Moreover the _kind_ of Resurrection asserted (though no doubt presenting great difficulties) is strongly in favour of a contemporary date. For it was not (as said in Chapter XIII.) a mere resuscitation of Christ's natural body, but His rising again in a body which combined material and spiritual properties in a remarkable manner. And there was nothing in the Old Testament, or anywhere else, to suggest such a Resurrection as this; it was quite unique. Indeed the _combination_ of these properties--and they occur in the same Gospel--is so extremely puzzling, that it is hard to see how anything but actual experience (or what they believed to be such) could ever have induced men to record it. And much the same may be said of their ascribing an _altered appearance_ to Christ's Body, so that He was often not recognised at first. Late writers are not likely to have imagined this. Lastly, the utter absence of any attempt at harmonising the narratives, or avoiding the apparent discrepancies between them, also points to their extreme antiquity. The writers in fact seem to narrate just what they believed to have happened, often mentioning the most trivial circumstances, and without ever attempting to meet difficulties or objections. And while such disconnected accounts might well have been written by the actual witnesses of a wonderful miracle, they are not such as would have been deliberately invented; nor are they like subsequent legends and myths. These narratives then appear throughout to be thoroughly trustworthy; and we therefore decide that the _Resurrection of Christ is probably true_. In the next chapter we will consider the various alternative theories. CHAPTER XVIII THAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS PROBABILITY. The first witnesses of the Resurrection. The value of all testimony depends on four questions about the witnesses, and here the denial of each corresponds to the four chief alternative theories. (_A._) THE FALSEHOOD THEORY. This would be to deny their _veracity_, and say that they did not speak the truth, as far as they knew it. But it is disproved by their motives, their conduct, and their sufferings. (_B._) THE LEGEND THEORY. This would be to deny their _knowledge_, and say that they had not the means of knowing the truth. But amply sufficient means were within their reach, and they were quite competent to use them. (_C._) THE VISION THEORY. This would be to deny their _investigation_, and say that they were too excited to avail themselves of these means. But this theory has immense difficulties. (1.) Arguments in its favour. (2.) Arguments against it. (3.) Its failure to account for the facts. (4.) The theory of real visions. (_D._) THE SWOON THEORY.