NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION.[I.1]The author of theActsdoes not directly give to St. Paul the title of apostle. This title is, in general, reserved by him for the members of the central college, at Jerusalem.[I.2]Hom. Pseudo-Clem., xvii. 13–19.[I.3]Justin, Apol. i. 39. In the Acts also is seen the idea that Peter was the Apostle of the Gentiles. See especially Chap. x., comp. Petri i. 1.[I.4]I. Cor. iii. 6, 10; iv. 14, 15; ix. 1, 2. II. Cor. xi. 2, etc.[I.5]Letter of Denys of Corinth in Euseb.Hist. Eccl.ii. 25.[I.6]French readers, for ample details upon the discussion and comparison of the four narratives, may see Strauss, Vie de Jésus, 3d sect., chapters iv. and v. (traduction Littré);Nouvelle Vie de Jésus, 1. i., § 46, &c.; 1. ii. § 97, &c. (translation Nefftzer and Dollfus).[I.7]The Church early admitted this. See the canon of Muratori (Antiq. Ital.iii. 854), (Neutestamentliche Studien, Gotha, 1866), lines 33, &c.[I.8]Luke i. 1–4;Actsi. 1.[I.9]See especiallyActs, xvi. 12.[I.10]The paucity of language in the New Testament writers is so great that each one has his own dictionary; so that the writers of even very short manuscripts can be easily recognised.[I.11]The use of this word,Actsxiv. 4, 14, is very indirect.[I.12]Comp. for example,Actsxvii. 14–16; xviii. 5, with I. Thess. iii. 1–2.[I.13]I. Cor. xv. 32; II. Cor. i. 8; xi. 23, &c.; Rom. xv. 19; xvi. 3, &c.[I.14]Actsxvi. 6; xviii. 22–23, compared with the Epistle to the Galatians.[I.15]For instance, the sojourn at Cesarea is left in obscurity.[I.16]Mabillon,Museum Italicum, i. 1 pars, p. 109.[I.17]Col. iv. 14.[I.18]See above, p. xii.[I.19]Almost all the inscriptions are Latin, as at Naples (Cavala), the port of Philippi. See Heuzey,Mission de Macédoine, p. 11, &c. The remarkable familiarity with nautical subjects of the author of theActs(see especially chapters xxvii-xxviii), would give rise to the belief that he was a Neapolitan.[I.20]For example,Actsx. 28.[I.21]Actsv. 36–37.[I.22]The Hebraisms of his style may arise from careful reading of Greek translations of the Old Testament, and above all, from reading the manuscripts of his co-religionists of Palestine, whom he often copied word for word. His quotations from the Old Testament are made without any acquaintance with the original text (for example, xv. 16, &c.).[I.23]Actsxvii. 22, &c.[I.24]Luke i. 26; iv. 31; xxiv. 13.[I.25]Luke i. 31, compared with Matthew i. 21. The name ofJeanne, known only to Luke, is dubious. See, however, Talm. de Bab. Sota, 22 a.[I.26]Actsii. 47; iv. 33; v. 13, 26.[I.27]Actsix. 22, 23; xii. 3, 11; xiii. 45, 50, and many other passages. It is the same with the fourth gospel also compiled out of Syria.[I.28]Luke x. 33, &c.; xvii. 16;Actsviii. 5, &c. The same in the fourth gospel: John iv. 5, &c.[I.29]Actsxxviii. 30.[I.30]SeeVie de Jésus.[I.31]Luke xxiv. 50. Mark xvi. 19, shows a similar arrangement.[I.32]Actsi. 3, 9.[I.33]See especially Luke i. 1, the expression τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων[I.34]Ch. x. xxii. xxvi.[I.35]The centurion Cornelius, the proconsul Sergius Paulus.[I.36]Actsxiii. 7, &c.; xviii. 12, &c.; xix. 35, &c.; xxiv. 7, 17; xxv. 9, 16, 25; xxvii. 2; xxviii. 17–18.[I.37]Ibid. xvi. 37, &c.; xxii. 26, &c.[I.38]Similar precautions were by no means rare. In the Apocalypse and the Epistle of Peter, Rome is alluded to in disguised language.[I.39]Luke i. 4.[I.40]Actsi. 22.[I.41]SeeVie de Jésus, p. xxxix. &c.[I.42]This is obvious, especially in the history of the centurion Cornelius.[I.43]Actsii. 47; iv. 33; v. 13, 26. Cf. Luke, xxiv. 19–20.[I.44]Actsii. 44–45; iv. 34, &c.; v. 1, &c.[I.45]I. Cor. xii-xiv. Comp. Mark xvi. 17, andActsii. 4–13; x. 46; xi. 15; xix. 6.[I.46]Comp.Actsiii. 2, &c., to xiv. 8, &c.; ix. 36, &c., to xx. 9, &c.; v. 1,&c., with xiii. 9, &c.; v. 15–16, to xix. 12; xii. 7, &c., with xvi. 26, &c.; x. 44, with xix. 6.}[I.47]In a speech attributed by the author to Gamaliel, about the year 36, Theudas is spoken of as anterior to Judas of Galilee (Actsv. 36–37). Now the revolt of Theudas was in the year 44 (Jos.Ant.xx. v. 1), and certainly after that of the Galilean (Jos.Ant., xviii. i. 1; B. J., II., viii. 1).[I.48]Those who cannot refer to the German works of Baur, Schneckenburger, Wette, Schwegler, Zeller, where critical questions relative to the Acts are brought to almost a definite solution, may consultEtudes Historiques et Critiques sur les Origines du Christianisme, by A. Stap (Paris, Lacroix, 1864), p. 116, &c.; Michel Nicolas,Etudes Critiques sur la Bible; Nouveau Testament(Paris, Lévy, 1864), p. 223, &c.; Reuss,Histoire de la Théologie Chretienne au siècle ApostoliqueI. vi. ch. v.; other works of MM. Kayser, Scherer, Reuss, in theRevue de Théologieof Strasburg, 1st series, vol. ii. and iii.; 2d series, vol. ii. and iii.[I.49]For the exact meaning of οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ και αἴματι, comp. Matt. xvi. 17.[I.50]He declares it on oath. See chapters i. and ii. of the Epistle to the Galatians.[I.51]Actsxii. 1.[I.52]Jos. Ant. XIX. viii. 2; B. J. II. xii. 6.[I.53]The quotation from Amos (xv. 16–17), made by James according to the Greek version, and in non-accordance with the Hebrew, also shows that this speech is a fiction of the author.[I.54]We shall show later that this is the true sense. Any way, the question of the circumcision of Titus is of no importance here.[I.55]Comp.Actsxv. 1; Gal. i. 7; ii. 12.[I.56]I. Cor. viii. 4, 9; x. 25, 29.[I.57]Acts, xxi. 20, &c.[I.58]Above all, the Ebionites. See the Homilies Pseudo-Clem. Irenæus. Adv. hær. I. xxvi. 2; Epiphanius, Adv. hær., hær. xxx; St. Jerome.InMatt. xii.[I.59]I would nevertheless willingly lose Ananias and Sapphira.[I.60]De Divinatione, ii. 57.[I.61]Preface to theEtudes d'Histoire Religieuse.CHAPTER I.[1.1]Mark xvi. 11; Luke xviii. 34; xxiv. 44; John xx. 9, 24, and following verses. The contrary opinion in Matt. xii. 40; xxi. 4, 24; xvii. 9, 23; xx. 19; xxxi. 32; Mark viii. 34; ix. 9, 10—31; x. 34; Luke ix. 22; xi. 29, 30; xviii. 31 et seq.; xxiv. 6–8. Justin,Pial. cumTryph.106, proceeds from a source on which, beginning from a certain epoch, considerable reliance may be placed as to the announcements which Jesus had made in reference to his resurrection. The synopticals acknowledge, moreover, that if Jesus spake of it at all, his disciples understood nothing of it (Mark ix. 10, 32; Luke xviii. 34: compare Luke xxiv. 8, and John ii. 21, 22).[1.2]Mark xiii. 10; Luke xxiv. 17, 21.[1.3]Preceding passages, especially Luke xvii. 24, 25; xviii. 31–34.[1.4]Talmud of Babylon,Baba, Bathra,58, a, and the Arabic extract given by the Abbé Bargès, in theBulletin de l'Œuvre des Pélérinages en terre Sainte, February 1863.[1.5]Ibn. Hischam,Sirot Errasoul, édit. Wüsdenfeld, 1012, and following pages.{1.6}{Luke xxiv, 23;Actsxxv; Jos.Ant.xviii. 3.}{1.7}Ps. xvi. 10. The sense of the original is a little different. But the received versions thus translate the passage.{1.8}I. Thess. iv. 12, et seq.; I. Cor. xv., entire; Revelation xx.-xxii.{1.9}Matt. xvi. 21, et seq.; Mark viii. 31, et seq.{1.10}Josephus,Ant.XVIII., iii. 3.{1.11}Carefully reperuse the four stories of the Gospels, and the passage I. Cor. xv. 4, 8.{1.12}Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1.{1.13}John xx. 2, seems to suppose even that Mary was not always alone.{1.14}John xx. 1, et seq.; and Mark xvi. 9, et seq. It must be observed that the Gospel of Mark has, in our printed versions of the New Testament, two conclusions: Mark xvi. 1–8; Mark xvi. 9–20, to say nothing of two other conclusions, one of which has been handed down to us in the manuscript L. of Paris, and the margin of the Philoxenian version (Nov. Test., edit. Griesbach, Schultz, 1, page 291 note); the other by St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.l. ii. (vol. iv., 2d part, col. 250, edit. Martianay.) The conclusion in the sixteenth chapter, 9th and following verses, are wanting in theCodex Sinaïticusand in the most important Greek manuscripts. But, in any case, it is of great antiquity, and its harmony with the fourth Gospel is a striking coincidence.{1.15}Matt. xxvii. 60; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53.{1.16}John xix. 41, 42.{1.17}See “Life of Jesus,” p. 38.{1.18}The Gospel of the Hebrews contained, perhaps, some analogous circumstance (vide St. Jerome,de Viris Illustribus, 2).{1.19}M. de Vogue,The Churches of the Holy Land, pp. 125, 126. The verb αποκυλίω (Matt. xxviii. 2; Mark xvi. 3, 4; Luke xxvi. 2) clearly proves that such was the situation of the tomb of Jesus.{1.20}In all this, the recital of the fourth Gospel is vastly superior. It is our principal guide. In Luke xxiv. 12, Peter alone goes to the tomb. In the conclusion of Mark given in manuscript L, and in the margin of the Philoxenian version (Griesbach,loc. citat.) occur τοῖςπερὶ τὸν Πέτρον St. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5) similarly introduces Peter only in this first vision. Further, Luke (xxiv. 24) supposes that many disciples went to the tomb, which observation probably applies to successive visits. It is possible that John has here yielded to the after-thought which betrays him more than once in his Gospel, of showing that he had, in the history of Jesus, a first-rate rôle, equal even to that of Peter. Perhaps, also, the repeated declarations of John, that he was an eye-witness of the fundamental facts of the Christian faith (Gospel i. 14; xxi. 24; I. John i. 1–3; iv. 14), should be applied to this visit.{1.21}John xx. 1, 10; compare Luke xxiv. 12, 34; I. Cor. xv. 5, and the conclusion of Mark in the manuscript L.{1.22}Matt. xxviii. 9; in observing that Matt. xxviii. 9, 10, replies to John xx. 16. 17.{1.23}John xx. 11–17, in harmony with Mark xvi. 9, 10; compare the parallel, but far less satisfactory account of Matt. xxviii. 1–10; Luke xxiv. 1, 10.{1.24}John xx. 18.{1.25}Compare Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.{1.26}Luke xxiv. 11.{1.27}Ibid. xxiv. 24.{1.28}Ibid. xxiv. 34; I. Cor. xv. 5; the conclusion of Mark in the manuscript L. The fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews in St. Ignatius,Epist. ad Smyrn., and in St. Jerome,de Viris Ill., 16, seem to place “the vision of Peter” in the evening, and to confound it with that of the assembled Apostles. But St. Paul expressly distinguishes between the two visions.{1.29}Luke xxiv. 23, 24. It results from these passages that the tidings were separately proclaimed.{1.30}Mark xvi. 1–8; Matthew xxviii. 9, 10, contradict this. But this is at variance with the synoptical system, where the women only see an angel. It seems that the first Gospel was intended to reconcile the synoptical system with that of the fourth, wherein one woman only saw Jesus.{1.31}Matt, xxxviii. 2, et seq.; Mark xvi. 5, et seq.; Luke xxiv. 4, et seq., 23. This apparition of angels is even introduced into the story of the fourth Gospel (xx. 12, 13), which it completely deranges, being applied to Mary of Magdala. The author was unwilling to abandon this traditionary feature.{1.32}Mark xvi. 8.{1.33}Luke xxiv. 4, 7; John xx. 12, 13.{1.34}Matt. xviii. 1, et seq. The story of Matthew is that in which the circumstances have suffered the greatest exaggeration. The earthquake and the feature of the guards are probably late additions.{1.35}The six or seven accounts which we have of this scene on Sunday morning (Mark having two or three, and Paul having also his own, tosay nothing of the Gospel of the Hebrews), are in complete disagreement with each other.{1.36}Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27; John xvi. 32; Justin,Apol.i. 50;Dial. cum Tryph., 53, 106. The theory of Justin is that immediately on the death of Jesus, there was a complete apostasy on the part of His disciples.{1.37}Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark xvi. 11; Luke xxiv. 11.{1.38}Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.{1.39}Consult, for example, Calmeil,De la Folie au Point de Vue Pathologique, Historique et Judiciaire. Paris, 1845. 2 vols, in 8vo.{1.40}See thePastoral Lettersof Jurieu, 1st year, 7th letter; Misson,The Sacred Theatre of Cevennes(London, 1707), pp. 28, 34, 38, 102, 103, 104, 107; Memoirs of Court in Sayons,History of French Literature, seventeenth century, i. p. 303.Bulletin of the French Protestant Historical Society, 1862, p. 174.{1.41}Matt. xiv. 26; Mark vi. 49; Luke xxiv. 37; John iv. 19.{1.42}Mark xvi. 12–13; Luke xxiv. 13–33.{1.43}Compare Josephus, B. J., vii. vi. 6. Luke places this village at 60 stadia, and Josephus at 30 stadia from Jerusalem. Εξήκοντα, which is found in certain manuscripts and editions of Josephus, is a correction made by some Christian. Consult the edition of G. Pindorf. The most probable locality of Emmaus is Kullouvé, a beautiful place at the bottom of a valley, on the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa. Consult Sepp.Jerusalem and the Holy Land(1863), I. p. 56; Bourquenoud in theStudies of Religious History and Literature, by the Priests of the Society of Jesus, 1863, No. 9; and for the exact distances, H. Zschokke.The Emmaus of the New Testament(Schaffouse, 1865).{1.44}Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 33, et seq.: John xx. 19, et seq.: Gospel of the Hebrews in St. Ignatius,Epist. ad Smyrn., 3, and in St. Jerome,De Viris Ill., 16; I. Cor. xv. 5; Justin,Dial. cum Tryph.106.{1.45}Luke xxiv. 34.{1.46}In an island opposite Rotterdam, where the people have remained attached to the most austere Calvinism, the peasants are persuaded that Jesus comes to their death-beds to assure the elect of their justification; many, in fact, see Him.{1.47}In order to conceive the possibility of similar illusions, it is sufficient to remember the scenes of our own days, when a number of persons assembled together unanimously acknowledged that they heard unreal voices, and that in perfectly good faith. The expectation, the effort of the imagination, the desire to believe, sometimes compliances accorded with perfect innocence, explain such of the phenomena as are not produced by direct fraud. These compliances proceed, in general, from persons who are convinced, and who, actuated by a kindly feeling, are unwilling that the party should break up unpleasantly, and are desirous of relieving the masters of the house from embarrassment. When a person believes in a miracle, he alwaysunwillingly assists in its propagation. Doubt and denial are impossible in this sort of assemblage. You would only cause pain to those who do believe, and to those whom you have invited. And thus it is that these experiences which succeed so well before small committees, are usually failures before a paying public, and always so when handled by scientific commissions.{1.48}John xx. 22, 23, echoed by Luke xxiv. 49.{1.49}Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 39, 40.{1.50}John xx. 24, 29; compare Mark xvi. 14; and the conclusion of Mark preserved by St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.ii. (v. above at page).{1.51}John xx. 29.{1.52}It is very remarkable indeed that John, under whose name the above dictum has been transmitted, had no particular vision for himself alone. Cf. I. Cor. xv. 5, 8.{1.53}John xx. 26. The passage xxi. 14 supposes it is true that there were only two apparitions at Jerusalem before the assembled disciples. But the passages xx. 30, and xxi. 25, give us far more latitude. CompareActs1, 3.{1.54}Luke xxiv. 41, 43; Gospel of the Hebrews, in St. Jerome,De Viris Illustribus, 2; conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag., ii.CHAPTER II.[2.1]Matt. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.[2.2]Matt. xxviii. 10.[2.3]Ibid. xxvi. 32.[2.4]Matt. xxviii. 16; John xxi.; Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52, and theActsi. 3, 4, are here in flagrant contradiction to Mark xvi. 1–8, and Matthew. The second conclusion of Mark (xvi. 9, et seq.), and even of the two others which are not a part of the received text, appeared to be included in the system of Luke. But this cannot avail in opposition to the harmony of a portion of the synoptical tradition with the fourth Gospel, and even indirectly with Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8), on this point.[2.5]Matt. xxviii. 16.[2.6]Ibid, xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.[2.7]Conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.ii.[2.8]Matt. xxviii. 16.[2.9]John xxi. 2, et seq.[2.10]The author of theActsi. 14, makes them remain at Jerusalem until the Ascension. But this agrees with his systematic determination (Luke xxiv. 49;Actsi. 4), not to allow of a journey into Galilee after the resurrection (a theory contradicted by Matthew and by John). To be consistent in this theory he is compelled to place theAscension at Bethany, in which he is contradicted by all the other traditions.[2.11]I. Cor. xv. 5, et seq.[2.12]John xxxi. 1, et seq. This chapter has been added to the already completed Gospel, as a postscript. But it is from the same pen as the rest.[2.13]John xxi. 9–14; compare Luke xxiv. 41–43. John combines in one the two scenes of the fishing and the meal. But Luke arranges the matter differently. At all events, if we consider with attention the verses of John xxi. 14, 15, we shall come to the conclusion that these harmonies of John are somewhat artificial. Hallucinations, at the moment of their conception, are always isolated. It is later that consistent anecdotes are formed out of them. This habit of coupling together as consecutive events facts which are separated by months and weeks, is seen, in a very striking manner, by comparing together two passages of the same writer, Luke, Gospel, xxiv. end, andActsi. at the beginning. According to the former passage, Jesus should have ascended into heaven on the same day as the resurrection; whilst, according to the latter, there was an interval of forty days. Again, if we rigorously interpret Mark xvi. 9–20, the Ascension must have taken place on the evening of the resurrection. Nothing more fully proves than the contradiction of Luke in these two passages, how little the editors of the evangelical writings observed consistency in their stories.[2.14]John xxi. 15, et seq.[2.15]Ibid. xxi. 18, et seq.[2.16]I. Cor. xv. 6.[2.17]The Transfiguration.[2.18]Matt, xxviii. 16–20; I. Cor. xv. 6. Compare Mark xvi. 15, et seq. Luke xxiv. 44, et seq.[2.19]I. Cor. xv. 6.[2.20]John affixes no limit to the resuscitated life of Jesus. He appears to suppose it somewhat protracted. According to Matthew, it could only have lasted during the time which was necessary to complete the journey to Galilee and to rendezvous at the mountain pointed out by Jesus. According to the first incomplete conclusion of Mark (xvi. 1–8), the incidents would seem to have transpired as found in Matthew. According to the second conclusion (xvi. 9, 20), according to others; and, according to the Gospel of Luke, the disentombed life would appear to have lasted only one day. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8), agreeing with the fourth Gospel, prolongs it for two years, since he gives his vision, which occurred five or six years at least after the death of Jesus, as the last of the apparitions. The circumstance of “five hundred brethren” conduces to the same conclusion; for it does not appear that on the morning after the death of Jesus, the group of his friends was compact enough to furnish such a gathering (Actsi. 15). Many of the Gnostic sects, especially the Valentinians and the Sethians, estimated the continuance of the apparitions at eighteen months, and even founded mystic theories on that notion (IrenæusAdv. hær., i. iii. 2; xxx. 14). The author of theActsalone (i. 3) fixes the duration of the disentombed life of Jesus at forty days. But this is very poor authority; above all, if we remark that it is connected with an erroneous system (Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52;Actsi. 4, 12), according to which the whole disentombed life of Jesus would have been passed at Jerusalem or in its vicinity. The number forty is symbolic (the people spend forty years in the desert; Moses, forty days on Mount Sinai; Elijah and Jesus fast forty days, &c.). As to the formula of the narrative adopted by the author of the last twelve verses of the second Gospel, and by the author of the third Gospel, a formula according to which the events are confined to one day, the authority of Paul, the most ancient and the strongest of all, corroborating that of the fourth Gospel, which affords the most connected and authentic record of this portion of the evangelic history, appears to us to furnish a conclusive argument.[2.21]Luke xxiv. 31.[2.22]John xx. 19, 26.[2.23]Matt. xxviii. 9; Luke xxiv. 37, et seq.; John xx. 27, et seq.; Gospel of the Hebrews, in St. Ignatius, the Epistle to the Smyrniotes 3, and in St. Jerome,De Viris Illustribus, 16.[2.24]John vi. 64.[2.25]Matt. xxviii. 11–15; Justin,Dial. cum Tryph.17, 108.[2.26]Matt. xxvii. 62–66; xxviii. 4, 11–15.[2.27]Ibid. xxviii. 9, et seq.[2.28]The Jews are enraged, Matt. xxvii. 63, when they hear that Jesus had predicted his resurrection. But even the disciples of Jesus had no precise ideas in this respect.[2.29]A vague idea of this sort may be found in Matthew xxvi. 32; xxviii. 7, 10; Mark xiv. 28; xvi. 7.[2.30]This is plainly seen in the miracles of Salette and Sourdes. One of the most usual ways in which a miraculous legend is invented is the following. A person of holy life pretends to heal diseases. A sick person is brought to him or her, and in consequence of the excitement finds himself relieved. Next day it is bruited abroad in a circle of ten miles that there has been a miracle. The sick person dies five or six days afterwards; no one mentions the fact; so that at the hour of the burial of the deceased, people at a distance of forty miles are relating with admiration his wondrous cure. The word loaned to the Grecian philosophy before theex votosof Samothrace (Diog. Läert. VI. ii. 59,) is also perfectly appropriate.[2.31]A phenomenon of this kind, and one of the most striking, takes place annually at Jerusalem. The orthodox Greeks pretend that the fire which is spontaneously lighted at the holy sepulchre on the Saturday of the holy week preceding their Easter, takes away the sins of those whose faces it touches without burning them. Millions of pilgrimshave tried it and know full well that this fire does burn (the contortions which they make, joined to the smell, are a sufficient proof). Nevertheless, no one has ever been found to contradict the belief of the orthodox Church. This would be to avow that they were deficient in faith, that they were unworthy of the miracle, and to acknowledge, oh, heavens! that the Latins were the true Church; for this miracle is considered by the Greeks as the most convincing proof that theirs is the only good church.[2.32]The affair of Salette before the civil tribunal of Grenoble (decree of 2d May, 1855), and before the court of Grenoble (decree of 6th May, 1857), pleadings of MM. Jules Favre and Bethmont, &c., collected by J. Sabbatier (Grenoble Vellot. 1857.)[2.33]John xx. 15. Could it include a glimmering of this?[2.34]See above.[2.35]John expressly says so, xix. 41, 42.[2.36]John xx. 6, 7.[2.37]One cannot help thinking of Mary of Bethany, who in fact is not represented as taking any part in the event of the Sunday morning. See “Life of Jesus” p. 341, et seq.; 359, et seq.[2.38]Celsus has already delivered some excellent critical observations on this subject (in Origen).Contra Celsum, ii. 55.[2.39]Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.CHAPTER III.
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION.
[I.1]The author of theActsdoes not directly give to St. Paul the title of apostle. This title is, in general, reserved by him for the members of the central college, at Jerusalem.[I.2]Hom. Pseudo-Clem., xvii. 13–19.[I.3]Justin, Apol. i. 39. In the Acts also is seen the idea that Peter was the Apostle of the Gentiles. See especially Chap. x., comp. Petri i. 1.[I.4]I. Cor. iii. 6, 10; iv. 14, 15; ix. 1, 2. II. Cor. xi. 2, etc.[I.5]Letter of Denys of Corinth in Euseb.Hist. Eccl.ii. 25.[I.6]French readers, for ample details upon the discussion and comparison of the four narratives, may see Strauss, Vie de Jésus, 3d sect., chapters iv. and v. (traduction Littré);Nouvelle Vie de Jésus, 1. i., § 46, &c.; 1. ii. § 97, &c. (translation Nefftzer and Dollfus).[I.7]The Church early admitted this. See the canon of Muratori (Antiq. Ital.iii. 854), (Neutestamentliche Studien, Gotha, 1866), lines 33, &c.[I.8]Luke i. 1–4;Actsi. 1.[I.9]See especiallyActs, xvi. 12.[I.10]The paucity of language in the New Testament writers is so great that each one has his own dictionary; so that the writers of even very short manuscripts can be easily recognised.[I.11]The use of this word,Actsxiv. 4, 14, is very indirect.[I.12]Comp. for example,Actsxvii. 14–16; xviii. 5, with I. Thess. iii. 1–2.[I.13]I. Cor. xv. 32; II. Cor. i. 8; xi. 23, &c.; Rom. xv. 19; xvi. 3, &c.[I.14]Actsxvi. 6; xviii. 22–23, compared with the Epistle to the Galatians.[I.15]For instance, the sojourn at Cesarea is left in obscurity.[I.16]Mabillon,Museum Italicum, i. 1 pars, p. 109.[I.17]Col. iv. 14.[I.18]See above, p. xii.[I.19]Almost all the inscriptions are Latin, as at Naples (Cavala), the port of Philippi. See Heuzey,Mission de Macédoine, p. 11, &c. The remarkable familiarity with nautical subjects of the author of theActs(see especially chapters xxvii-xxviii), would give rise to the belief that he was a Neapolitan.[I.20]For example,Actsx. 28.[I.21]Actsv. 36–37.[I.22]The Hebraisms of his style may arise from careful reading of Greek translations of the Old Testament, and above all, from reading the manuscripts of his co-religionists of Palestine, whom he often copied word for word. His quotations from the Old Testament are made without any acquaintance with the original text (for example, xv. 16, &c.).[I.23]Actsxvii. 22, &c.[I.24]Luke i. 26; iv. 31; xxiv. 13.[I.25]Luke i. 31, compared with Matthew i. 21. The name ofJeanne, known only to Luke, is dubious. See, however, Talm. de Bab. Sota, 22 a.[I.26]Actsii. 47; iv. 33; v. 13, 26.[I.27]Actsix. 22, 23; xii. 3, 11; xiii. 45, 50, and many other passages. It is the same with the fourth gospel also compiled out of Syria.[I.28]Luke x. 33, &c.; xvii. 16;Actsviii. 5, &c. The same in the fourth gospel: John iv. 5, &c.[I.29]Actsxxviii. 30.[I.30]SeeVie de Jésus.[I.31]Luke xxiv. 50. Mark xvi. 19, shows a similar arrangement.[I.32]Actsi. 3, 9.[I.33]See especially Luke i. 1, the expression τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων[I.34]Ch. x. xxii. xxvi.[I.35]The centurion Cornelius, the proconsul Sergius Paulus.[I.36]Actsxiii. 7, &c.; xviii. 12, &c.; xix. 35, &c.; xxiv. 7, 17; xxv. 9, 16, 25; xxvii. 2; xxviii. 17–18.[I.37]Ibid. xvi. 37, &c.; xxii. 26, &c.[I.38]Similar precautions were by no means rare. In the Apocalypse and the Epistle of Peter, Rome is alluded to in disguised language.[I.39]Luke i. 4.[I.40]Actsi. 22.[I.41]SeeVie de Jésus, p. xxxix. &c.[I.42]This is obvious, especially in the history of the centurion Cornelius.[I.43]Actsii. 47; iv. 33; v. 13, 26. Cf. Luke, xxiv. 19–20.[I.44]Actsii. 44–45; iv. 34, &c.; v. 1, &c.[I.45]I. Cor. xii-xiv. Comp. Mark xvi. 17, andActsii. 4–13; x. 46; xi. 15; xix. 6.[I.46]Comp.Actsiii. 2, &c., to xiv. 8, &c.; ix. 36, &c., to xx. 9, &c.; v. 1,&c., with xiii. 9, &c.; v. 15–16, to xix. 12; xii. 7, &c., with xvi. 26, &c.; x. 44, with xix. 6.}[I.47]In a speech attributed by the author to Gamaliel, about the year 36, Theudas is spoken of as anterior to Judas of Galilee (Actsv. 36–37). Now the revolt of Theudas was in the year 44 (Jos.Ant.xx. v. 1), and certainly after that of the Galilean (Jos.Ant., xviii. i. 1; B. J., II., viii. 1).[I.48]Those who cannot refer to the German works of Baur, Schneckenburger, Wette, Schwegler, Zeller, where critical questions relative to the Acts are brought to almost a definite solution, may consultEtudes Historiques et Critiques sur les Origines du Christianisme, by A. Stap (Paris, Lacroix, 1864), p. 116, &c.; Michel Nicolas,Etudes Critiques sur la Bible; Nouveau Testament(Paris, Lévy, 1864), p. 223, &c.; Reuss,Histoire de la Théologie Chretienne au siècle ApostoliqueI. vi. ch. v.; other works of MM. Kayser, Scherer, Reuss, in theRevue de Théologieof Strasburg, 1st series, vol. ii. and iii.; 2d series, vol. ii. and iii.[I.49]For the exact meaning of οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ και αἴματι, comp. Matt. xvi. 17.[I.50]He declares it on oath. See chapters i. and ii. of the Epistle to the Galatians.[I.51]Actsxii. 1.[I.52]Jos. Ant. XIX. viii. 2; B. J. II. xii. 6.[I.53]The quotation from Amos (xv. 16–17), made by James according to the Greek version, and in non-accordance with the Hebrew, also shows that this speech is a fiction of the author.[I.54]We shall show later that this is the true sense. Any way, the question of the circumcision of Titus is of no importance here.[I.55]Comp.Actsxv. 1; Gal. i. 7; ii. 12.[I.56]I. Cor. viii. 4, 9; x. 25, 29.[I.57]Acts, xxi. 20, &c.[I.58]Above all, the Ebionites. See the Homilies Pseudo-Clem. Irenæus. Adv. hær. I. xxvi. 2; Epiphanius, Adv. hær., hær. xxx; St. Jerome.InMatt. xii.[I.59]I would nevertheless willingly lose Ananias and Sapphira.[I.60]De Divinatione, ii. 57.[I.61]Preface to theEtudes d'Histoire Religieuse.
[I.1]The author of theActsdoes not directly give to St. Paul the title of apostle. This title is, in general, reserved by him for the members of the central college, at Jerusalem.
[I.2]Hom. Pseudo-Clem., xvii. 13–19.
[I.3]Justin, Apol. i. 39. In the Acts also is seen the idea that Peter was the Apostle of the Gentiles. See especially Chap. x., comp. Petri i. 1.
[I.4]I. Cor. iii. 6, 10; iv. 14, 15; ix. 1, 2. II. Cor. xi. 2, etc.
[I.5]Letter of Denys of Corinth in Euseb.Hist. Eccl.ii. 25.
[I.6]French readers, for ample details upon the discussion and comparison of the four narratives, may see Strauss, Vie de Jésus, 3d sect., chapters iv. and v. (traduction Littré);Nouvelle Vie de Jésus, 1. i., § 46, &c.; 1. ii. § 97, &c. (translation Nefftzer and Dollfus).
[I.7]The Church early admitted this. See the canon of Muratori (Antiq. Ital.iii. 854), (Neutestamentliche Studien, Gotha, 1866), lines 33, &c.
[I.8]Luke i. 1–4;Actsi. 1.
[I.9]See especiallyActs, xvi. 12.
[I.10]The paucity of language in the New Testament writers is so great that each one has his own dictionary; so that the writers of even very short manuscripts can be easily recognised.
[I.11]The use of this word,Actsxiv. 4, 14, is very indirect.
[I.12]Comp. for example,Actsxvii. 14–16; xviii. 5, with I. Thess. iii. 1–2.
[I.13]I. Cor. xv. 32; II. Cor. i. 8; xi. 23, &c.; Rom. xv. 19; xvi. 3, &c.
[I.14]Actsxvi. 6; xviii. 22–23, compared with the Epistle to the Galatians.
[I.15]For instance, the sojourn at Cesarea is left in obscurity.
[I.16]Mabillon,Museum Italicum, i. 1 pars, p. 109.
[I.17]Col. iv. 14.
[I.18]See above, p. xii.
[I.19]Almost all the inscriptions are Latin, as at Naples (Cavala), the port of Philippi. See Heuzey,Mission de Macédoine, p. 11, &c. The remarkable familiarity with nautical subjects of the author of theActs(see especially chapters xxvii-xxviii), would give rise to the belief that he was a Neapolitan.
[I.20]For example,Actsx. 28.
[I.21]Actsv. 36–37.
[I.22]The Hebraisms of his style may arise from careful reading of Greek translations of the Old Testament, and above all, from reading the manuscripts of his co-religionists of Palestine, whom he often copied word for word. His quotations from the Old Testament are made without any acquaintance with the original text (for example, xv. 16, &c.).
[I.23]Actsxvii. 22, &c.
[I.24]Luke i. 26; iv. 31; xxiv. 13.
[I.25]Luke i. 31, compared with Matthew i. 21. The name ofJeanne, known only to Luke, is dubious. See, however, Talm. de Bab. Sota, 22 a.
[I.26]Actsii. 47; iv. 33; v. 13, 26.
[I.27]Actsix. 22, 23; xii. 3, 11; xiii. 45, 50, and many other passages. It is the same with the fourth gospel also compiled out of Syria.
[I.28]Luke x. 33, &c.; xvii. 16;Actsviii. 5, &c. The same in the fourth gospel: John iv. 5, &c.
[I.29]Actsxxviii. 30.
[I.30]SeeVie de Jésus.
[I.31]Luke xxiv. 50. Mark xvi. 19, shows a similar arrangement.
[I.32]Actsi. 3, 9.
[I.33]See especially Luke i. 1, the expression τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων
[I.34]Ch. x. xxii. xxvi.
[I.35]The centurion Cornelius, the proconsul Sergius Paulus.
[I.36]Actsxiii. 7, &c.; xviii. 12, &c.; xix. 35, &c.; xxiv. 7, 17; xxv. 9, 16, 25; xxvii. 2; xxviii. 17–18.
[I.37]Ibid. xvi. 37, &c.; xxii. 26, &c.
[I.38]Similar precautions were by no means rare. In the Apocalypse and the Epistle of Peter, Rome is alluded to in disguised language.
[I.39]Luke i. 4.
[I.40]Actsi. 22.
[I.41]SeeVie de Jésus, p. xxxix. &c.
[I.42]This is obvious, especially in the history of the centurion Cornelius.
[I.43]Actsii. 47; iv. 33; v. 13, 26. Cf. Luke, xxiv. 19–20.
[I.44]Actsii. 44–45; iv. 34, &c.; v. 1, &c.
[I.45]I. Cor. xii-xiv. Comp. Mark xvi. 17, andActsii. 4–13; x. 46; xi. 15; xix. 6.
[I.46]Comp.Actsiii. 2, &c., to xiv. 8, &c.; ix. 36, &c., to xx. 9, &c.; v. 1,&c., with xiii. 9, &c.; v. 15–16, to xix. 12; xii. 7, &c., with xvi. 26, &c.; x. 44, with xix. 6.}
[I.47]In a speech attributed by the author to Gamaliel, about the year 36, Theudas is spoken of as anterior to Judas of Galilee (Actsv. 36–37). Now the revolt of Theudas was in the year 44 (Jos.Ant.xx. v. 1), and certainly after that of the Galilean (Jos.Ant., xviii. i. 1; B. J., II., viii. 1).
[I.48]Those who cannot refer to the German works of Baur, Schneckenburger, Wette, Schwegler, Zeller, where critical questions relative to the Acts are brought to almost a definite solution, may consultEtudes Historiques et Critiques sur les Origines du Christianisme, by A. Stap (Paris, Lacroix, 1864), p. 116, &c.; Michel Nicolas,Etudes Critiques sur la Bible; Nouveau Testament(Paris, Lévy, 1864), p. 223, &c.; Reuss,Histoire de la Théologie Chretienne au siècle ApostoliqueI. vi. ch. v.; other works of MM. Kayser, Scherer, Reuss, in theRevue de Théologieof Strasburg, 1st series, vol. ii. and iii.; 2d series, vol. ii. and iii.
[I.49]For the exact meaning of οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ και αἴματι, comp. Matt. xvi. 17.
[I.50]He declares it on oath. See chapters i. and ii. of the Epistle to the Galatians.
[I.51]Actsxii. 1.
[I.52]Jos. Ant. XIX. viii. 2; B. J. II. xii. 6.
[I.53]The quotation from Amos (xv. 16–17), made by James according to the Greek version, and in non-accordance with the Hebrew, also shows that this speech is a fiction of the author.
[I.54]We shall show later that this is the true sense. Any way, the question of the circumcision of Titus is of no importance here.
[I.55]Comp.Actsxv. 1; Gal. i. 7; ii. 12.
[I.56]I. Cor. viii. 4, 9; x. 25, 29.
[I.57]Acts, xxi. 20, &c.
[I.58]Above all, the Ebionites. See the Homilies Pseudo-Clem. Irenæus. Adv. hær. I. xxvi. 2; Epiphanius, Adv. hær., hær. xxx; St. Jerome.InMatt. xii.
[I.59]I would nevertheless willingly lose Ananias and Sapphira.
[I.60]De Divinatione, ii. 57.
[I.61]Preface to theEtudes d'Histoire Religieuse.
CHAPTER I.
[1.1]Mark xvi. 11; Luke xviii. 34; xxiv. 44; John xx. 9, 24, and following verses. The contrary opinion in Matt. xii. 40; xxi. 4, 24; xvii. 9, 23; xx. 19; xxxi. 32; Mark viii. 34; ix. 9, 10—31; x. 34; Luke ix. 22; xi. 29, 30; xviii. 31 et seq.; xxiv. 6–8. Justin,Pial. cumTryph.106, proceeds from a source on which, beginning from a certain epoch, considerable reliance may be placed as to the announcements which Jesus had made in reference to his resurrection. The synopticals acknowledge, moreover, that if Jesus spake of it at all, his disciples understood nothing of it (Mark ix. 10, 32; Luke xviii. 34: compare Luke xxiv. 8, and John ii. 21, 22).[1.2]Mark xiii. 10; Luke xxiv. 17, 21.[1.3]Preceding passages, especially Luke xvii. 24, 25; xviii. 31–34.[1.4]Talmud of Babylon,Baba, Bathra,58, a, and the Arabic extract given by the Abbé Bargès, in theBulletin de l'Œuvre des Pélérinages en terre Sainte, February 1863.[1.5]Ibn. Hischam,Sirot Errasoul, édit. Wüsdenfeld, 1012, and following pages.{1.6}{Luke xxiv, 23;Actsxxv; Jos.Ant.xviii. 3.}{1.7}Ps. xvi. 10. The sense of the original is a little different. But the received versions thus translate the passage.{1.8}I. Thess. iv. 12, et seq.; I. Cor. xv., entire; Revelation xx.-xxii.{1.9}Matt. xvi. 21, et seq.; Mark viii. 31, et seq.{1.10}Josephus,Ant.XVIII., iii. 3.{1.11}Carefully reperuse the four stories of the Gospels, and the passage I. Cor. xv. 4, 8.{1.12}Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1.{1.13}John xx. 2, seems to suppose even that Mary was not always alone.{1.14}John xx. 1, et seq.; and Mark xvi. 9, et seq. It must be observed that the Gospel of Mark has, in our printed versions of the New Testament, two conclusions: Mark xvi. 1–8; Mark xvi. 9–20, to say nothing of two other conclusions, one of which has been handed down to us in the manuscript L. of Paris, and the margin of the Philoxenian version (Nov. Test., edit. Griesbach, Schultz, 1, page 291 note); the other by St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.l. ii. (vol. iv., 2d part, col. 250, edit. Martianay.) The conclusion in the sixteenth chapter, 9th and following verses, are wanting in theCodex Sinaïticusand in the most important Greek manuscripts. But, in any case, it is of great antiquity, and its harmony with the fourth Gospel is a striking coincidence.{1.15}Matt. xxvii. 60; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53.{1.16}John xix. 41, 42.{1.17}See “Life of Jesus,” p. 38.{1.18}The Gospel of the Hebrews contained, perhaps, some analogous circumstance (vide St. Jerome,de Viris Illustribus, 2).{1.19}M. de Vogue,The Churches of the Holy Land, pp. 125, 126. The verb αποκυλίω (Matt. xxviii. 2; Mark xvi. 3, 4; Luke xxvi. 2) clearly proves that such was the situation of the tomb of Jesus.{1.20}In all this, the recital of the fourth Gospel is vastly superior. It is our principal guide. In Luke xxiv. 12, Peter alone goes to the tomb. In the conclusion of Mark given in manuscript L, and in the margin of the Philoxenian version (Griesbach,loc. citat.) occur τοῖςπερὶ τὸν Πέτρον St. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5) similarly introduces Peter only in this first vision. Further, Luke (xxiv. 24) supposes that many disciples went to the tomb, which observation probably applies to successive visits. It is possible that John has here yielded to the after-thought which betrays him more than once in his Gospel, of showing that he had, in the history of Jesus, a first-rate rôle, equal even to that of Peter. Perhaps, also, the repeated declarations of John, that he was an eye-witness of the fundamental facts of the Christian faith (Gospel i. 14; xxi. 24; I. John i. 1–3; iv. 14), should be applied to this visit.{1.21}John xx. 1, 10; compare Luke xxiv. 12, 34; I. Cor. xv. 5, and the conclusion of Mark in the manuscript L.{1.22}Matt. xxviii. 9; in observing that Matt. xxviii. 9, 10, replies to John xx. 16. 17.{1.23}John xx. 11–17, in harmony with Mark xvi. 9, 10; compare the parallel, but far less satisfactory account of Matt. xxviii. 1–10; Luke xxiv. 1, 10.{1.24}John xx. 18.{1.25}Compare Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.{1.26}Luke xxiv. 11.{1.27}Ibid. xxiv. 24.{1.28}Ibid. xxiv. 34; I. Cor. xv. 5; the conclusion of Mark in the manuscript L. The fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews in St. Ignatius,Epist. ad Smyrn., and in St. Jerome,de Viris Ill., 16, seem to place “the vision of Peter” in the evening, and to confound it with that of the assembled Apostles. But St. Paul expressly distinguishes between the two visions.{1.29}Luke xxiv. 23, 24. It results from these passages that the tidings were separately proclaimed.{1.30}Mark xvi. 1–8; Matthew xxviii. 9, 10, contradict this. But this is at variance with the synoptical system, where the women only see an angel. It seems that the first Gospel was intended to reconcile the synoptical system with that of the fourth, wherein one woman only saw Jesus.{1.31}Matt, xxxviii. 2, et seq.; Mark xvi. 5, et seq.; Luke xxiv. 4, et seq., 23. This apparition of angels is even introduced into the story of the fourth Gospel (xx. 12, 13), which it completely deranges, being applied to Mary of Magdala. The author was unwilling to abandon this traditionary feature.{1.32}Mark xvi. 8.{1.33}Luke xxiv. 4, 7; John xx. 12, 13.{1.34}Matt. xviii. 1, et seq. The story of Matthew is that in which the circumstances have suffered the greatest exaggeration. The earthquake and the feature of the guards are probably late additions.{1.35}The six or seven accounts which we have of this scene on Sunday morning (Mark having two or three, and Paul having also his own, tosay nothing of the Gospel of the Hebrews), are in complete disagreement with each other.{1.36}Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27; John xvi. 32; Justin,Apol.i. 50;Dial. cum Tryph., 53, 106. The theory of Justin is that immediately on the death of Jesus, there was a complete apostasy on the part of His disciples.{1.37}Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark xvi. 11; Luke xxiv. 11.{1.38}Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.{1.39}Consult, for example, Calmeil,De la Folie au Point de Vue Pathologique, Historique et Judiciaire. Paris, 1845. 2 vols, in 8vo.{1.40}See thePastoral Lettersof Jurieu, 1st year, 7th letter; Misson,The Sacred Theatre of Cevennes(London, 1707), pp. 28, 34, 38, 102, 103, 104, 107; Memoirs of Court in Sayons,History of French Literature, seventeenth century, i. p. 303.Bulletin of the French Protestant Historical Society, 1862, p. 174.{1.41}Matt. xiv. 26; Mark vi. 49; Luke xxiv. 37; John iv. 19.{1.42}Mark xvi. 12–13; Luke xxiv. 13–33.{1.43}Compare Josephus, B. J., vii. vi. 6. Luke places this village at 60 stadia, and Josephus at 30 stadia from Jerusalem. Εξήκοντα, which is found in certain manuscripts and editions of Josephus, is a correction made by some Christian. Consult the edition of G. Pindorf. The most probable locality of Emmaus is Kullouvé, a beautiful place at the bottom of a valley, on the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa. Consult Sepp.Jerusalem and the Holy Land(1863), I. p. 56; Bourquenoud in theStudies of Religious History and Literature, by the Priests of the Society of Jesus, 1863, No. 9; and for the exact distances, H. Zschokke.The Emmaus of the New Testament(Schaffouse, 1865).{1.44}Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 33, et seq.: John xx. 19, et seq.: Gospel of the Hebrews in St. Ignatius,Epist. ad Smyrn., 3, and in St. Jerome,De Viris Ill., 16; I. Cor. xv. 5; Justin,Dial. cum Tryph.106.{1.45}Luke xxiv. 34.{1.46}In an island opposite Rotterdam, where the people have remained attached to the most austere Calvinism, the peasants are persuaded that Jesus comes to their death-beds to assure the elect of their justification; many, in fact, see Him.{1.47}In order to conceive the possibility of similar illusions, it is sufficient to remember the scenes of our own days, when a number of persons assembled together unanimously acknowledged that they heard unreal voices, and that in perfectly good faith. The expectation, the effort of the imagination, the desire to believe, sometimes compliances accorded with perfect innocence, explain such of the phenomena as are not produced by direct fraud. These compliances proceed, in general, from persons who are convinced, and who, actuated by a kindly feeling, are unwilling that the party should break up unpleasantly, and are desirous of relieving the masters of the house from embarrassment. When a person believes in a miracle, he alwaysunwillingly assists in its propagation. Doubt and denial are impossible in this sort of assemblage. You would only cause pain to those who do believe, and to those whom you have invited. And thus it is that these experiences which succeed so well before small committees, are usually failures before a paying public, and always so when handled by scientific commissions.{1.48}John xx. 22, 23, echoed by Luke xxiv. 49.{1.49}Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 39, 40.{1.50}John xx. 24, 29; compare Mark xvi. 14; and the conclusion of Mark preserved by St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.ii. (v. above at page).{1.51}John xx. 29.{1.52}It is very remarkable indeed that John, under whose name the above dictum has been transmitted, had no particular vision for himself alone. Cf. I. Cor. xv. 5, 8.{1.53}John xx. 26. The passage xxi. 14 supposes it is true that there were only two apparitions at Jerusalem before the assembled disciples. But the passages xx. 30, and xxi. 25, give us far more latitude. CompareActs1, 3.{1.54}Luke xxiv. 41, 43; Gospel of the Hebrews, in St. Jerome,De Viris Illustribus, 2; conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag., ii.
[1.1]Mark xvi. 11; Luke xviii. 34; xxiv. 44; John xx. 9, 24, and following verses. The contrary opinion in Matt. xii. 40; xxi. 4, 24; xvii. 9, 23; xx. 19; xxxi. 32; Mark viii. 34; ix. 9, 10—31; x. 34; Luke ix. 22; xi. 29, 30; xviii. 31 et seq.; xxiv. 6–8. Justin,Pial. cumTryph.106, proceeds from a source on which, beginning from a certain epoch, considerable reliance may be placed as to the announcements which Jesus had made in reference to his resurrection. The synopticals acknowledge, moreover, that if Jesus spake of it at all, his disciples understood nothing of it (Mark ix. 10, 32; Luke xviii. 34: compare Luke xxiv. 8, and John ii. 21, 22).
[1.2]Mark xiii. 10; Luke xxiv. 17, 21.
[1.3]Preceding passages, especially Luke xvii. 24, 25; xviii. 31–34.
[1.4]Talmud of Babylon,Baba, Bathra,58, a, and the Arabic extract given by the Abbé Bargès, in theBulletin de l'Œuvre des Pélérinages en terre Sainte, February 1863.
[1.5]Ibn. Hischam,Sirot Errasoul, édit. Wüsdenfeld, 1012, and following pages.
{1.6}{Luke xxiv, 23;Actsxxv; Jos.Ant.xviii. 3.}
{1.7}Ps. xvi. 10. The sense of the original is a little different. But the received versions thus translate the passage.
{1.8}I. Thess. iv. 12, et seq.; I. Cor. xv., entire; Revelation xx.-xxii.
{1.9}Matt. xvi. 21, et seq.; Mark viii. 31, et seq.
{1.10}Josephus,Ant.XVIII., iii. 3.
{1.11}Carefully reperuse the four stories of the Gospels, and the passage I. Cor. xv. 4, 8.
{1.12}Matt. xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1.
{1.13}John xx. 2, seems to suppose even that Mary was not always alone.
{1.14}John xx. 1, et seq.; and Mark xvi. 9, et seq. It must be observed that the Gospel of Mark has, in our printed versions of the New Testament, two conclusions: Mark xvi. 1–8; Mark xvi. 9–20, to say nothing of two other conclusions, one of which has been handed down to us in the manuscript L. of Paris, and the margin of the Philoxenian version (Nov. Test., edit. Griesbach, Schultz, 1, page 291 note); the other by St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.l. ii. (vol. iv., 2d part, col. 250, edit. Martianay.) The conclusion in the sixteenth chapter, 9th and following verses, are wanting in theCodex Sinaïticusand in the most important Greek manuscripts. But, in any case, it is of great antiquity, and its harmony with the fourth Gospel is a striking coincidence.
{1.15}Matt. xxvii. 60; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53.
{1.16}John xix. 41, 42.
{1.17}See “Life of Jesus,” p. 38.
{1.18}The Gospel of the Hebrews contained, perhaps, some analogous circumstance (vide St. Jerome,de Viris Illustribus, 2).
{1.19}M. de Vogue,The Churches of the Holy Land, pp. 125, 126. The verb αποκυλίω (Matt. xxviii. 2; Mark xvi. 3, 4; Luke xxvi. 2) clearly proves that such was the situation of the tomb of Jesus.
{1.20}In all this, the recital of the fourth Gospel is vastly superior. It is our principal guide. In Luke xxiv. 12, Peter alone goes to the tomb. In the conclusion of Mark given in manuscript L, and in the margin of the Philoxenian version (Griesbach,loc. citat.) occur τοῖςπερὶ τὸν Πέτρον St. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5) similarly introduces Peter only in this first vision. Further, Luke (xxiv. 24) supposes that many disciples went to the tomb, which observation probably applies to successive visits. It is possible that John has here yielded to the after-thought which betrays him more than once in his Gospel, of showing that he had, in the history of Jesus, a first-rate rôle, equal even to that of Peter. Perhaps, also, the repeated declarations of John, that he was an eye-witness of the fundamental facts of the Christian faith (Gospel i. 14; xxi. 24; I. John i. 1–3; iv. 14), should be applied to this visit.
{1.21}John xx. 1, 10; compare Luke xxiv. 12, 34; I. Cor. xv. 5, and the conclusion of Mark in the manuscript L.
{1.22}Matt. xxviii. 9; in observing that Matt. xxviii. 9, 10, replies to John xx. 16. 17.
{1.23}John xx. 11–17, in harmony with Mark xvi. 9, 10; compare the parallel, but far less satisfactory account of Matt. xxviii. 1–10; Luke xxiv. 1, 10.
{1.24}John xx. 18.
{1.25}Compare Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.
{1.26}Luke xxiv. 11.
{1.27}Ibid. xxiv. 24.
{1.28}Ibid. xxiv. 34; I. Cor. xv. 5; the conclusion of Mark in the manuscript L. The fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews in St. Ignatius,Epist. ad Smyrn., and in St. Jerome,de Viris Ill., 16, seem to place “the vision of Peter” in the evening, and to confound it with that of the assembled Apostles. But St. Paul expressly distinguishes between the two visions.
{1.29}Luke xxiv. 23, 24. It results from these passages that the tidings were separately proclaimed.
{1.30}Mark xvi. 1–8; Matthew xxviii. 9, 10, contradict this. But this is at variance with the synoptical system, where the women only see an angel. It seems that the first Gospel was intended to reconcile the synoptical system with that of the fourth, wherein one woman only saw Jesus.
{1.31}Matt, xxxviii. 2, et seq.; Mark xvi. 5, et seq.; Luke xxiv. 4, et seq., 23. This apparition of angels is even introduced into the story of the fourth Gospel (xx. 12, 13), which it completely deranges, being applied to Mary of Magdala. The author was unwilling to abandon this traditionary feature.
{1.32}Mark xvi. 8.
{1.33}Luke xxiv. 4, 7; John xx. 12, 13.
{1.34}Matt. xviii. 1, et seq. The story of Matthew is that in which the circumstances have suffered the greatest exaggeration. The earthquake and the feature of the guards are probably late additions.
{1.35}The six or seven accounts which we have of this scene on Sunday morning (Mark having two or three, and Paul having also his own, tosay nothing of the Gospel of the Hebrews), are in complete disagreement with each other.
{1.36}Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27; John xvi. 32; Justin,Apol.i. 50;Dial. cum Tryph., 53, 106. The theory of Justin is that immediately on the death of Jesus, there was a complete apostasy on the part of His disciples.
{1.37}Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark xvi. 11; Luke xxiv. 11.
{1.38}Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.
{1.39}Consult, for example, Calmeil,De la Folie au Point de Vue Pathologique, Historique et Judiciaire. Paris, 1845. 2 vols, in 8vo.
{1.40}See thePastoral Lettersof Jurieu, 1st year, 7th letter; Misson,The Sacred Theatre of Cevennes(London, 1707), pp. 28, 34, 38, 102, 103, 104, 107; Memoirs of Court in Sayons,History of French Literature, seventeenth century, i. p. 303.Bulletin of the French Protestant Historical Society, 1862, p. 174.
{1.41}Matt. xiv. 26; Mark vi. 49; Luke xxiv. 37; John iv. 19.
{1.42}Mark xvi. 12–13; Luke xxiv. 13–33.
{1.43}Compare Josephus, B. J., vii. vi. 6. Luke places this village at 60 stadia, and Josephus at 30 stadia from Jerusalem. Εξήκοντα, which is found in certain manuscripts and editions of Josephus, is a correction made by some Christian. Consult the edition of G. Pindorf. The most probable locality of Emmaus is Kullouvé, a beautiful place at the bottom of a valley, on the road from Jerusalem to Jaffa. Consult Sepp.Jerusalem and the Holy Land(1863), I. p. 56; Bourquenoud in theStudies of Religious History and Literature, by the Priests of the Society of Jesus, 1863, No. 9; and for the exact distances, H. Zschokke.The Emmaus of the New Testament(Schaffouse, 1865).
{1.44}Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 33, et seq.: John xx. 19, et seq.: Gospel of the Hebrews in St. Ignatius,Epist. ad Smyrn., 3, and in St. Jerome,De Viris Ill., 16; I. Cor. xv. 5; Justin,Dial. cum Tryph.106.
{1.45}Luke xxiv. 34.
{1.46}In an island opposite Rotterdam, where the people have remained attached to the most austere Calvinism, the peasants are persuaded that Jesus comes to their death-beds to assure the elect of their justification; many, in fact, see Him.
{1.47}In order to conceive the possibility of similar illusions, it is sufficient to remember the scenes of our own days, when a number of persons assembled together unanimously acknowledged that they heard unreal voices, and that in perfectly good faith. The expectation, the effort of the imagination, the desire to believe, sometimes compliances accorded with perfect innocence, explain such of the phenomena as are not produced by direct fraud. These compliances proceed, in general, from persons who are convinced, and who, actuated by a kindly feeling, are unwilling that the party should break up unpleasantly, and are desirous of relieving the masters of the house from embarrassment. When a person believes in a miracle, he alwaysunwillingly assists in its propagation. Doubt and denial are impossible in this sort of assemblage. You would only cause pain to those who do believe, and to those whom you have invited. And thus it is that these experiences which succeed so well before small committees, are usually failures before a paying public, and always so when handled by scientific commissions.
{1.48}John xx. 22, 23, echoed by Luke xxiv. 49.
{1.49}Matt. xxviii. 17; Mark xvi. 14; Luke xxiv. 39, 40.
{1.50}John xx. 24, 29; compare Mark xvi. 14; and the conclusion of Mark preserved by St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.ii. (v. above at page).
{1.51}John xx. 29.
{1.52}It is very remarkable indeed that John, under whose name the above dictum has been transmitted, had no particular vision for himself alone. Cf. I. Cor. xv. 5, 8.
{1.53}John xx. 26. The passage xxi. 14 supposes it is true that there were only two apparitions at Jerusalem before the assembled disciples. But the passages xx. 30, and xxi. 25, give us far more latitude. CompareActs1, 3.
{1.54}Luke xxiv. 41, 43; Gospel of the Hebrews, in St. Jerome,De Viris Illustribus, 2; conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag., ii.
CHAPTER II.
[2.1]Matt. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.[2.2]Matt. xxviii. 10.[2.3]Ibid. xxvi. 32.[2.4]Matt. xxviii. 16; John xxi.; Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52, and theActsi. 3, 4, are here in flagrant contradiction to Mark xvi. 1–8, and Matthew. The second conclusion of Mark (xvi. 9, et seq.), and even of the two others which are not a part of the received text, appeared to be included in the system of Luke. But this cannot avail in opposition to the harmony of a portion of the synoptical tradition with the fourth Gospel, and even indirectly with Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8), on this point.[2.5]Matt. xxviii. 16.[2.6]Ibid, xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.[2.7]Conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.ii.[2.8]Matt. xxviii. 16.[2.9]John xxi. 2, et seq.[2.10]The author of theActsi. 14, makes them remain at Jerusalem until the Ascension. But this agrees with his systematic determination (Luke xxiv. 49;Actsi. 4), not to allow of a journey into Galilee after the resurrection (a theory contradicted by Matthew and by John). To be consistent in this theory he is compelled to place theAscension at Bethany, in which he is contradicted by all the other traditions.[2.11]I. Cor. xv. 5, et seq.[2.12]John xxxi. 1, et seq. This chapter has been added to the already completed Gospel, as a postscript. But it is from the same pen as the rest.[2.13]John xxi. 9–14; compare Luke xxiv. 41–43. John combines in one the two scenes of the fishing and the meal. But Luke arranges the matter differently. At all events, if we consider with attention the verses of John xxi. 14, 15, we shall come to the conclusion that these harmonies of John are somewhat artificial. Hallucinations, at the moment of their conception, are always isolated. It is later that consistent anecdotes are formed out of them. This habit of coupling together as consecutive events facts which are separated by months and weeks, is seen, in a very striking manner, by comparing together two passages of the same writer, Luke, Gospel, xxiv. end, andActsi. at the beginning. According to the former passage, Jesus should have ascended into heaven on the same day as the resurrection; whilst, according to the latter, there was an interval of forty days. Again, if we rigorously interpret Mark xvi. 9–20, the Ascension must have taken place on the evening of the resurrection. Nothing more fully proves than the contradiction of Luke in these two passages, how little the editors of the evangelical writings observed consistency in their stories.[2.14]John xxi. 15, et seq.[2.15]Ibid. xxi. 18, et seq.[2.16]I. Cor. xv. 6.[2.17]The Transfiguration.[2.18]Matt, xxviii. 16–20; I. Cor. xv. 6. Compare Mark xvi. 15, et seq. Luke xxiv. 44, et seq.[2.19]I. Cor. xv. 6.[2.20]John affixes no limit to the resuscitated life of Jesus. He appears to suppose it somewhat protracted. According to Matthew, it could only have lasted during the time which was necessary to complete the journey to Galilee and to rendezvous at the mountain pointed out by Jesus. According to the first incomplete conclusion of Mark (xvi. 1–8), the incidents would seem to have transpired as found in Matthew. According to the second conclusion (xvi. 9, 20), according to others; and, according to the Gospel of Luke, the disentombed life would appear to have lasted only one day. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8), agreeing with the fourth Gospel, prolongs it for two years, since he gives his vision, which occurred five or six years at least after the death of Jesus, as the last of the apparitions. The circumstance of “five hundred brethren” conduces to the same conclusion; for it does not appear that on the morning after the death of Jesus, the group of his friends was compact enough to furnish such a gathering (Actsi. 15). Many of the Gnostic sects, especially the Valentinians and the Sethians, estimated the continuance of the apparitions at eighteen months, and even founded mystic theories on that notion (IrenæusAdv. hær., i. iii. 2; xxx. 14). The author of theActsalone (i. 3) fixes the duration of the disentombed life of Jesus at forty days. But this is very poor authority; above all, if we remark that it is connected with an erroneous system (Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52;Actsi. 4, 12), according to which the whole disentombed life of Jesus would have been passed at Jerusalem or in its vicinity. The number forty is symbolic (the people spend forty years in the desert; Moses, forty days on Mount Sinai; Elijah and Jesus fast forty days, &c.). As to the formula of the narrative adopted by the author of the last twelve verses of the second Gospel, and by the author of the third Gospel, a formula according to which the events are confined to one day, the authority of Paul, the most ancient and the strongest of all, corroborating that of the fourth Gospel, which affords the most connected and authentic record of this portion of the evangelic history, appears to us to furnish a conclusive argument.[2.21]Luke xxiv. 31.[2.22]John xx. 19, 26.[2.23]Matt. xxviii. 9; Luke xxiv. 37, et seq.; John xx. 27, et seq.; Gospel of the Hebrews, in St. Ignatius, the Epistle to the Smyrniotes 3, and in St. Jerome,De Viris Illustribus, 16.[2.24]John vi. 64.[2.25]Matt. xxviii. 11–15; Justin,Dial. cum Tryph.17, 108.[2.26]Matt. xxvii. 62–66; xxviii. 4, 11–15.[2.27]Ibid. xxviii. 9, et seq.[2.28]The Jews are enraged, Matt. xxvii. 63, when they hear that Jesus had predicted his resurrection. But even the disciples of Jesus had no precise ideas in this respect.[2.29]A vague idea of this sort may be found in Matthew xxvi. 32; xxviii. 7, 10; Mark xiv. 28; xvi. 7.[2.30]This is plainly seen in the miracles of Salette and Sourdes. One of the most usual ways in which a miraculous legend is invented is the following. A person of holy life pretends to heal diseases. A sick person is brought to him or her, and in consequence of the excitement finds himself relieved. Next day it is bruited abroad in a circle of ten miles that there has been a miracle. The sick person dies five or six days afterwards; no one mentions the fact; so that at the hour of the burial of the deceased, people at a distance of forty miles are relating with admiration his wondrous cure. The word loaned to the Grecian philosophy before theex votosof Samothrace (Diog. Läert. VI. ii. 59,) is also perfectly appropriate.[2.31]A phenomenon of this kind, and one of the most striking, takes place annually at Jerusalem. The orthodox Greeks pretend that the fire which is spontaneously lighted at the holy sepulchre on the Saturday of the holy week preceding their Easter, takes away the sins of those whose faces it touches without burning them. Millions of pilgrimshave tried it and know full well that this fire does burn (the contortions which they make, joined to the smell, are a sufficient proof). Nevertheless, no one has ever been found to contradict the belief of the orthodox Church. This would be to avow that they were deficient in faith, that they were unworthy of the miracle, and to acknowledge, oh, heavens! that the Latins were the true Church; for this miracle is considered by the Greeks as the most convincing proof that theirs is the only good church.[2.32]The affair of Salette before the civil tribunal of Grenoble (decree of 2d May, 1855), and before the court of Grenoble (decree of 6th May, 1857), pleadings of MM. Jules Favre and Bethmont, &c., collected by J. Sabbatier (Grenoble Vellot. 1857.)[2.33]John xx. 15. Could it include a glimmering of this?[2.34]See above.[2.35]John expressly says so, xix. 41, 42.[2.36]John xx. 6, 7.[2.37]One cannot help thinking of Mary of Bethany, who in fact is not represented as taking any part in the event of the Sunday morning. See “Life of Jesus” p. 341, et seq.; 359, et seq.[2.38]Celsus has already delivered some excellent critical observations on this subject (in Origen).Contra Celsum, ii. 55.[2.39]Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.
[2.1]Matt. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.
[2.2]Matt. xxviii. 10.
[2.3]Ibid. xxvi. 32.
[2.4]Matt. xxviii. 16; John xxi.; Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52, and theActsi. 3, 4, are here in flagrant contradiction to Mark xvi. 1–8, and Matthew. The second conclusion of Mark (xvi. 9, et seq.), and even of the two others which are not a part of the received text, appeared to be included in the system of Luke. But this cannot avail in opposition to the harmony of a portion of the synoptical tradition with the fourth Gospel, and even indirectly with Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8), on this point.
[2.5]Matt. xxviii. 16.
[2.6]Ibid, xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.
[2.7]Conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome,Adv. Pelag.ii.
[2.8]Matt. xxviii. 16.
[2.9]John xxi. 2, et seq.
[2.10]The author of theActsi. 14, makes them remain at Jerusalem until the Ascension. But this agrees with his systematic determination (Luke xxiv. 49;Actsi. 4), not to allow of a journey into Galilee after the resurrection (a theory contradicted by Matthew and by John). To be consistent in this theory he is compelled to place theAscension at Bethany, in which he is contradicted by all the other traditions.
[2.11]I. Cor. xv. 5, et seq.
[2.12]John xxxi. 1, et seq. This chapter has been added to the already completed Gospel, as a postscript. But it is from the same pen as the rest.
[2.13]John xxi. 9–14; compare Luke xxiv. 41–43. John combines in one the two scenes of the fishing and the meal. But Luke arranges the matter differently. At all events, if we consider with attention the verses of John xxi. 14, 15, we shall come to the conclusion that these harmonies of John are somewhat artificial. Hallucinations, at the moment of their conception, are always isolated. It is later that consistent anecdotes are formed out of them. This habit of coupling together as consecutive events facts which are separated by months and weeks, is seen, in a very striking manner, by comparing together two passages of the same writer, Luke, Gospel, xxiv. end, andActsi. at the beginning. According to the former passage, Jesus should have ascended into heaven on the same day as the resurrection; whilst, according to the latter, there was an interval of forty days. Again, if we rigorously interpret Mark xvi. 9–20, the Ascension must have taken place on the evening of the resurrection. Nothing more fully proves than the contradiction of Luke in these two passages, how little the editors of the evangelical writings observed consistency in their stories.
[2.14]John xxi. 15, et seq.
[2.15]Ibid. xxi. 18, et seq.
[2.16]I. Cor. xv. 6.
[2.17]The Transfiguration.
[2.18]Matt, xxviii. 16–20; I. Cor. xv. 6. Compare Mark xvi. 15, et seq. Luke xxiv. 44, et seq.
[2.19]I. Cor. xv. 6.
[2.20]John affixes no limit to the resuscitated life of Jesus. He appears to suppose it somewhat protracted. According to Matthew, it could only have lasted during the time which was necessary to complete the journey to Galilee and to rendezvous at the mountain pointed out by Jesus. According to the first incomplete conclusion of Mark (xvi. 1–8), the incidents would seem to have transpired as found in Matthew. According to the second conclusion (xvi. 9, 20), according to others; and, according to the Gospel of Luke, the disentombed life would appear to have lasted only one day. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8), agreeing with the fourth Gospel, prolongs it for two years, since he gives his vision, which occurred five or six years at least after the death of Jesus, as the last of the apparitions. The circumstance of “five hundred brethren” conduces to the same conclusion; for it does not appear that on the morning after the death of Jesus, the group of his friends was compact enough to furnish such a gathering (Actsi. 15). Many of the Gnostic sects, especially the Valentinians and the Sethians, estimated the continuance of the apparitions at eighteen months, and even founded mystic theories on that notion (IrenæusAdv. hær., i. iii. 2; xxx. 14). The author of theActsalone (i. 3) fixes the duration of the disentombed life of Jesus at forty days. But this is very poor authority; above all, if we remark that it is connected with an erroneous system (Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52;Actsi. 4, 12), according to which the whole disentombed life of Jesus would have been passed at Jerusalem or in its vicinity. The number forty is symbolic (the people spend forty years in the desert; Moses, forty days on Mount Sinai; Elijah and Jesus fast forty days, &c.). As to the formula of the narrative adopted by the author of the last twelve verses of the second Gospel, and by the author of the third Gospel, a formula according to which the events are confined to one day, the authority of Paul, the most ancient and the strongest of all, corroborating that of the fourth Gospel, which affords the most connected and authentic record of this portion of the evangelic history, appears to us to furnish a conclusive argument.
[2.21]Luke xxiv. 31.
[2.22]John xx. 19, 26.
[2.23]Matt. xxviii. 9; Luke xxiv. 37, et seq.; John xx. 27, et seq.; Gospel of the Hebrews, in St. Ignatius, the Epistle to the Smyrniotes 3, and in St. Jerome,De Viris Illustribus, 16.
[2.24]John vi. 64.
[2.25]Matt. xxviii. 11–15; Justin,Dial. cum Tryph.17, 108.
[2.26]Matt. xxvii. 62–66; xxviii. 4, 11–15.
[2.27]Ibid. xxviii. 9, et seq.
[2.28]The Jews are enraged, Matt. xxvii. 63, when they hear that Jesus had predicted his resurrection. But even the disciples of Jesus had no precise ideas in this respect.
[2.29]A vague idea of this sort may be found in Matthew xxvi. 32; xxviii. 7, 10; Mark xiv. 28; xvi. 7.
[2.30]This is plainly seen in the miracles of Salette and Sourdes. One of the most usual ways in which a miraculous legend is invented is the following. A person of holy life pretends to heal diseases. A sick person is brought to him or her, and in consequence of the excitement finds himself relieved. Next day it is bruited abroad in a circle of ten miles that there has been a miracle. The sick person dies five or six days afterwards; no one mentions the fact; so that at the hour of the burial of the deceased, people at a distance of forty miles are relating with admiration his wondrous cure. The word loaned to the Grecian philosophy before theex votosof Samothrace (Diog. Läert. VI. ii. 59,) is also perfectly appropriate.
[2.31]A phenomenon of this kind, and one of the most striking, takes place annually at Jerusalem. The orthodox Greeks pretend that the fire which is spontaneously lighted at the holy sepulchre on the Saturday of the holy week preceding their Easter, takes away the sins of those whose faces it touches without burning them. Millions of pilgrimshave tried it and know full well that this fire does burn (the contortions which they make, joined to the smell, are a sufficient proof). Nevertheless, no one has ever been found to contradict the belief of the orthodox Church. This would be to avow that they were deficient in faith, that they were unworthy of the miracle, and to acknowledge, oh, heavens! that the Latins were the true Church; for this miracle is considered by the Greeks as the most convincing proof that theirs is the only good church.
[2.32]The affair of Salette before the civil tribunal of Grenoble (decree of 2d May, 1855), and before the court of Grenoble (decree of 6th May, 1857), pleadings of MM. Jules Favre and Bethmont, &c., collected by J. Sabbatier (Grenoble Vellot. 1857.)
[2.33]John xx. 15. Could it include a glimmering of this?
[2.34]See above.
[2.35]John expressly says so, xix. 41, 42.
[2.36]John xx. 6, 7.
[2.37]One cannot help thinking of Mary of Bethany, who in fact is not represented as taking any part in the event of the Sunday morning. See “Life of Jesus” p. 341, et seq.; 359, et seq.
[2.38]Celsus has already delivered some excellent critical observations on this subject (in Origen).Contra Celsum, ii. 55.
[2.39]Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2.
CHAPTER III.