The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint

by Charles R. Morrison

The first use of the four Gospels of which there is any history, is in statements of facts found to be recorded in them, and in quotations of teachings of Christ, corresponding with them. The first description of them after Papias, is that of “Memoirs” of Christ, “drawn up” by Apostles and companions of Apostles. The first mention of them by the names of the writers, ascribes their authorship to the men whose names they now bear. There is no history or tradition of a time when the first Gospel was ascribed to any but Matthew, or the second to any but Mark, or the fourth to any but John[5], or the third, with Acts, to any but Luke. The standing objection that none of them is mentioned by name till the time of Theophilus, and Irenæus, and the writer of the Muratori Canon, is not of the slightest consequence as opposing evidence. For, if these Gospels were not mentioned by name, neither were any[6] others; and surely we are not expected to believe that there were no originals, from which the many quotations, from Clement of Rome, in the year 97, down, were taken. This objection proves too much. For it proves, if it proves anything, that there were no Gospels or writings to answer to the quotations, which, under the circumstances, is a palpable absurdity. Besides, it is not true in respect to the First and Second Gospels, for Papias, certainly as early as the middle of the second century, and probably before the year 140, gave the names of Matthew and Mark respectively, as their authors, the latter being “the interpreter of Peter.”

[1] Judge Waite controverts the generally received opinion of the date of Justin’s First Apology. Verissimus became Cæsar in 139, but he is not addressed as Cæsar, but as “philosopher.” In reply to this, Mr. Waite says, that the same is true of the Second Apology, “which is admitted by all to have been written after 139.” In the first place, there is considerable uncertainty which of the Apologies was first written, and some critics maintain that what is called the Second was a preface to the First, and others still that it was a continuation of the First. (See introductory notice to Vol. II. of the A. N. C. L.) In the second place, the address to Urbicus in the so-called Second Apology, was not by Justin. He only gives it as the language of one Lucius, in narrating an occurrence which, for aught that appears, may have taken place before the year 139. Mr. Waite also says that Justin would be but twenty-five years of age in 139. He might have written his Apology in 139, nevertheless. And there are many who put his birth earlier than the year 114, and some as early as the year 85. There are no certain data by which to determine the time of his birth. Again he says that Marcion did not come to Rome till about 140, and that Justin (c. 26) refers to him as being “even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some God greater than the Creator.” But Justin meant to express his abhorrence of his doctrines. He refers to him as “a man of Pontus,” and again (in c. 58) as “Marcion of Pontus,” and says the devils put him forward. He nowhere describes him as being of Rome or at Rome. In his extensive travels he doubtless knew of him while he was at Pontus. Judge Waite also says that, if in the year 139, Justin would have said that Christ was born 140 years ago, instead of 150. But correcting the error for the beginning of our Era, the time would have been A.D. 146, or 144, as we allow four or six years for the error, and Justin, using round numbers, would more naturally have taken the longer period. There is nothing therefore in Judge Waite’s arguments to change the opinion in what he concedes to be “the very valuable Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong,” and of Page, Neander, Lemisch, Roberts and Donaldson, Sears, Fisher, Eusebius, (c. 8) and many others, assigning the year 139. See also Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris (1880) p. lv. It is, however, not essential to the argument from the First Apology, whether it was written in the year 139, or 144, or 146, or even 150 of our Era. By as much as it lengthens the period from the death of John to the date of the First Apology, it shortens the time between that date and the year 180.

[2] “The memories of Light Infantry Poor and Yorktown Scammel.”

[A] Rev. Simeon Parmelee, D.D., celebrated his one hundredth birthday at the house of his son-in-law Hon. E. J. Hamilton, ex-mayor of the city of Oswego, N. Y., Jan. 16, 1882. His intellect was clear, and to those who called he had an ever ready response, and replied happily and wittily to the addresses. He had been in the ministry from 1808 to 1869, and, for years after, preached occasionally. His eldest daughter is 72 years of age, and his descendants now living, number 53. Upon his 90th birthday he wrote a hymn of considerable merit. When 100 years old, he remembered with vivid freshness the Inauguration of George Washington, although at that time but in his 8th year. See Congregationalist, Jan. 25, 1882.

[3] See Phillips, Parker, and Greenleaf, as quoted in c. 8.

[4] Justin in his First Apology (c. 15) refers to many of sixty or seventy years of age, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood.

[5] Prof. Fisher (p. 69) says, that besides the few individuals called the Alogi, or men “without understanding,” there is no allusion to the denial of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel by any writer, before the latter part of the fourth century.

[6] As to the controverted reference in Justin’s Apology to “Memoirs of Him,” see [c. 4], and [c. 7, note 14]. That, if correctly interpreted by Judge Waite, could only have been Mark’s Gospel.