University of Virginia Library

Having now given the three versions in extenso. I should like to add a few words in support of my allegation (in the Note at the commencement of the volume) that each version is in conformity with the canons of positive science.

The second, which may be called the sombre ending, needs no defence as far as natural science is concerned. Jesus simply dies; and is probably thrust hurriedly into the ground on, or near, the spot where he was executed.

The third may be called the apparitional ending, and in reference to the bearing of modern science upon this, a few remarks must be made.—The fact of apparitions as such seems to be scientifically established. But the method of physical procedure —if one may so express oneself—in these cases, we have, with our present amount of knowledge, no means of accurately ascertaining. I see no reason, however, why we should identify Jesus with the Messiah, etc., even if he “rose from the dead,” when rising from the dead, in the sense of apparitional appearance after death, is, as Messrs. Myers' and Gurney's recent work upon the subject exhaustively proves, so common as to become positively annoying.

It is difficult to see how a book like Westcott's “Gospel of the Resurrection,” based as its whole

argument is upon the assumption that the resurrection of Jesus was an entirely unique and exceptional fact in history, retains the slightest force when it is shown—and this “Phantasms of the Living” seems conclusively to show—that the dead are constantly in the habit of re-appearing; or, to speak more correctly, that apparitional appearance at or near the moment of a death, whatever this may indicate (and as to this point we are as yet completely in the dark), is of almost daily occurrence.

In fact, as in nearly all that relates to religion, the old method of thought is being rapidly reversed. The resurrection of Jesus no longer, as was originally held, implies and involves the resurrection of the whole human race. The greater includes the less: it is the resurrection of the whole human race—uninterruptedly proceeding, by strict physical and psychical law, it may be—which involves and implies that of Jesus.

We now come to the ending given in the text; which may be called the resuscitational ending. As I have already remarked, I selected this for the body of the work, principally for dramatic and poetical reasons. It enables an author to develop in fuller detail the character of Mary; and, if the play should some day be acted, it would give special scope and opportunity to an actress of genius.

Apart from this, however, it is by no means

impossible that the resuscitational ending may, after all, be the nearest to historic fact. There have always been thinkers and critics who have believed that Jesus did not actually die upon the cross; that, during the unusually short time that he remained there, his body merely underwent a temporary suspension of animation; that he was taken down and restored to life in some such way as that suggested in the text of my play; and that from subsequent occasional appearances of the actual living Jesus the legend of the resurrection arose.

The following passage (the italics in which are my own) from William Rathbone Greg's “Creed of Christendom,” has great interest, as bearing upon this point:—“Three different suppositions may be adopted, each of which has found favour in the eyes of some writers. We may either imagine that Jesus was not really and entirely dead when taken down from the cross, a supposition which Paulus and others show to be far from destitute of probability (Strauss, iii. 288): or we may imagine that the apparition of Jesus to his disciples belongs to that class of appearances of departed spirits for which so much staggering and bewildering evidence is on record (see Bush's Anastasis, 156); or, lastly, we may believe that the minds of the disciples, excited by the disappearance of the body, and the announcement by the women of his resurrection, mistook some passing individual for their crucified Lord, and that from such an origin multiplied rumours of his re-appearance

arose and spread. We do not, ourselves, definitively adopt any of these hypotheses: we wish simply to call attention to the circumstance that we have no clear, consistent, credible account of the resurrection; that the only elements of the narrative which are retained and remain uniform in all its forms,—viz., the disappearance of the body, and the appearance of some one in white at the tomb, are simple and probable, and in no way necessitate, or clearly point to, the surmise of a bodily resurrection at all.”—

Greg's “Creed of Christendom” (1883), Vol. II., pp. 153, 154.

It is worth while to add that, on a careful study and comparison of the eleven accounts of post-mortem appearances of Jesus given in the Gospels, the reader cannot fail to be struck by their curious vagueness, and by the fact that many of them harmonise almost equally well either with the apparitional or with the resuscitational theory of the resurrection.

NOTE B.

Modern ideas, when combined with great general ignorance of the original facts of the story, cause singular confusion and give rise to the most startling anachronisms. A case in point occurs to my mind at this moment,—that of an old picture in the possession of our family, in which Jesus sits at supper with two of his disciples. The blue Galilean mountains—or

possibly the peaks around Jerusalem—appear in the distance, seen through an open window: a Cornish smuggler with a red night-cap leans upon the table, conversing with one of the disciples; a youth, in the attire of the squire of a mediæval knight, stands in the background; while under the sleeves of Jesus' robe the starched linen cuffs of modern times are apparent.

NOTE C.

“Josephus tells of a Jewish exorcist, who by means of a magic ring and Solomonian talismans, drew devils out of the nose of persons possessed by them; that in order to convince the bystanders that the evil spirit had really gone out, he placed close by a bucket full of water, and ordered the devil to upset it, which the latter really did; and Josephus assures us that he himself had been a joint spectator of this proof of the incomparable wisdom of his countryman, Solomon.”—

NOTE D.

“Philostratus tells how Apollonius of Tyana ordered a devil who had possessed a youth to depart with a visible sign, upon which the devil entreated

to be allowed to upset a statue that stood near, and this statue did really fall over just at the moment when the devil left the young man.”—

NOTE E.

“The superior quality of the wine, and the enormous quantity produced (135 gallons, or in our language, above forty-three dozen ) are obviously fabulous.”—

NOTE F.

“Of the fishes in the Sea of Galilee, the Chromidae were clean and allowed for food. These are the most abundant and characteristic fishes in the lake. They are allied to the wrasses. There are eight species now known from these waters, and some of these, notably C. Tiberiadis, are amazingly abundant. The fresh-water fishes of Egypt belong chiefly to the bream (Sparidae), perch (Percidae), and carp (Cyprinidae) tribes, as well as Chromidae.”—

Hart's “Animals of the Bible” (1888), pp. 94, 95.

In “Helps to the Study of the Bible,” printed at the Oxford University Press, carp and perch are mentioned (on page 316) as found in Lake Gennesaret, but the authority for this is not given.

NOTE G.

“Luke only speaks of a great multitude of fishes, but the author of John xxi. gives their number definitely at 153. In reference to this number, there is a remarkable observation of the learned father of the Church, Hieronymus. ‘The writers,’ he observes, ‘upon the nature and characteristics of animals, and among them the excellent Cilician poet Oppian, say, that there are 153 species of fishes; all these were caught by the Apostles, and none were uncaught, just as great and small, rich and poor, all sorts of men were drawn to happiness out of the sea of this world.’ Hieronymus, therefore, considers the number 153 as that of all species of fishes adopted by the writers on natural history of that time, especially by Oppian. And in the fact that exactly this number of fishes were caught by the Apostles at that time, he sees a prophetic symbol of men of all kinds being incorporated by the preaching of the Apostles into the kingdom of God. Now, as regards Oppian in his Poem upon fishing, written, however, according to the most probable supposition,

in the last year of Marcus Aurelius, and therefore later than the fourth Gospel, we do not find any exact number of the species of fish given, and if we count their numbers, we may, according as we take in or not the sub-divisions into which many of the same species may be distributed, and count similar names twice or not, possibly make out 153, but also quite as easily more or less. Hieronymus, however, only refers to Oppian among others, and therefore there is still a probability that in some writer on natural history, now lost, that number may have been more definitely given.”—

NOTE H.

Had Jesus lived to reach mature years (which, fortunately for the race, he did not—as we now have the young, and therefore hopeful, Jesus) we should probably have seen the same change at work which is generally so evident in the later periods of the lives of great thinkers; the change from an optimistic to a more pessimistic view of things. In fact, in a measure, we do see it: that is to say, we see the marked change between the Jesus of Galilee and the Jesus of Jerusalem. During that last memorable visit to Jerusalem, the friction with the official red-tape world of the period was producing irritation in his mind and consequent

violence in his utterance: and it is quite possible that, had he lived many years longer, his view of life would have changed—and the whole world's history would then have been different. In a deeper than the orthodox sense it was his death—his early death—which secured his apparent victory.

NOTE I.

Jesus.
Thou couldest have no power at all against me
Were not that power first given thee from above;
He therefore that delivered thee to me
Is the chief culprit, hath the greater sin.
Act IV., Scene VIII.

I have thought it best to leave this passage in its original semi-obscurity, as given in John's Gospel. Numberless attempts have been made to throw light upon its meaning, but none of them seems to me quite satisfactory. Probably we have not a perfectly correct report of the actual words used by Jesus upon this occasion.

“Some have thought that the word ανωθεν, from above, refers to the situation of the temple, which stood much higher than the Prætorium; and that it is as if Jesus had said, ‘I know that whatever thou dost against me, is only in consequence of the sentence passed in yonder court held above; so that their guilt is greater than thine.’ But though this would very well account for the connexion of the latter part

of the verse, I cannot think it altogether just; for had Providence permitted Pilate to seize Christ as one dangerous to Cæsar's dignity, he would have had as much power of putting him to death as he now had. It is therefore much more reasonable to suppose it refers to the permission of God's providence. No thought was more proper to the occasion; and I think the interpretation I have given to the latter clause, in this view, is natural, though not very common. But if any are not satisfied with it, they may consider whether δια τουτο may not be connected with the beginning of the verse, so that it might be translated, Thou couldst have no power at all against me, unless it were given thee from above for this purpose.”