The Proofs of Christ's Resurrection; from a Lawyer's Standpoint — Story, Setting & Ideas

A Lawyer's Method of Argument

Morrison's legal background shapes the structure of his argument. He treats the resurrection as a fact to be proven by testimony, cross-referencing Gospel accounts with the writings of Paul and early church fathers like Justin Martyr. In the preface, he notes that the subsidiary question of the Gospels and Acts is centered on the Memoirs mentioned in Justin's First Apology, written before 150 A.D. This focus on early sources reflects a lawyer's preference for contemporaneous evidence. Morrison also addresses discrepancies in witness testimony, such as the varying accounts of Christ's prediction about destroying the temple. He argues that the Evangelists characterize both classes of witnesses as false witnesses, and he points out that Jesus said Destroy thou this temple, not I will destroy. This careful parsing of language is typical of legal cross-examination.

The Weight of Predictions and Circumstances

Morrison devotes a chapter to Christ's predictions concerning himself, treating them as evidence of foreknowledge. He examines the temple saying from John 2:19, noting that it was the earliest and in some respects the most striking of his predictions. The Jews misunderstood, thinking of the physical temple, but Jesus spoke of the temple of his body. Morrison also considers the conversation with Nicodemus about the Son of Man being lifted up. He argues that the circumstances recorded by the Evangelists, not specified by Paul, help determine whether the Apostles were deceived. By stating these circumstances, the Evangelists enable us to see and know what the Apostles supposed they saw. This approach treats the Gospel narratives as legal depositions, testing their credibility through internal consistency.

Shifts in Voice and Textual Sources

The work's composition history introduces a notable shift in textual basis. Morrison explains that the earlier chapters use the common version of the Bible, while later chapters use the New Revision. This change, noted in the preface, reflects the serial publication of the work. The reader should be aware that biblical quotations may vary in wording between chapters. Morrison also engages with skeptical arguments, such as Judge Waite's doubt about John's authorship of the Apocalypse, citing Eusebius's mention of John the Presbyter. He counters that Justin Martyr expressly gave John the Apostle as the author, and that this is the general verdict of scholars. These asides reveal Morrison's awareness of contemporary critical debates and his effort to address them within a legal framework.

Morrison's treatise is best read as a sustained legal argument, not a devotional work. The reader should note the shift in biblical version between chapters and the frequent citations of authorities like Conybeare and Howson, Godet, and Strauss. The focus remains on the resurrection as a pivot, with all other questions subordinated to it. Morrison's method invites the reader to weigh the evidence as a juror would, considering the consistency of testimony and the credibility of witnesses.

That rainy afternoon, I kept returning to Morrison’s careful weighing of testimony, where belief hangs on the quiet consistency of witnesses. Afterwards, staring at the blank wall, I wondered what else medieval minds accepted as evidence—and found myself pulling down Demoniality; or, Incubi and Succubi — Story, Setting & Ideas, a stranger sort of courtroom, where the same earnest logic guards far wilder conclusions.