It need not be denied that some details of the narratives may possibly be unhistorical or legendary. In Matthew's story, (^.g., about the resurrection of many bodies of the saints, and their appearance to many after the Resurrection (27&i'^-), we seem to have something akin to what we find in the Apocrypha! Gospels (cf. Chase, Gospels wi the Litjkt of Hist. Criticism, p. 31). But the earthquake account (given only by Matthew, which is the only account of how the stone was roiled away) and that of the angelic visitation when ruled out {.i'.fj. Lake, Resnrrectimi, p. 2;"»1 f.) as legendary and unhistorical, are so not 60 nmch because of any insufficiency of evidence, as through prejudice against the supernatural, which, however, is of the very essence of the narratives throughout.
Luke records (24^^) that, on receipt of the message of the women, Peter went to the sepulchre and found it empty, with only the grave-clotlies left. This verse is of doubtful autiiority — being absent from important Western documents — and is omitted by Westcott and Hort and by Tischendorf as a later insertion, though, as F. Blass points out {Philology of the Gospels, London, 1S9S, p. 189), Luke's account contains another reference to a visit to the grave on the part of some of the
340 RESUKRECTION OF UHKIST
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
apostles (v.-'), tlie ficnuineness of wliicli there is no good (jrouiid for calling in <nit'stion.
John in hisacroiiiit— tlialof an eye-witness of the facts — tells us (21)'"'"') that, on receipt of the message of the women, I'eter .and himself went to the grave and found the condition as the women had said. He gives a circumstantial dcscriptiim of the way in which the grave-cloliies were found lying ; in ]>ar- ticular, that the napkin which had been round His head was found ' folded up ' (v.', ivrirvKitiiivov) by itself, apart from the other bandages, doubtless at the raised end of the chamber where the head rested (see Latham, Risen Muster, plate 2, for an imaginary sketch of the interior of the tomb). Latham's theory is that the word implies that the head-doth still partially retained its annular form (p. 43), and that the other grave-clothes still retaiiu!d the general outline of the human form (p. 50). If this interpretation be correct, the sug- gestion of the careful observer {Oeoipd, Jn 20*) would be that the Body had somehow passed out of the grave-clothes, rather tlian that it had been removed by human liands for burial elsewhere. In any case, the position of the clothes is noted by the Evangelist as signiKcant.
In this conne.xion the significance of the incident recoriled in Mt 28""" is to be noted — the attempt of the Jewish authorities to bribe the guard to misrepresent the facts and say that the disciples removed the body — a saying which is 'commonly reported among the Jews until this day.' This fraudulent transaction proceeds upon the admission by the enemies of Christianity that the grave was empty — an admission which is enough to show that the evidence for the empty grave was ' too notorious to be denied' (Cambridge Theological Essays, ed. H. B. Swete, London, 1905, p. 336).
The whole story of the guard at the tomb, which is narrated only by JIatthew (276=-i*i) has been called in question. But the action of the authorities in setting a watch at the tomb is altof^ether credible. Had not Jesus spoken repeatedly of His being put to death and rising again the third day (Mt 1621 17--f- 20i«- 19 and lis)? And may not such words have come to the ears of His enemies? Had not indeed His mysterious words about the building of the Temple in three days been quoted against Him before the chief priests and Pharisees (Mk 145» ; cf. Jn 2i8-'2) ? And with such in their minds, was not the fact that the body of Jesus had been committed to His friends for burial enough to create the fear that His disciples might remove it and afterwards pretend that He had risen ? To meet this apprehension, a watch was obtained, and to make security doubly sure, the tomb was sealed with the official seal.
Nothing, indeed, in the Resurrection-story of the narratives is more strongly attested than the fact of the empty tomb on the third day after the Cruci- fixion. It is not only attested by the women, and subsequently by Peter and John — ' interested parties ' — but also acknowledged by foes. This is the fundamental fact at the basis of the apostolic belief in the Resurrection on the third day. It is not uncommon among negative critics to represent the case as if the belief were a deduction or infer- ence from certain prophetic references, a belief resting 'on theological rather than historical grounds' (Lake, Ilesurrection of Jesus Christ, p. 264). Strauss set the way in his endeavour to show how the belief might have originated from OT hints (New Life of Jesus, i. 438 f.). O. Holtz- mann (Life of Jesus, Eng. tr., London, 1904, p. 336) lays much stress on Hos 6- : ' After two days will he revive us : on the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him.' Schmiedel [EBiiv. 4067) appeals to 2 K 20' as a text that has 'special relevance ' in this connexion. Others combine with these OT hints the predictions of Jesus Him- self [e.g. Meyer, Die A ttferstehung Christi, p. 181 f. ), while more recently others trace the belief pri- marily to a ' Messianic dogmatic,' a pre-Christian sketch of a dying and rising Messiah which found its way into Jewish writings from Oriental sources, shiefly Babylonian (see, e.g.. Lake, pp. 197 f., 261 ;