sliglit in com- parison with the general agreement, and do not impugn the trustworthiness of the central facts in the common tradition.
Chief of these divergences are the following. (1) In regard to the number of the women, John represents the visit to the 8ci>ulchre as made by Mary Ma^cdalene alone (W^), while the others (Mt., Mk., Lk.) represent her as in compaTiy with other women, variously named. (2) As regards the purpose attributed to the women in coming to the tomb, two of the Evangelists, Mark (160 and Luke (23-^" 241), represent this purpose as the anointing of the body of Jesus, while John records the fact that the anointing had alreadj' been done by Joseph and Nicodcnum at the time of the entombment. (3) In regard to the angelic message, Matthew and Mark speak of one angel at the tomb ; Mark representing him as 'a young man' arrayed in a white robe, appearing to the women on their 'entering into the tomb ' (U»i^), while Matthew has an independent story of a great earthquake, and represents the angel as rolling away the stone and sitting upon it (i.e. outside the tomb, 'AS--''). I^uke and John, on the other hand, speak o( two angels as appearing to the women (or woman), Luke representing the interview as occur- ring inside the tomb (24^5), while John represents Mary Magdalene as still remaining outside (20'").
In regard to such divergences or alleged 'discrepancies' we have to remember two things. (1) The aim of the narratives is not to supply evidence or proof for a court of law, hut rather to supply information regarding facts already believed, aa Luke says, ' fully established ' (jr«7rA7jpo<|)op»j^tcVu>t'),in the Church, concerning which they had already been ' catechctically instructed' (v.*, KaTT)x»)flT)«). This explains the often naive and informal character of the narratives. None of the Kvangelists aims at giving a complete account of everything that happened on that wonderful Easter morning and day. Each selects and combines with his own special object in view. From this incompleteness arises much of the seeming contradictorinesa of the different narratives. E.g., John speaks only of Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre probably because he has a special story to tell of her — though the * we of Jn 202 seems to nnply the presence of others. (There is no need to suppose that the women came all together to the sepulchre. It is more probable that they came in different groups or companies.) (2) We have to remember further that the Resurrection day was necessarily one of intense excitement and agitation. This is vividly reflected in the narratives — the shock of amazement of the witnesses, their incredulity, their mingled fear and joy. So it is possible that the events of the day were told by different witnesses in a different order, and with differences in detail. The excitement of the moment may have left the memory dazed and unable to form any distinct impression of what was seen and heard, so that from the first there would be a certain confusion in the stories. But to discredit the narratives because they betray imperfections such as these is altogether unreason- able. So far from being incompatible with, they rather confirm, their historical veracity. 'The usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety* (W, Paley, Evidences of Chri,stiaJiily, in J. S. Memea' Christian Evidences, London, 1859, pt. iii. ch. i. p. 203).