Basic HTML Version
333
unlikely that the faint-hearted disciples would have had the courage to palm off such a
falsehood upon a hostile world. It is impossible to believe that they would have persisted in
suffering for such a bare falsehood. Moreover, only the facts of the resurrection can explain the
indomitable courage and power which they reveal in witnessing to the resurrection of Christ.
These considerations soon led to the abandonment of this view.
(2) The swoon theory.
According to this theory, Jesus did not really die, but merely fainted,
while it was thought that He had actually died. But this naturally raises several questions that
are not easy to answer. How can it be explained that so many people were deceived, and that
the spear thrust did not kill Jesus? How could Jesus in His exhausted condition roll away the
stone from the grave and then walk from Jerusalem to Emmaus and back. How is it that the
disciples did not treat Him as a sick person, but saw in Him the powerful Prince of Life? And
what became of Jesus after that? With the resurrection the ascension is naturally ruled out
also. Did He then return to some unknown place and live in secret the rest of His life? This
theory is burdened with so many improbabilities that even Strauss ridiculed it.
(3) The vision theory.
This was presented in two forms. (a) Some speak of purely subjective
visions. In their excited state of mind the disciples dwelt so much on the Saviour and on the
possibility of His return to them, that at last they actually thought they saw Him. The spark was
applied by the nervous and excitable Mary Magdalene, and soon the flame was kindled and
spread. This has been the favorable theory for a long time, but it too is freighted with
difficulties. How could such visions arise, seeing that the disciples did not expect the
resurrection? How could they appear while the disciples were about their ordinary business and
not given to prayer or meditation? Could the rapture or ecstacy required for the creation of
subjective visions have started as early as the third day? Would not the disciples in such visions
have seen Jesus, either as surrounded with a halo of heavenly glory, or just as they had known
Him and eager to renew fellowship with them? Do subjective visions ever present themselves
to several persons simultaneously? How can we account for the visionary conversations? (b) In
view of the extreme weakness of this theory some scholars presented a different version of it.
They claim that the disciples saw real objective visions, miraculously sent by God, to persuade
them to go on with the preaching of the gospel. This does really avoid some of the difficulties
suggested, but encounters others. It admits the supernatural; and if this is necessary, why not
grant the resurrection, which certainly explains all the facts? Moreover, this theory asks us to
believe that these divinely sent visions were such as to mislead the apostles. Does God seek to
work His ends by deception?
(4) Mythical theories.
A new mythical school has come into existence, which discards, or at
least dispenses with, theories of vision and apparition, and seeks to account for the