Page images
PDF
EPUB

the case of the witnesses of the risen Saviour. The only difficulty here is to be found in the calculation of the original chance that any one witness could be deceived. We may safely say that our eyesight in ordinarily favourable circumstances does not deceive us once in a million times. Let us say, however, that it does so once in a thousand times. That is, the chance that we may be deceived by our eyesight in fully favourable circumstances is 1 to 1000, or 1000. We may with equal safety make the same assumption in regard to our sense of hearing. It does not in fully favourable circumstances deceive us once in a million times; but let us say once in a thousand times. That is, the chance that we are deceived by our hearing in the circumstances described is as I to 1000, or 1000 Now, if we take a case in which we have the concurrent testimony of both our eyes and ears, the chance that they are both deceived is the product of the two chances, or 1ooo X Tooo, which is 1.000.000. In other words, the chance that both eyes and ears should be deceived is only I to 1,000,000, and this is vastly more than the truth.1

Let us now apply this to the witnesses to our Lord's resurrection mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. 4-7. These witnesses saw and heard Christ, had the testimony of both their eyes and ears. The probability, therefore, that any one of these witnesses was deceived is only I to 1,000,000, i.e. 1,000,000. The probability that two were deceived is of course 1.000.000 1.000.000, or 1.000.000.000.000. That is, the chance that two of them were deceived is only 1 to 1,000,000,000,000, etc. But there are really twelve apostolic witnesses distinctly mentioned, most of whom saw the Lord at least twice. What then is the chance that all the twelve were deceived? To find the answer we must multiply 1.000.000 into itself 12 times, i.e. (1.000.000)12. This, of course, gives a fraction whose numerator is I and whose 1 Cf. Helmholtz, Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects, p. 341.

denominator is I followed by 72 ciphers. That is, the chance that the twelve apostolic witnesses were deceived is only as I to the number which consists of I with 72 ciphers attached. If we take in the testimony of the 'more than five hundred brethren' on the same terms, the result is vastly more overwhelming. We have now 512 witnesses at the least who saw and heard the risen Lord. The chance that any one of them could be deceived is, as we have seen, only 1.000.000; consequently the chance that all of them could be deceived is (1.000.000)512, i.e. the product of 1.000.000 multiplied into itself 512 times, which gives a fraction whose numerator is I and its denominator I with 3072 ciphers attached. In other words, the chance that all of them could be deceived is only as I to the number which consists of I followed by 3072 ciphers, a number which it would take more than two pages of this appendix to express.

6

That is to say, the chance that the disciples and the five hundred were deceived as to the appearance of Christ is practically nothing; the probability that they were right and actually saw the Lord is practically the highest certainty. And Strauss says: There is no occasion to doubt that the Apostle Paul had heard this [about the appearances] from Peter, James, and perhaps from others concerned (comp. Gal. i. 18 ff., ii. 9), and that all of these, and even the five hundred, were firmly convinced that they had seen Jesus who had been dead, and alive again.'-New Life of Jesus, vol. i. p. 400. Surely all this points most clearly to the utter improbability of the hypothesis of visions which were the outcome of mere hallucination.

NOTE XV. p. 254.

HASE ON THE SOCRATES OF XENOPHON AND PLATO.

'The Socrates of Xenophon is different from the Socrates of Plato. Each has grasped that side which was to him the nearest and most congenial. Only from both representations conjoined can we recognise the true Socrates. The graphic simplicity of Xenophon carries with it the full impress of the truth of that which he relates. Nevertheless, this Socrates who moves about in the narrow circle of moral and political representations is not the complete Socrates, the wisest man of Greece, who called forth the great revolution in the minds of his people. On the other hand, the Platonic Socrates is much better fitted to be the creator of the new period of Greek philosophy, and accordingly appears as the Attic Logos, as having brought down the wisdom of heaven to the earth.'-Hase, Geschichte Jesu, p. 61 ; from the German, quoted in Schaff's History of Apostolic Christianity, vol. ii. p. 695. Cf. Stanley, History of the Jewish Church, Lecture xlvi.

NOTE XVI. p. 258.

THE TRULY JUST MAN AS DESCRIBED IN
PLATO'S REPUBLIC.'

It may not be out of place here to remind the reader of Plato's well-known description of the truly just or righteous man, as given in his Republic. After having finished the picture of the unjust man, he continues :

'Such being our unjust man, let us, in pursuance of the argument, place the just man by his side a man

of true simplicity and nobleness, resolved, as Æschylus says, not to seem, but to be good. We must certainly take away the seeming; for if he be thought to be a just man, he will have honours and gifts on the strength of this reputation, so that it will be uncertain whether it is for justice' sake, or for the sake of the gifts and honours, that he is what he is. Yes, we must strip him bare of everything but justice, and make his whole case the reverse of the former. Without being guilty of one unjust act, let him have the worst reputation for injustice, so that his virtue may be thoroughly tested, and shown to be proof against infamy and all its consequences; and let him go on till the day of his death, stedfast in his justice, but with a lifelong reputation for injustice.

'After describing the men [just and unjust] as we have done, there will be no further difficulty, I imagine, in proceeding to sketch the kind of life which awaits them respectively. They will say that in such a situation the just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burnt out, and at last, after suffering every kind of torture, will be crucified.' - Republic, Book ii.; Davies and Vaughan.

was

If ever this test of the truly righteous man fulfilled to the letter, it was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, ' that Just One.'

NOTE XVII. p. 259.

TESTIMONIES TO THE CHARACTER OF JESUS.

In the following pages I venture to gather together a few of the testimonies of eminent negative or antisupernaturalist writers to the moral character of Jesus. Of course these writers do not all occupy exactly the same position, some of them like Keim and Ewald,

taking up a more favourable and friendly position; and others, like Strauss in the last stage of his religious aberration, a position of extreme negation. It is instructive to contemplate the impression made by Christ upon the minds of upright and honourable men, who feel themselves unhappily constrained to take up a position outside of catholic Christianity, or even distinctly antagonistic to it.

I may state that the reader will find in Professor Schaff's book, The Person of Christ, a few of the testimonies given below, and a number of others in addition. I had all but finished this collection before I came across Dr. Schaff's interesting work.

(1) Strauss.

'If we ask how this harmonious mental constitution had come to exist in Jesus, there is nowhere in the accounts of His life that lie before us any intimation of severe mental struggles from which it proceeded. . . . In all those natures which were not purified until they had gone through struggles and violent disruption (think only of a Paul, an Augustine, and a Luther), the shadowy colours of this exist for ever; and something harsh, severe, and gloomy clings to them all their lives; but of this in Jesus no trace is found. Jesus appears as a beautiful nature from the first, which had only to develop itself out of itself, to become more clearly conscious of itself, ever firmer in itself, but not to change and begin a new life.'-New Life of Jesus, vol. i. pp. 282 f.

'Among these improvers of the ideal of humanity, Jesus stands, at all events, in the first class. He introduced features into it which were wanting to it before, or had continued undeveloped; reduced the dimensions of others which prevented its universal application; imported into it by the religious aspect which He gave it

« EelmineJätka »