The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint — John Shaqi
The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's StandpointMorrison, Charles R. (Charles Robert)
Religion
The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint
Morrison, Charles R. (Charles Robert)
Apologetics; Jesus Christ -- Resurrection
“I shall not waste any ink or paper to prove that the
Protevangelium, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Acts of Pilate,
etc., in their present forms as known to us and as quoted
by Judge Waite, arose at a later period than our canonical
Gospels.” ... “A knowledge of the original sources and the
literature of the subject would have saved him from this
pitiful blunder. I simply refer to Professor Lipsius’ article
on the Apocryphal Gospels, in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of
Christian Biography, London, 1880, Vol. II., pp. 700, _seq._;
and Holtzmann’s Apocryphon des Neuen Testaments, in Schenkel’s
Bible Lexicon, Leipzig, 1869, Vol. I., pp. 170 _seq._ As
neither of these articles are by orthodox men, or by those who
have the slightest bias toward orthodoxy, they are calculated
to inspire confidence in persons of every shade of belief or
disbelief. Both are authorities; Meyer’s Conversations-Lexikon
says of Professor Lipsius, of Jena, that he is one of the most
eminent scholars in Germany.” (See note 2.)
With this concurring judgment of the most eminent scholars, not much
time should be spent upon these Apocryphal books. But a single quotation
is given by Judge Waite that is claimed by him to have been made by
Justin from either of them. And this (although not to be found in any
_single_ passage in our Gospels) may be gathered from different passages,
which would be in keeping with Justin’s mode. It corresponds quite
nearly, though not precisely, with a _part_[3] of the description in the
Protevangelium of the announcement to Mary. But this no more proves the
use of the Protevangelium by Justin than it proves the use of Justin’s
Apology by the writer of the Protevangelium. Aside from this quotation,
there are a few facts stated by Justin that are claimed, by some persons,
to have been taken from the Apocryphal Gospels. _One_ is, that Jesus made
ploughs and yokes, which Justin of course would infer, from the fact that
it was a part of the business of a carpenter to make ploughs and yokes.
_Another_ is, that Jesus was born in a cave. Dr. Thompson, says[4], “It
is not impossible, to say the least, but that the apartment in which our
Saviour was born was in part a cave. I have seen many such, consisting
of one or more rooms in front of and including a cavern, where the cattle
were kept.” Justin, who was a native of Judea, added a circumstance
well known from tradition, which Luke did not think it of consequence
to mention, that the manger was in a cave, _i. e._, that the stable in
which was the manger was in a cave. He had no occasion to resort to books
for such a fact. _Another_ is, that Justin refers the Roman Emperor to
“Acts of Pilate” as affording evidence of what he had stated concerning
Christ’s crucifixion, and the miracles which he had performed. According
to the usual course, Pilate should have made a report of the crucifixion.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account