EASTER MORNING
SIR,—Surgeon's theory of the Resurrection is the old theory of Venturini. Of that Mr. Morrison wrote in Who Moved The Stone?, 'I include this suggestion here more for the sake of completeness than in the expectation that the reader will desire to hear it seriously argued. It is little more than a historical curiosity.' Of it Strauss in his New Life of Jesus wrote, 'It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill wanting medical treament, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence and who stilt at last yielded to his sufferings, could
have given to the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of • Life.
As to Mrs. Strachey, I do not know what verdict a 'modern law court' would give on an historical problem—the verdict of an historian is of more im- portance. Lord Acton thought the Resurrection 'the best attested fact in history.' I can hardly believe that Mrs. Strachey really believes that the Christian claim that the tomb was empty was first made in the Gospels. Mrs. Strachey says that 'The Evangelists wrote not as historians but for edification.' Of all views the view that the Evangelists and other early Christians did not at least believe that they were re- counting historical events is surely the most plainly nonsensical.—Yours faithfully,
Melts
CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS
Previous page
