CHAPTER I. THE RELATION OF EVIDENCE TO SUBJECT

When the evidence of the Gospels regarding the great central dogmas

of ecclesiastical Christianity is shown to be untrustworthy and

insufficient, apologists appeal with confidence to the testimony of the

Apostle Paul. We presume that it is not necessary to show that, in

fact, the main weight of the case rests upon his epistles, as undoubted

documents of the apostolic age, written some thirty or forty years after

the death of the Master. The retort has frequently been made to the

earlier portion of this work that, so long as the evidence of Paul

remains unshaken, the apologetic position is secure. We may quote a few

lines from an able work, part of a passage discussed in the preceding

chapter, as a statement of the case: "In the first place, merely as

a matter of historical attestation, the Gospels are not the strongest

evidence for the Christian miracles. Only one of the four, in its

present shape, is claimed as the work of an Apostle, and of that the

genuineness is disputed. The Acts of the Apostles stand upon very much

the

{399}

same footing with the Synoptic Gospels, and of this book, we are

promised a further examination. But we possess at least some undoubted

writings of one who was himself a chief actor in the events which

followed immediately upon those recorded in the Gospels; and in these

undoubted writings St. Paul certainly shows by incidental allusions, the

good faith of which cannot be questioned, that he believed himself to be

endowed with the power of working miracles, and that miracles, or

what were thought to be such, were actually wrought by him and by his

contemporaries..... Besides these allusions, St. Paul repeatedly refers

to the cardinal miracles of the Resurrection and Ascension; he refers

to them as notorious and unquestionable facts at a time when such an

assertion might have been easily refuted. On one occasion he gives a

very circumstantial account of the testimony on which the belief in the

Resurrection rested (1 Cor. xv. 4-8). And not only does he assert

the Resurrection as a fact, but he builds upon it a whole scheme of

doctrine: 'If Christ be not risen,' he says, 'then is our preaching

vain, and your faith is also vain.' We do not stay now to consider the

exact philosophical weight of this evidence. It will be time enough

to do this when it has received the critical discussion that may be

presumed to be in store for it But as external evidence, in the legal

sense, it is probably the best that can be produced, and it has

been entirely untouched so far."(1) We have already disposed of the

"allusions" above referred to. We shall in due time deal with the rest

of the statements in this passage, but at present it is sufficient to

agree at

{400}

least with the remark that, "as external evidence," the testimony of

Paul "is probably the best that can be produced." We know at least who

the witness really is, which is an advantage denied us in the case of

the Gospels. It would be premature to express surprise, however, that

we find the case of miracles, and more especially of such stupendous

miracles as the Resurrection and Ascension, practically resting upon

the testimony of a single witness. This thought will intrude itself, but

cannot at present be pursued.

The allegation which we have to examine is that the Founder of

Christianity, after being dead and buried, rose from the dead and did

not again die, but after remaining sometime with his disciples ascended

with his body into heaven.(1) It is unnecessary to complicate the

question by adding the other doctrines regarding the miraculous birth

and divine origin and personality of Jesus. In the problem before us,

certain objective facts are asserted which admit of being judicially

tested. We have nothing to do here with the vague modern representation

of these events, by means of which the objective facts vanish, and

are replaced by subjective impressions and tricks of consciousness or

symbols of spiritual life. Those who adopt such views have, of course,

abandoned all that is real and supernatural in the supposed events.

The Resurrection and Ascension which we have to deal with are events

precisely as objective and real as the

1 In the Articles of the Church of England this is expressed

as follows: Art. ii. ".....who truly suffered, was

crucified, dead, and buried, &c., &c." Art. iii. "As Christ

died for us, and was buried; so also it is to be believed

that He went down into Hell." Art iv. "Christ did truly rise

again from death, and took again Hie Body, with flesh,

bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of

man's nature, wherewith He ascended into Heaven, and there

sitteth, until He return to judge all men at the last day."

{401}

death and burial,--no ideal process figured by the imagination or

embodiments of christian hope, but tangible realities, historical

occurrences in the sense of ordinary life. If Jesus, after being

crucified, dead and buried, did not physically rise again from the dead,

and in the flesh,(1) without again dying, "ascend into Heaven," the

whole case falls to the ground. These incidents, although stupendous

miracles, must have been actual occurrences. If they did not really take

place, our task is at an end. If it be asserted that they really did

take place their occurrence must be attested by adequate evidence.

Apologists, whilst protesting that the occurrences in question are

believed upon ordinary historical evidence, and that Christianity

requires no indulgence, but submits itself to the same tests as any

other affirmation, do not practically act upon this principle; but, as

soon as it is enunciated, introduce a variety of special pleas which

remove the case from the domain of history into that of theology, and

proceed upon one assumption after another until the fundamental facts

become enveloped and, so to say, protected from judicial criticism by a

cloud of religious dogmas and hypotheses.(2) By confining our attention

to the simple facts which form the basis of the whole superstructure of

ecclesiastical Christianity, we may avoid much confusion of ideas, and

1 The disappearance of the body from the sepulchre, a point

much insisted upon, could have had no significance or

reality if the body did not rise and afterwards ascend.

2 A work of this kind may be mentioned in illustration: Dr.

West-cott's "Gospel of the Resurrection." The argument of

this work is of unquestionable ability, but it is chiefly

remarkable, we think, for the manner in which the direct

evidence is hurried over, and a mass of assertions and

assumptions, the greater part of which is utterly untenable

and inadmissible, is woven into specious and eloquent

pleading, and does duty for substantial testimony.

{402}

restrict the field of inquiry to reasonable limits. We propose,

therefore, to limit our investigation to the evidence for the reality of

the Resurrection and Ascension.

What evidence could be regarded as sufficient to establish the reality

of such supposed occurrences? The question is one which demands the

serious attention and consideration of every thoughtful man. It is

obvious that the amount of evidence requisite to satisfy our minds as

to the truth of any statement should be measured by the nature of the

statement made and, we may as well add, by its practical importance to

ourselves. The news that a man was married or a child born last week is

received without doubt, because men are married and children are born

every day; and although such pieces of gossip are frequently untrue,

nothing appears more natural or in accordance with our experience. If

we take more distant and less familiar events we have no doubt that

a certain monarch was crowned, and that he subsequently died some

centuries ago. If we ask for the evidence for the statement, nothing

may be forthcoming of a very minute or indubitable nature. No absolute

eye-witness of the coronation may have left a clear and detailed

narrative of the ceremony; and possibly there may no longer be extant a

sufficiently attested document proving with certainty the death of

the monarch. There are several considerations, however, which make us

perfectly satisfied with the evidence, incomplete as it may be. Monarchs

are generally crowned and invariably die; and the statement that any one

particular monarch was crowned and died is so completely in conformity

with experience, that we have no hesitation in believing it in the

specific case. We are satisfied to believe such

{403}

ordinary statements upon very slight evidence, both because our

experience prepares us to believe that they are true, and because we do

not much care whether they are true or not. If life, or even succession

to an estate, depended upon either event, the demand for evidence, even

in such simple matters, would be immensely intensified. The converse of

the statement, however, would not meet with the same reception. Would

anyone believe the affirmation that Alfred the Great, for instance, did

not die at all? What amount of evidence would be required before such

a statement could be pronounced sufficiently attested? Universal

experience would be so uniformly opposed to the assertion that such

a phenomenon had taken place, that probably no evidence which could

readily be conceived could ensure the belief of more than a credulous

few. The assertion that a man actually died and was buried, and yet

afterwards rose from the dead, is still more at variance with human

experience. The prolongation of life to long periods is comparatively

consistent with experience; and if a life extending to several centuries

be incredible it is only so in degree, and is not absolutely contrary to

the order of nature, which certainly under present conditions does not

favour the supposition of such lengthened existence, but still does not

fix hard and fast limits to the life of man. The resurrection of a man

who has once been absolutely dead, however, is contrary to all human

experience, and to all that we know of the order of nature. If to this

we add the assertion that the person so raised from the dead never again

died, but after continuing some time longer on earth, ascended bodily to

some invisible and inconceivable place called Heaven, there to "sit at

the right hand of God," the shock to reason and common

{404}

sense becomes so extreme, that it is difficult even to realize the

nature of the affirmation. It would be hopeless to endeavour to

define the evidence which could establish the reality of the alleged

occurrences.

As the central doctrines of a religion upon which the salvation of

the human race is said to depend, we are too deeply interested to

be satisfied with slight evidence or no evidence at all. It has not

unfrequently been made a reproach that forensic evidence is required of

the reality of Divine Revelation. Such a course is regarded as perfectly

preposterous, whether the test be applied to the primary assertion that

a revelation has been made at all, or to its contents. What kind of

evidence then are we permitted decorously to require upon so momentous

a subject? Apparently, just so much as apologists can conveniently set

before us, and no more. The evidence deemed necessary for the settlement

of a Scotch Peerage case, or a disputed will, is, we do not hesitate to

say, infinitely more complete than that which it is thought either pious

or right to expect in the case of Religion. The actual occurrence of the

Resurrection and Ascension, however, is certainly a matter of evidence

and, to retort, it is scarcely decent that any man should be required

to believe what is so opposed to human experience, upon more imperfect

evidence than is required for the transfer of land or the right to a

title, simply because ecclesiastical dogmas are founded upon them,

and it is represented that unless they be true "our hope is vain." The

testimony requisite to establish the reality of such stupendous miracles

can scarcely be realized. Proportionately, it should be as unparalleled

in its force as those events are in fact. One point, moreover, must

never be forgotten. Human testimony is exceedingly fallible at its

{405}

best It is liable to error from innumerable causes, and most of all,

probably, when religious excitement is present, and disturbing elements

of sorrow, fear, doubt, or enthusiasm interfere with the calmness

of judgment. When any assertion is made which contradicts unvarying

experience, upon evidence which experience knows to be universally

liable to error, there cannot be much hesitation in disbelieving

the assertion and preferring belief in the order of nature. And when

evidence proceeds from an age not only highly exposed to error, from

ignorance of natural laws, superstition, and religious excitement,

but prolific in fabulous reports and untenable theories, it cannot be

received without the gravest suspicion. We make these brief remarks, in

anticipation, as nothing is more essential in the discussion upon which

we are about to enter than a proper appreciation of the allegations

which are to be tested, and of the nature of the testimony required for

their belief.

We shall not limit our inquiry to the testimony of Paul, but shall

review the whole of the evidence adduced for the Resurrection and

Ascension. Hitherto, our examination of the historical books of the

New Testament has been mainly for the purpose of ascertaining their

character, and the value of their evidence for miracles and the

reality of Divine Revelation. It is unnecessary for us here minutely

to recapitulate the results. The Acts of the Apostles, we have shown,

cannot be received as testimony of the slightest weight upon any of

the points before us. Written by an unknown author, who was not an

eye-witness of the miracles related; who describes events not as they

occurred, but as his pious imagination supposed they ought to have

occurred; who seldom touches history without transforming it by legend

until the

{406}

original elements can scarcely be distinguished; who puts his own words

and sentiments into the mouths of the Apostles and other persons of his

narrative; and who represents almost every phase of the Church in

the Apostolic age as influenced, or directly produced, by means

of supernatural agency; such a work is of no value as evidence for

occurrences which are in contradiction to all human experience. Briefly

to state the case of the Gospels in other words than our own, we repeat

the honest statement of the able writer quoted at the beginning of

this chapter: "In the first place, merely as a matter of historical

attestation, the Gospels are not the strongest evidence for the

Christian miracles. Only one of the four, in its present shape, is

claimed as the work of an Apostle, and of that the genuineness is

disputed."(l) We may add that the third Synoptic does not, in the

estimation of any one who has examined the Acts of the Apostles, gain

additional credibility by being composed by the same author as the

latter work. The writers of the four Gospels are absolutely unknown to

us, and in the case of three of them, it is not even affirmed that they

were eyewitnesses of the Resurrection and Ascension and other miracles

narrated. The undeniably doubtful authorship of the fourth Gospel, not

to make a more positive statement here, renders this work, which was not

written until upwards of half a century, at the very least, after

the death of Jesus, incapable of proving anything in regard to the

Resurrection and Ascension. A much stronger statement might be made,

but we refer readers to our former volumes, and we shall learn something

more of the character of the Gospel narratives as we proceed.

Although we cannot attach any value to the Gospels

{407}

as evidence, we propose, before taking the testimony of Paul, to survey

the various statements made by them regarding the astounding miracles we

are discussing. Enough has been said to show that we cannot accept any

statement as true simply because it is made by a Gospel or Gospels.

When it is related in the first Synoptic, for instance, that Pilate took

water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent

of this man's blood: see ye to it,"(1)--an incident to which no

reference, be it said in passing, is made by the other evangelists,

although it is sufficiently remarkable to have deserved notice,--we

cannot of course assume that Pilate actually said or did anything of

the kind. A comparison of the various accounts of the Resurrection and

Ascension, however, and careful examination of their details, will be

of very great use, by enabling us to appreciate the position of the case

apart from the evidence of Paul. The indefinite impression fostered by

apologists, that the evidence of the Gospels supplements and completes

the evidence of the Apostle, and forms an aggregate body of testimony

of remarkable force and volume, must be examined, and a clear conception

formed of the whole case.

One point may at once be mentioned before we enter upon our examination

of the Gospels. The Evangelists narrate such astonishing occurrences

as the Resurrection and Ascension with perfect composure and absence of

surprise. This characteristic is even made an argument for the truth

of their narrative. The impression made upon our minds, however, is the

very reverse of that which apologists desire us to receive. The writers

do not in the least degree seem to have realised the

{408}

exceptional character of the occurrences they relate, and betray the

assurance of persons writing in an ignorant and superstitious age,

whose minds have become too familiar with the supernatural to be at all

surprised either by a resurrection from the dead or a bodily ascension.

Miracles in their eyes have lost their strangeness and seem quite

common-place. It will be seen as we examine the narratives that a

stupendous miracle, or a convulsion of nature, is thrown in by one or

omitted by another as a mere matter of detail. An earthquake and the

resurrection of many bodies of saints are mere trifles which can

be inserted without wonder or omitted without regret The casual and

momentary expression of hesitation to believe, which is introduced, is

evidently nothing more than a rhetorical device to heighten the reality

of the scene. It would have been infinitely more satisfactory had we

been able to perceive that these witnesses, instead of being genuine

denizens of the age of miracles, had really understood the astounding

nature of the occurrences they report, and did not consider a miracle

the most natural thing in the world.

CHAPTER II. THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPELS

In order more fully to appreciate the nature of the narratives which

the four evangelists give of the last hours of the life of Jesus, we

may take them up at the point where, mocked and buffeted by the Roman

soldiers, he is finally led away to be crucified. Let no one suppose

that, in freely criticising the Gospels, we regard without emotion the

actual incidents which lie at the bottom of these narratives. No one can

form to himself any adequate conception of the terrible sufferings of

the Master, maltreated and insulted by a base and brutal multitude,

too degraded to understand his noble character, and too ignorant to

appreciate his elevated teaching, without pain; and to follow his course

from the tribunal which sacrificed him to Jewish popular clamour to the

spot where he ended a brief but self-sacrificing life by the shameful

death of a slave may well make sympathy take the place of criticism.

Profound veneration for the great Teacher, however, and earnest interest

in all that concerns his history rather command serious and unhesitating

examination of the statements made with regard to him, than discourage

an attempt to ascertain the truth; and it would be anything but respect

for his memory to accept without question the Gospel accounts of his

life

{410}

simply because they were composed with the desire to glorify him.

According to the Synoptics, when Jesus is led away to be crucified, the

Roman guard entrusted with the duty of executing the cruel sentence find

a man of Cyrene, Simon by name, and compel him to carry the cross.(1) It

was customary for those condemned to crucifixion to carry the cross, or

at least the main portion of it, themselves to the place of execution,

and no explanation is given by the Synoptists for the deviation from

this practice which they relate. The fourth Gospel, however, does not

appear to know anything of this incident or of Simon of Cyrene, but

distinctly states that Jesus bore his own cross.(2) On the way to

Golgotha, according to the third Gospel, Jesus is followed by a great

multitude of the people, and of women who were bewailing and lamenting

him, and he addresses to them a few prophetic sentences.(3) We might

be surprised at the singular fact that there is no reference to this

incident in any other Gospel, and that words of Jesus, so weighty in

themselves and spoken at so supreme a moment, should not elsewhere

have been recorded, but for the fact that, from internal evidence, the

address must be assigned to a period subsequent to the destruction of

Jerusalem. The other evangelists may, therefore, well ignore it.

{411}

It was the custom to give those about to be crucified a draught of

wine containing some strong opiate, which in some degree alleviated the

intense suffering of that mode of death. Mark(1) probably refers to this

(xv. 23) when he states that, on reaching the place of execution,

"they gave him wine [------] mingled with myrrh." The fourth Gospel

has nothing of this. Matthew says (xxvii. 34): "They gave him vinegar

[------] to drink mingled with gall"(2) [------]. Even if, instead of

[------] with the Alexandrian and a majority of MSS., we read [------],

"wine," with the Sinaitic, Vatican, and some other ancient codices,

this is a curious statement, and is well worthy of a moment's notice

as suggestive of the way in which these narratives were written.

The conception of a suffering Messiah, it is well known, was more

particularly supported, by New Testament writers, by attributing

a Messianic character to Ps. xxii., lxix., and Isaiah liii., and

throughout the narrative of the Passion we are perpetually referred to

these and other Scriptures as finding their fulfilment in the sufferings

of Jesus. The first Synoptist found in Ps. lxix. 21 (Sept. lxviii. 21):

"They gave me also gall [------] for my food, and in my thirst they

gave me vinegar [------] to drink;" and apparently in order to make the

supposed fulfilment correspond as closely as possible, he combined

the "gall" of the food with the vinegar or wine in strangely literal

fashion,(3) very characteristic, however, of

1 We shall, for the sake of brevity, call the Gospels by the

names assigned to them in the Canon.

2 There have been many attempts to explain away [------],

and to make it mean either a species of Vermuth or any

bitter substance (Olahausen, Leidensgeech., 168); but the

great mass of critics rightly retain its meaning, "Gall."

So Ewald, Meyer, Bleek, Strauss, Weisse, Schenkel, Yolk-mar,

Alford, Wordsworth, &c, &c.

{412}

the whole of the evangelists. Luke, who seems not to have understood

the custom known perhaps to Mark, represents (xxiii. 36) the soldiers as

mocking Jesus by "offering him vinegar "(l) [------]; he omits the gall,

but probably refers to the same Psalm without being so falsely literal

as Matthew.

We need not enter into the discussion as to the chronology of the

Passion week, regarding which there is so much discrepancy in the

accounts of the fourth Gospel and of the Synoptics, nor shall we

pause minutely to deal with the irreconcilable difference which, it is

admitted,(2) exists in their statement of the hours at which the events

of the last fatal day occurred. The fourth Gospel (xix. 4) represents

Pilate as bringing Jesus forth to the Jews "about the sixth hour"

(noon). Mark (xv. 25), in obvious agreement with the other Synoptics as

further statements prove, distinctly says: "And it was the third hour

(9 o'clock a.m.), and they crucified him." At the sixth hour (noon),

according to the three Synoptists, there was darkness over the earth

till about the ninth hour (3 o'clock p.m.), shortly after which time

1 Luke omits the subsequent offer of "vinegar" (probably the

Pasco of the Roman soldiers) mentioned by the other

Evangelists. We presume the reference in xxiii. 36 to be the

same as the act described in Mt xxvii. 34 and Mk. xv. 23.

{413}

Jesus expired.(1) As, according to the fourth Gospel, the sentence

was not even passed before midday, and some time must be allowed for

preparation and going to the place of execution, it is clear that

there is a very wide discrepancy between the hours at which Jesus

was crucified and died, unless, as regards the latter point, we take

agreement in all as to the hour of death. In this case, commencing at

the hour of the fourth Gospel and ending with that of the Synoptics,

Jesus must have expired after being less than three hours on the cross.

According to the Synoptics, and also, if we assign a later hour for the

death, according to the fourth Gospel, he cannot have been more than six

hours on the cross. We shall presently see that this remarkably rapid

death has an important bearing upon the history and the views formed

regarding it. It is known that crucifixion, besides being the most

shameful mode of death, and indeed chiefly reserved for slaves and the

lowest criminals, was one of the most lingering and atrociously cruel

punishments ever invented by the malignity of man. Persons crucified,

it is stated and admitted,(2) generally lived for at least twelve hours,

and sometimes even survived the excruciating tortures of the cross for

three days. We shall not further anticipate remarks which must hereafter

be made regarding this.

We need not do more than again point out that no two of the Gospels

agree upon so simple, yet important, a point as the inscription on the

cross.(3) It is argued that "a close

{414}

examination of the narratives furnishes no sufficient reason for

supposing that all proposed to give the same or the entire inscription,"

and, after some curious reasoning, it is concluded that "there is

at least no possibility of showing any inconsistency on the strictly

literal interpretation of the words of the evangelist."(1) On the

contrary, we had ventured to suppose that, in giving a form of words

said to have been affixed to the cross, the evangelists intended to

give the form actually used, and consequently "the same" and "entire

inscription," which must have been short; and we consider it quite

inconceivable that such was not their deliberate intention, however

imperfectly fulfilled.

We pass on merely to notice a curious point in connection with an

incident related by all the Gospels. It is stated that the Roman

soldiers who crucified Jesus divided his garments amongst them, casting

lots to determine what part each should take. The clothing of criminals

executed was the perquisite of the soldiers who performed the duty, and

there is nothing improbable in the story that the four soldiers decided

by lot the partition of the garments--indeed there is every reason to

suppose that such was the practice. The incident is mentioned as the

direct fulfilment of the. Ps. xxii. 18, which is quoted literally from

the Septuagint version (xxi. 18) by the author of the fourth Gospel.

He did not, however, understand the passage, or disregarded its true

meaning,(2) and in order to make the incident accord

{415}

better, as he supposed, with the prophetic Psalm, he represents that the

soldiers amicably parted the rest of his garments amongst them without

lot, but cast lots for the coat, which was without seam: xix. 24. "They

said, therefore, among themselves: Let us not rend it, but cast lots

for it, whose it shall be; that the Scripture might be fulfilled: They

parted my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots. These

things, therefore, the soldiers did." The evangelist does not perceive

that the two parts of the sentence in the Psalm really refer to the same

action, but exhibits the partition of the garments and the lots for the

vesture as separately fulfilled. The Synoptists apparently divide the

whole by lot.(1) They do not expressly refer to the Psalm, however,

except in the received text of Matth. xxvii. 35, into which and some

other MSS. the quotation has been interpolated.(2) That the narrative

of the Gospels, instead of being independent and genuine history, is

constructed upon the lines of supposed Messianic Psalms and passages of

the Old Testament will become increasingly evident as we proceed.

It is stated by all the Gospels that two malefactors--the first and

second calling them "robbers"--were crucified with Jesus, the one on the

right hand and the other on the left. The statement in Mark xv. 28, that

this fulfilled Isaiah liii. 12, which is found in our received text, is

omitted by all the oldest codices, and is an interpolation,(2) but we

shall hereafter have to speak of this point in connection with another

matter, and we now

2 "Certainly an interpolation." Wettcott, Int. to Study

of Gospels, p. 325, n. 2.

3 "Certainly an interpolation." Westcott, lb. p. 326, n. 5.

{410}

merely point out that, though the verse was thus inserted here, it is

placed in the mouth of Jesus himself by the third Synoptist (xxii. 37),

and the whole passage from which it was taken has evidently largely

influenced the composition of the narrative before us. According to the

first and second Gospels,(1) the robbers joined with the chief priests

and the scribes and elders and those who passed by in mocking and

reviling Jesus. This is directly contradicted by the third Synoptist,

who states that only one of the malefactors did so (xxiii. 39 flf.):

"But the other answering rebuked him and said: Dost thou not even fear

God seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for

we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man did nothing

amiss. And he said: Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.

And he said unto him: Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with

me in paradise." It requires very little examination to detect that this

story is legendary,(2) and cannot be maintained as historical. Those

who dwell upon its symbolical character(3) do nothing to establish its

veracity. This exemplary robber speaks like an Apostle, and in praying

Jesus as the Messiah to remember him when he came into his kingdom, he

shows much more than apostolic appreciation of the claims and character

of Jesus. The

{417}

reply of Jesus, moreover, contains a statement not only wholly

contradictory of Jewish belief as to the place of departed spirits, but

of all Christian doctrine at the time as to the descent of Jesus into

Hades. Into this, however, it is needless for us to go.(1) Not only do

the other Gospels show no knowledge of so interesting an episode,

but, as we have pointed out, the first and second Synoptics positively

exclude it. We shall see, moreover, that there is a serious difficulty

in understanding how this conversation on the cross, which is so

exclusively the property of the third Synoptist, could have been

reported to him.

The Synoptics represent the passers by and the chief priests, scribes,

and elders, as mocking Jesus as he hung on the cross. The fourth Gospel

preserves total silence as to all this. It is curious, also, that the

mocking is based upon that described in the Psalm xxii., to which we

have already several times had to refer. In v. 7 f. we have: "All they

that see me laughed me to scorn: they shot out the lip; they shook the

head (saying), 8. He trusted on the Lord, let him deliver him, let him

save him (seeing) that he delighteth in him."(2) Compare with this Mt.

xxvii. 39 ff., Mk. xv. 29 ff., Luke xxiii 35. Is it possible to suppose

that the chief priests and elders and scribes could actually have quoted

the words of this Psalm, there put into the mouth of the Psalmist's

enemies, as the first Synoptist represents (xxvii 43)?(3) It is obvious

that the speeches ascribed

{418}

to the chief priests and elders can be nothing more than the expressions

which the writers considered suitable to them, and the fact that they

seek their inspiration in a Psalm which they suppose to be Messianic is

suggestive.

We have already mentioned that the fourth Gospel says nothing of any

mocking speeches. The author, however, narrates an episode (xix. 25-27)

in which the dying Jesus is represented as confiding his mother to

the care of "the disciple whom he loved," of which in their turn the

Synoptists seem to be perfectly ignorant. We have already elsewhere

remarked that there is no evidence whatever that there was any disciple

whom Jesus specially loved, except the repeated statement in this

Gospel. No other work of the New Testament contains a hint of such an

individual, and much less that he was the Apostle John. Nor is there any

evidence that any one of the disciples took the mother of Jesus to his

own home. There is, therefore, no external confirmation of this episode;

but there is, on the contrary, much which leads to the conclusion that

it is not historical.(1) There has been much discussion as to whether

four women are mentioned (xix. 25), or whether "his mother's sister" is

represented as "Mary, the wife of Clopas," or was a different person.

There are, we think, reasons for concluding that there were four, but in

the doubt we shall not base any argument on the point. The Synoptics(2)

distinctly state that "the women that followed him from Galilee," among

which were "Mary Magdalene and Mary

{419}

the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of Zebedee's sons,"(l)

and, as the third Synoptic says, "all his acquaintance"(2) were standing

"afar off" [------]. They are unanimous in saying this, and there

is every reason for supposing that they are correct.(3) This is

consequently a contradiction of the account in the fourth Gospel that

John and the women were standing "by the cross of Jesus." Olshausen,

Lucke and others suggest that they subsequently came from a distance up

to the cross, but the statement of the Synoptists is made at the close,

and after this scene is supposed to have taken place. The opposite

conjecture, that from standing close to the cross they removed to a

distance has little to recommend it. Both explanations are equally

arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

It may be well, in connection with this, to refer to the various sayings

and cries ascribed by the different evangelists to Jesus on the cross.

We have already mentioned the conversation with the "penitent thief,"

which is peculiar to the third Gospel, and now that with the "beloved

disciple," which is only in the fourth. The third Synoptic(4) states

that, on being crucified, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they

know not what they do," a saying which is in the spirit of Jesus and

worthy of him, but of which the other Gospels do not take any notice.(5)

The fourth Gospel again has a cry (xix. 28): "After this, Jesus

knowing that all things are now fulfilled, that the Scripture might be

accomplished, saith:

{420}

I thirst."(1) The majority of critics(2) understand by this that "I

thirst" is said in order "that the Scripture might be fulfilled" by

the offer of the vinegar, related in the following verse. The Scripture

referred to is of course Ps. lxix. 21: "They gave me also gall for my

food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar [------] to drink;" which

we have already quoted in connection with Matth. xxvii. 34. The third

Synoptic (xxiii. 36) represents the vinegar as being offered in mockery

at a much earlier period, and Matthew and Mark(3) connect the offer of

the vinegar with quite a different cry from that in the fourth Gospel.

Nothing could be more natural than that, after protracted agony, the

patient sufferer should cry: "I thirst," but the dogmatic purpose, which

dictates the whole narrative in the fourth Gospel, is rendered obvious

by the reference of such a cry to a supposed Messianic prophecy. This is

further displayed by the statement (v. 29) that the sponge with vinegar

was put "upon hyssop" [------],--the two Synoptics have "on a reed"

[------],--which the Author probably uses in association with the

paschal lamb,(4) an idea present to his mind throughout the

{421}

passion. The first and second Synoptics(1) represent the last cry of

Jesus to have been a quotation from Ps. xxii. 1: "Eli (or Mk., Eloi),

Eli, lema sabacthani? that is to say: My God, my God, why didst thou

forsake me?" This, according to them, evidently, was the last articulate

utterance of the expiring Master, for they merely add that "when he

cried again with a loud voice," Jesus yielded up his spirit.(2) Neither

of the other Gospels has any mention of this cry. The third Gospel

substitutes: "And when Jesus cried with a loud voice, he said: Father,

into thy hands I commend my spirit, and having said this he expired."(3)

This is an almost literal quotation from the Septuagint version of Ps.

xxxi. 5. The fourth Gospel has a totally different cry (xix. 30),

for, on receiving the vinegar, which accomplished the Scripture, he

represents Jesus as saying: "It is finished" [------], and immediately

expiring. It will be observed that seven sayings are attributed to Jesus

on the cross, of which the first two Gospels have only one, the third

Synoptic three, and the fourth Gospel three. We do not intend to express

any opinion here in favour of any of these, but we merely point out the

remarkable fact that, with the exception of the one cry in the first

two Synoptics, each Gospel has ascribed different sayings to the

dying Master, and not only no two of them agree, but in some important

instances the statement of the one evangelist seems absolutely to

exclude the accounts of the others. Every one knows the hackneyed

explanation of apologists, but in works which repeat each other so much

elsewhere, it certainly is a curious phenomenon that there is so little

{422}

agreement here. If all the Master's disciples "forsook him and fled,"(1)

and his few friends and acquaintances stood "afar off" regarding his

sufferings, it is readily conceivable that pious tradition had unlimited

play. We must, however, return to the cry recorded in Matthew and

Mark,(2) the only one about which two witnesses agree. Both of them give

this quotation from Ps. xxii. 1 in Aramaic: Eli (Mark: Eloi), Eli,(3)

lema sabacthani. The purpose is clearly to enable the reader to

understand what follows, which we quote from the first Gospel: "And some

of them that stood there, when they heard it said: This man calleth for

Elijah.... The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elijah cometh

to save him."(4) It is impossible to confuse "Eli" or "Eloi" with

"Elijahu"(5) and the explanations suggested by apologists are not

sufficient to remove a difficulty which seems to betray the legendary

character of the statement. The mistake of supposing that Jesus called

for Elijah could not possibly have been made by those who spoke Aramaic;

that strangers not perfectly understanding Aramaic should be here

intended cannot be maintained, for the suggestion is represented as

adopted by "the rest." The Roman soldiers had probably never heard

of Elijah; and there is nothing whatever to support the allegation of

mockery(6) as accounting for the singular

{423}

episode. The verse of the Psalm was too well known to the Jews to admit

of any suggested play upon words.

The three Synoptics state that, from the sixth hour (mid-day) to the

ninth (3 o'clock), "there was darkness over all the earth" [------].(1)

The third Gospel adds: "the sun having failed" [------](2)

By the term "all the earth" some critics(3) maintain that the evangelist

merely meant the Holy Land,(4) whilst others hold that he uses the

expression in its literal sense.(5) The fourth Gospel takes no notice

of this darkness. Such a phenomenon is not a trifle to be ignored in any

account of the crucifixion, if it actually occurred. The omission of all

mention of it either amounts to a denial of its occurrence or betrays

most suspicious familiarity with supernatural interference. There have

been many efforts made to explain this darkness naturally, or at least

to find some allusion to it in contemporary history, all of which have

signally failed. As the moon was at the full, it is admitted that the

darkness could not have been an eclipse.(6) The Fathers

{424}

appealed to Phlegon the Chronicler, who mentions(1) an eclipse of

the sun about this period accompanied by an earthquake, and also to a

similar occurrence referred to by Eusebius,(2) probably quoted from the

historian Thallus, but, of course, modern knowledge has dispelled the

illusion that these phenomena have any connection with the darkness we

are discussing, and the theory that the evangelists are confirmed in

their account by this evidence is now generally abandoned.(3) It is

apart from our object to show how common it was amongst classical and

other writers to represent nature as sympathising with national or

social disasters;(4) and as a poetical touch this remarkable darkness

of the Synoptists, of which no one else knows anything, is quite

intelligible. The statement, however, is as seriously and deliberately

made as any other in their narrative, and does not add to its

credibility. It is palpable that the account is mythical,(5) and it

bears a strange likeness to passages in the Old Testament, from the

imagery of which the representation in all probability was derived.(6)

The first and second Gospels state that when Jesus

{425}

cried with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit, "the veil of the

temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."(1) The third

Synoptic associates this occurrence with the eclipse of the sun, and

narrates it before the final cry and death of the Master.(2) The fourth

Gospel takes no notice of so extraordinary a phenomenon. The question

might be asked: How could the chief priests, who do not appear to have

been at all convinced by such a miracle, but still continued their

invincible animosity against the Christian sect, reveal the occurrence

of such a wonder, of which there is no mention elsewhere? Here again the

account is legendary and symbolical,(3) and in the spirit of the age of

miracles.(4)

The first Synoptist, however, has further marvels to relate. He states

in continuation of the passage quoted above: "and the earth was shaken

[------] and the rocks were rent and the sepulchres were opened, and

many bodies of the saints who slept were raised; and they came out of

the sepulchres after his resurrection, and entered into the holy city

and appeared unto many."(5) How great must be the amazement of anyone

who may have been inclined to suppose the Gospels soberly historical

works, on finding that the other three evangelists do not even mention

these

{426}

astounding occurrences related by the first Synoptist! An earthquake

[------](1) and the still more astounding resurrection of many saints

who appeared unto "many," and, therefore, an event by no means secret

and unknown to all but the writer, and yet three other writers, who give

accounts of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, and who enter throughout

into very minute details, do not even condescend to mention them! Nor

does any other New Testament writer chronicle them. It is unnecessary to

say that the passage has been a very serious difficulty for apologists;

and one of the latest writers of this school, reproducing the theories

of earlier critics, deals with it in a Life of Christ, which "is

avowedly and unconditionally the work of a believer,"(2) as follows: "An

earthquake shook the earth and split the rocks, and as it rolled away

from their places the great stones which closed and covered the cavern

sepulchres of the Jews, so it seemed to the imaginations of many to have

disimprisoned the spirits of the dead, and to have filled the air with

ghostly visitants, who after Christ had risen appeared to linger in

the Holy City." In a note he adds "Only in some such way as this can I

account for the singular and wholly isolated allusion of Matt. xxvii. 52,

53."(3) It is worthy of note, and we may hereafter

{427}

refer to the point, that learned divines thus do not scruple to adopt

the "vision hypothesis" of the resurrection. Even if the resurrection of

the saints so seriously related by the evangelist be thus disposed of,

and it be assumed that the other Gospels, likewise adopting the "vision"

explanation, consequently declined to give an objective place in their

narrative to what they believed to be a purely subjective and unreal

phenomenon, there still remains the earthquake, to which supernatural

incident of the crucifixion none of the other evangelists think it worth

while to refer. Need we argue that the earthquake(1) is as mythical as

the resurrection of the saints?(2) In some apocryphal writings even the

names of some of these risen saints are given.(3) As the case actually

stands, with these marvellous incidents related solely by the

first Synoptist and ignored by the other evangelists, it would seem

superfluous to enter upon more detailed criticism of the passage, and to

point out the incongruity of the

{428}

fact that these saints are said to be raised from the dead just as

the Messiah expires, or the strange circumstance that, although

the sepulchres are said to have been opened at that moment and the

resurrection to have then taken place, it is stated that they only came

out of their graves after the resurrection of Jesus. The allegation,

moreover, that they were raised from the dead at that time, and before

the resurrection of Jesus, virtually contradicts the saying of the

Apocalypse (i. 5) that Jesus was the "first begotten of the dead," and

of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 20) that he was "the first fruits of them who have

fallen asleep."(1) Paul's whole argument is opposed to such a story; for

he does not base the resurrection of the dead upon the death of Jesus,

but, in contradistinction, upon his resurrection only. The Synoptist

evidently desires to associate the resurrection of the saints with the

death of Jesus to render that event more impressive, but delays

the completion of it in order to give a kind of precedence to the

resurrection of the Master. The attempt leads to nothing but confusion.

What could be the object of such a resurrection? It could not be

represented as any effect produced by the death of Jesus, nor even by

his alleged resurrection, for what dogmatic connection could there be

between that event and the fact that a few saints only were raised

from their graves, whilst it was not pretended that the dead "saints"

generally participated in this resurrection? No intimation is given that

their appearance to many was for any special purpose, and certainly no

practical result has ever been traced to it. Finally we might ask: What

became of these saints raised from the dead? Did they die again? Or did

they also "ascend into Heaven?"(2)

1 Can the author of the Apocalypse, or Paul, ever have heard

of the raising of Lazarus?

{429}

A little reflection will show that these questions are pertinent. It

is almost inconceivable that any serious mind could maintain the actual

truth of such a story, upon such evidence. Its objective truth not being

maintainable, however, the character of the work which advances such

an unhesitating statement is determined, and at least the value of its

testimony can without difficulty be settled.

The continuation of this episode in the first Synoptic is quite in

keeping with its commencement. It is stated: "But when the centurion and

they that were with him watching Jesus saw the earthquake [------] and

the things that were done [------] they feared greatly, saying, Truly

this was a son of God" [------].(1) In Mark the statement is very

curiously varied: "And when the centurion who stood over against him saw

that he so expired, he said: Truly this man was a son of God."(2) It is

argued on the one hand that the centurion's wonder here was caused

by Jesus dying with so loud a cry, and the reading of many MSS.

would clearly support this;(3) and on the other that the cause of his

exclamation was the unexpectedly rapid death of Jesus. Whichever view be

taken, the centurion's deduction, it must be admitted, rests upon

{430}

singularly inconclusive reasoning. We venture to think that it is

impossible that a Roman soldier could either have been led to form such

an opinion upon such grounds, or to express it in such terms. In Luke,

we have a third reading: "But when the centurion saw what was done, he

glorified God, saying: Certainly this man was righteous"(1) [------].

There is nothing here about the "Son of God;" but when the writer

represents the Roman soldier as glorifying God, the narrative does not

seem much more probable than that of the other Synoptists.

The fourth Evangelist of course does not refer to any such episode, but,

as usual, he introduces a very remarkable incident of his own, of which

the Synoptists, who record such peculiar details of what passed, seem

very strangely to know nothing. The fourth evangelist states: "The Jews,

therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies might not

remain upon the cross on the sabbath, (for that sabbath-day was a high

day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and they might be

taken away. So the soldiers came and brake the legs of the first, and

of the other who was crucified with him, but when they came to Jesus, as

they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; but one of

the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith there came

out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his

witness is true: and that man knoweth that he saith what is true, that

ye also may believe. For these things came to pass that the Scripture

might be fulfilled: A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another

Scripture saith: They shall look on him whom they pierced."(2) It is

inconceivable that, if this

{431}

actually occurred, and occurred more especially that the "Scripture

might be fulfilled," the other three Evangelists could thus totally

ignore it all.(1) The second Synoptist does more: he not only ignores

but excludes it, for (xv. 43 f.) he represents Joseph as begging the

body of Jesus from Pilate "when evening was now come." "And Pilate

marvelled if he were already dead; and calling unto him the centurion,

he asked him whether he had been long dead. And when he knew it of the

centurion he gave the corpse to Joseph."(2) Now, although there could

be no doubt on the point, the fourth Gospel clearly states (xix. 38,

[------] that Joseph made his request for the body after the order had

been given by Pilate to break the legs of the crucified, and after it

had been executed as above described. If Pilate had already given the

order to break the legs, how is it possible he could have marvelled, or

acted as he is described in Mark to have done?

It is well known that the Crurifragium, which is here applied, was

not usually an accompaniment of crucifixion, though it may have

been sometimes employed along with it,(3) but that it was a distinct

punishment. It consisted in breaking, with hammers or clubs, the bones

of the condemned from the hips to the feet. We shall not discuss

whether in the present case this measure really was adopted or not. The

representation is that the Jews requested Pilate to break the legs of

the crucified that the bodies might be removed before the Sabbath, and

{432}

that the order was given and executed. The first point to be noted is

the very singular manner in which the leg-breaking was performed. The

soldiers are said to have broken the legs of the first and then of the

other who was crucified with Jesus, thus passing over Jesus in the first

instance; and then the Evangelist says: "_but when they came to Jesus_,

as they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs, but one

of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side." This order of procedure

is singular; but the whole conduct of the guard is so extraordinary that

such details become comparatively insignificant. An order having been

given to the Roman soldiers, in accordance with the request of the Jews,

to break the legs of the crucified, we are asked to believe that

they did not execute it in the case of Jesus! It is not reasonable

to suppose, however, that Roman soldiers either were in the habit of

disregarding their orders, or could have any motive for doing so in

this case, and subjecting themselves to the severe punishment for

disobedience inflicted by Roman military law. It is argued that they saw

that Jesus was already dead, and therefore that it was not necessary to

break his legs; but soldiers are not in the habit of thinking in this

way: they are disciplined to obey. The fact is, however, that the

certainty that Jesus was dead already did not actually exist in their

minds, and could scarcely have existed seeing that the death was so

singularly rapid, for in that case why should the soldier have pierced

his side with a spear? The only conceivable motive for doing so was to

make sure that Jesus really was dead;(1) but is it possible to suppose

that a Roman soldier, being in the slightest doubt, actually chose to

assure himself in

{433}

this way when he might still more effectually have done so by simply

obeying the order of his superior and breaking the legs? The whole

episode is manifestly un-historical.(1)

It is clear that to fulfil in a marked way the prophecies which the

writer had in his mind, and wished specially to apply to Jesus, it was

necessary that, in the first place, there should have been a distinct

danger of the bones being broken, and at the same time of the side not

being pierced. The order to break the legs of the crucified is therefore

given, but an extraordinary exception is made in favour of Jesus, and

a thrust with the lance substituted, so that both passages of the

Scripture are supposed to be fulfilled.(3) What Scriptures, however, are

fulfilled? The first: "A bone of him shall not be broken," is merely the

prescription with regard to the Paschal lamb, Ex. xii. 46,(3) and the

dogmatic view of the fourth Evangelist leads him throughout to represent

Jesus as the true Paschal lamb. The second is Zech. xii. 10,(4) and

any one who reads the passage, even without the assistance of learned

exegesis, may perceive that it has no such application as our Evangelist

gives it. We shall pass over, as not absolutely necessary for our

immediate purpose, very many important details of the episode; but

regarding this part of the subject we may say that we consider it

evident that, if an order was given to break the legs of the crucified

upon this occasion, that

{434}

order must have been executed upon Jesus equally with any others who may

have been crucified with him.

There has been much discussion as to the intention of the author in

stating that, from the wound made by the lance, there forthwith came

out "blood and water" [------]; and likewise as to whether the special

testimony here referred to in the third person is to attest more

immediately the flow of blood and water, or the whole episode.(1)

In regard to the latter point, we need not pause to discuss the

question.(2) As to the "blood and water," some see in the statement made

an intention to show the reality of the death of Jesus,(3) whilst others

more rightly regard the phenomenon described as a representation of

a supernatural and symbolical incident,(4) closely connected with the

whole dogmatic view of the Gospel. It is impossible not to see in this

the same idea as that expressed in 1 John v. 6: "This is he that came by

water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water

and the blood."(5) As a natural incident it cannot be entertained, for

in no sense but mere quibbling could it be said that "blood and water"

could flow from such a wound, and as a supernatural

{435}

phenomenon it must be rejected. As a proof of the reality of the death

of Jesus, it could only have been thought of at a time when gross

ignorance prevailed upon all medical subjects. We shall not here discuss

the reality of the death of Jesus, but we may merely point out that the

almost unprecedentedly rapid decease of Jesus was explained by Origen(1)

and some of the Fathers as miraculous. It has been argued that the

thrust of the lance may have been intended to silence those objectors

who might have denied the actual death on the ground that the legs

of Jesus were not broken like those of the two malefactors,(2) and it

certainly is generally quoted as having assured the fact of death.

The statement that blood flowed from the wound, however, by no means

supports the allegation and, although we may make little use of the

argument, it is right to say that there is no evidence of any serious

kind advanced of the reality of the death of Jesus, here or in the other

Gospels.(3)

The author of the fourth Gospel himself seems to betray that this

episode is a mere interpolation of his own into a narrative to which it

does not properly belong.(4) According to his own account (xix. 31), the

Jews besought Pilate that the legs might be broken and that the bodies

"might be taken away" [------], The order to do this was obviously

given,

3 It has likewise been thought that the representation in

Mark xv. 44, that Pilate marvelled at the rapid death of

Jesus, and sent for the centurion to ascertain the fact, was

made to meet similar doubts, or at least to give assurance

of the reality of the death.

{436}

for the legs are forthwith broken and of coarse, immediately after, the

bodies in pursuance of the same order would have been taken away.

As soon as the Evangelist has secured his purpose of showing how the

Scriptures were fulfilled by means of this episode, he takes up the

story as though it had not been interrupted, and proceeds v. 38: "After

these things" [------], that is to say after the legs of the malefactors

had been broken and the side of Jesus pierced, Joseph besought Pilate

that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave leave. But,

if v. 31f. be historical, the body must already have been taken away.

All the Synoptics agree with the fourth Gospel in stating that Joseph of

Arimathaea begged for and obtained the body of Jesus from Pilate.(1) The

second and third Synoptics describe him as belonging to the Council, but

the first Gospel merely calls him "a rich man," whilst the fourth

omits both of these descriptions. They all call him a disciple

of Jesus--secretly for fear of the Jews, the fourth Gospel

characteristically adds--although the term that he was "waiting for

the Kingdom of God," used by the second and third Gospels, is somewhat

vague. The fourth Gospel, however, introduces a second personage in the

shape of Nicodemus, "who at the first came to him by night,"(2) and who,

it will be remembered, had previously been described as "a ruler of the

Jews."(3) The Synoptics do not once mention such a person, either in the

narrative of the Passion or in the earlier chapters, and there are

more than doubts as to his historical character.(4) The accounts of the

Entombment given by the three

1 According to Luke xxiii. 53, Joseph actually "took down"

the body.

{437}

Synoptists, or at least by the second and third, distinctly exclude the

narrative of the fourth Gospel, both as regards Nicodemus and the part

he is represented as taking. The contradictions which commence here

between the account of the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, in fact, are

of the most glaring and important nature, and demand marked attention.

The fourth Gospel states that, having obtained permission from Pilate,

Joseph came and took the body of Jesus away. "And there came also

Nicodemus,... bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred

pound weight. They took, therefore, the body of Jesus, and wound it in

linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the

garden a new sepulchre wherein was never man yet laid. There, therefore,

on account of the preparation of the Jews [------], they laid Jesus, for

the sepulchre was at hand" [------].(1)

According to the first Synoptic, when Joseph took the body, he simply

wrapped it "in clean linen" [------] and "laid it in his own new

sepulchre, which he hewed in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to

the door of the sepulchre, and departed."(2) There is no mention of

spices or any anointing of the body,(3) and the statement that the women

provide for this is not made in this Gospel. According to the writer,

the burial is complete, and the sepulchre finally closed. Mary Magdalene

and the other Mary come merely "to behold the sepulchre" at the end of

the

{438}

Sabbath.(1) The fourth Evangelist apparently does not know anything of

the sepulchre being Joseph's own tomb, and the body is, according to

him, although folly embalmed, only laid in the sepulchre in the garden

on account of the Sabbath and because it was at hand. We shall refer to

this point, which must be noted, further on.

There are very striking differences between these two accounts, but

the narratives of the second and third Synoptists are still more

emphatically contradictory of both. In Mark,(2) we are told that Joseph

"bought linen, and took him down and wrapped him in the linen, and laid

him in a sepulchre which had been hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone

against the door of the sepulchre." There is no mention here of any

embalming performed by Joseph or Nicodemus, nor are any particulars

given as to the ownership of the sepulchre, or the reasons for its

selection. We are, however, told:(3) "And when the Sabbath was past,

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices

that they might come and anoint him." It is distinctly stated in

connection with the entombment, moreover, in agreement with the first

Synoptic:(4) "And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld

where he was laid."(5) According to this account and that of the

first Gospel, the women, having remained to the last and seen the body

deposited in the sepulchre, knew so little of its having been embalmed

by Joseph and Nicodemus, that they actually purchase the spices and come

to perform that office themselves.

In Luke, the statement is still more specific, in

{439}

agreement with Mark, and in contradiction to the fourth Gospel. Joseph

took down the body "and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre

that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.... And women

who had come with him out of Galilee followed after, and beheld the

sepulchre _and how his body was laid_. And they returned and prepared

spices and ointments." Upon the first day of the week, the author

adds: "they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices which they had

prepared."(1)

Which of these accounts are we to believe? According to the first

Gospel, there is no embalmment at all; according to the second and third

Gospels, the embalmment is undertaken by the women, and not by Joseph

and Nicodemus, but is never carried out; according to the fourth Gospel,

the embalmment is completed on Friday evening by Joseph and Nicodemus,

and not by the women. According to the first Gospel, the burial is

completed on Friday evening; according to the second and third, it is

only provisional; and according to the fourth, the embalmment is final,

but it is doubtful whether the entombment is final or temporary; several

critics consider it to have been only provisional.(2) In Mark, the women

buy the spices "when the Sabbath was past" [------];(3) in Luke before

it has begun;(4) and in Matthew and John they do not buy them at all. In

the first and fourth Gospels, the women come after the Sabbath merely

to behold the sepulchre,(5) and in the second and third, they bring the

spices to complete the burial.

{440}

Amid these conflicting statements we may suggest one consideration. It

is not probable, in a hot climate, that a wounded body, hastily laid

in a sepulchre on Friday evening before six o'clock, would be disturbed

again on Sunday morning for the purpose of being anointed and embalmed.

Corruption would, under the circumstances, already have commenced.

Besides, as Keim(l) has pointed out, the last duties to the dead were

not forbidden amongst the Jews on the Sabbath, and there is really

no reason why any care for the body of the Master which reverence or

affection might have dictated should not at once have been bestowed.

The enormous amount of myrrh and aloes--"about a hundred pound weight"

[------]--brought by Nicodemus has excited much discussion, and adds

to the extreme improbability of the story related by the fourth

Evangelist.(3) To whatever weight the [------] may be reduced, the quantity

specified is very great; and it is a question whether the body thus

enveloped "as the manner of the Jews is to bury" could have entered

the sepulchre. The practice of embalming the dead, although well known

amongst the Jews, and invariable in the case of Kings and noble or very

wealthy persons, was by no means generally prevalent In the burial of

Gamaliel the elder, chief of the party of the Pharisees, it is stated

that over 80 pounds of balsam were burnt in his honour by the proselyte

Onkelos;(3) but this quantity, which was considered very

{441}

remarkable, is totally eclipsed by the provision of Nicodemus.

The key to the whole of this history of the burial of Jesus, however, is

to be found in the celebrated chapt. liii. of "Isaiah." We have already,

in passing, pointed out that, in the third Gospel (xxii. 37), Jesus is

represented as saying: "For I say unto you, that this which is written

must be accomplished in me: And he was reckoned among transgressors."

The same quotation from Is. liii. 12 is likewise interpolated in Mk. xv.

28. Now the whole representation of the burial and embalmment of Jesus

is evidently based upon the same chapter, and more especially upon v.

9, which is wrongly rendered both in the Authorized Version and in the

Septuagint, in the latter of which the passage reads: "I will give the

wicked for his grave and the rich for his death."(1) The Evangelists

taking this to be the sense of the passage, which they suppose to be a

Messianic prophecy, have represented the death of Jesus as being with

the wicked, crucified as he is between two robbers; and through Joseph

of Arimathaea, significantly called "a rich man" [------] by the first

Synoptist, especially according to the fourth Evangelist by his addition

of the counsellor Nicodemus and his hundred pounds weight of mingled

myrrh and aloes, as being "with the rich in his death." Unfortunately,

the passage in the "prophecy" does not mean what the Evangelists have

been led to understand, and the ablest Hebrew scholars and critics are

now agreed that both phrases quoted refer, in true Hebrew manner, to one

representation, and that the word above

{442}

translated "rich" is not used in a favourable sense, but that the

passage must be rendered: "And they made his grave with the wicked and

his sepulchre with the evil-doers," or words to that effect.(1) Without

going minutely into the details of opinion on the subject of the

"servant of Jehovah" in this writing of the Old Testament, we may add

that upon one point at least the great majority of critics are of one

accord: that Is. liii. and other passages of "Isaiah" describing

the sufferings of the "Servant of Jehovah" have no reference to the

Messiah.(3) As we have

{443}

touched upon this subject it may not be out of place to add that Psalms

xxii.(1) and lxix.,(2) which are so frequently quoted in connection with

the passion, and represented by New Testament and other early writers as

Messianic, are determined by sounder principles of criticism applied

to them in modern times not to refer to the Messiah at all. We have

elsewhere spoken of other supposed Messianic Psalms quoted in the New

Testament.(3)

"We now come to a remarkable episode which is peculiar to the first

Synoptic and strangely ignored by all the other Gospels. It is stated

that the next day--that is to say, on the Sabbath--the chief priests and

the Pharisees came together to Pilate, saying: "Sir, we remember that

that deceiver said while he was yet alive: After three

{444}

days I am raised [------]. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be

made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him

away and say unto the people: He is risen from the dead: so the last

error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them: Ye have a

guard [------]: go, make it as sure as ye can. So they went and made the

sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, with the guard."(l) Not only do the

other Evangelists pass over this strange proceeding in total silence,

but their narratives exclude it, at least those of the second and third

Synoptists do so. The women came with their spices to embalm the body,

in total ignorance of there being any guard to interfere with their

performance of that last sad office for the Master. We are asked to

believe that the chief priests and the Pharisees actually desecrated

the Sabbath by sealing the stone, and visited the house of the heathen

Pilate on so holy a day, for the purpose of asking for the guard.(2)

These priests are said to have remembered and understood a prophecy of

Jesus regarding his resurrection, of which his disciples are represented

to be in ignorance.(3) The remark about "the last error," moreover,

is very suspicious. The ready acquiescence of Pilate is quite

incredible.(4) That he should employ Roman soldiers to watch the

sepulchre of a man who had been crucified cannot be entertained; and his

friendly: "Go, make it as sure as ye

{445}

can," is not in the spirit of Pilate. It is conceivable that to satisfy

their clamour he may, without much difficulty, have consented to

crucify a Jew, more especially as his crime was of a political character

represented as in some degree affecting the Roman power; but, once

crucified, it is not in the slightest degree likely that Pilate would

care what became of his body, and still less that he would employ Roman

soldiers to mount guard over it.

It may be as well to dispose finally of this episode, so we at once

proceed to its conclusion. When the resurrection takes place, it is

stated that some of the guard went into the city, and, instead of making

their report to Pilate, as might have been expected, told the chief

priests all that had occurred. A council is held, and the soldiers are

largely bribed, and instructed: "Say that his disciples came by night

and stole him while we slept. And if this come to the governor's ears

we will persuade him and make you free from care. So they took the money

and did as they were taught."(1) Nothing could be more simple than

the construction of the story, which follows the usual broad lines of

legend. The idea of Roman soldiers confessing that they slept whilst on

watch, and allowed that to occur which they were there to prevent! and

this to oblige the chief priests and elders, at the risk of their lives!

Then are we to suppose that the chief priests and council believed this

story of the earthquake and angel, and yet acted in this way? and if

they did not believe it, would not the very story itself have led to

the punishment of the men, and to the confirmation of the report they

desired to spread, that the disciples had stolen the body? The large

bribe seems to have been very ineffectual, however, since the Christian

historian is able to report precisely what the

{446}

chief priests and elders instruct them to say.(1) Is it not palpable

that the whole story is legendary?(2) If it be so, and we think it

cannot be doubted, a conclusion which the total silence of the other

Gospels seems to confirm, very suggestive consequences may be deduced

from it. The first Synoptist, referring to the false report which the

Sanhedrin instruct the soldiers to make, says: "And this saying was

spread among the Jews unto this day."(3) The probable origin of

the legend, therefore, may have been an objection to the Christian

affirmation of the resurrection to the above effect; but it is

instructive to find that Christian tradition was equal to the occasion,

and invented a story to refute it. It is the tendency to this very

system of defence and confirmation, everywhere apparent, which renders

early Christian tradition so mythical and untrustworthy.

We now enter upon the narrative of the Resurrection itself. The first

Synoptist relates that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to behold

the sepulchre "at the close of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn into the

first day of the week" [------],(4) that is to say, shortly after six

o'clock on the evening of Saturday, the end of the Sabbath, the dawn of

the next day being marked by the

{447}

glimmer of more than one star in the heavens.(1) The second Synoptic

represents that, "when the Sabbath was past," Mary Magdalene, and Mary

the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, and that they came to the

sepulchre "very early on the first day of the week after the rising of

the sun" [------].(2) The third Synoptist states that the women who came

with Jesus from Galilee came to the sepulchre, but he subsequently more

definitely names them: "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the

mother of James, and the other women with them,"(3)--a larger number

of women,--and they came "upon the first day of the week at early dawn"

[------]. The fourth Evangelist represents that Mary Magdalene only(4)

came to the sepulchre, on the first day of the week, "early, while it

was yet dark" [------].(5)

The first Evangelist indubitably makes the hour at which the women come

to the sepulchre different and much earlier than the others, and at the

same time he represents them as witnessing the actual removal of the

stone, which, in the other three Gospels, the women already find

rolled away from the mouth of the sepulchre.(6) It will, therefore, be

interesting to follow the first Synoptic. It is here stated: 2. "And

behold there was a great earthquake [------]: for an angel of the Lord

descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon

it. 3. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as

{448}

snow. 4. And for fear of him the keepers did shake and became as dead

men. 5. And the angel answered and said unto the women: Fear ye not, for

I know that ye seek Jesus, who hath been crucified. 6. He is not here:

for he was raised [------] as he said: Come, see the place where he lay.

7. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he was raised [------]

from the dead, and behold he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall

ye see him: behold, I have told you. 8. And they departed quickly

from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and ran to tell his

disciples."(1) We have here in the first place another earthquake and

apparently, on the theory of the course of cosmical phenomena held

during the "Age of Miracles," produced by the angel who descended to

roll away the stone from the sepulchre. This earthquake, like the others

recorded in the first Synoptic, appears to be quite unknown to the other

Evangelists, and no trace of it has been pointed out in other writings.

With the appearance of the angel we obviously arrive upon thoroughly

unhistorical ground. Can we believe, because this unknown writer tells

us so, that "an angel,"(2) causing an earthquake, actually descended and

took such a part in this transaction? Upon the very commonest

2 Compare his description with Dan. x. 6. It is worthy of

consideration also that when Daniel is cast into the den of

lions a stone is rolled upon the mouth of the den, and

sealed with the signet of the king and his lords, vi. 17.

{449}

principles of evidence, the reply must be an emphatic negative. Every

fact of science, every lesson of experience excludes such an assumption,

and we may add that the character of the author, with which we are

now better acquainted, as well as the course of the narrative itself,

confirms the justice of such a conclusion.(1) If the introduction of the

angel be legendary, must not also his words be so? Proceeding, however,

to examine the narrative as it stands, we must point out a circumstance

which may appropriately be mentioned here, and which is well worthy of

attention. The women and the guard are present when the stone is

rolled away from the sepulchre, but they do not witness the actual

Resurrection. It is natural to suppose that, when the stone was removed,

Jesus, who, it is asserted, rises with his body from the dead, would

have come forth from the sepulchre: but not so; the angel only says, v.

6: "He is not here: for he was raised [------];" and he merely invites

the women to see the place where he lay. The actual resurrection is

spoken of as a thing which had taken place before, and in any case it

was not witnessed by any one. In the other Gospels, the resurrection

has already occurred before any one arrives at the sepulchre; and the

remarkable fact is, therefore, absolutely undeniable, that there

was not, and that it is not even pretended that there was, a single

eye-witness of the actual Resurrection. The empty grave, coupled with

the supposed subsequent appearances of Jesus, is the only evidence of

the Resurrection. We shall not, however, pursue this further at present.

The removal of the stone is not followed by any visible result. The

inmate of the sepulchre is not

{450}

observed to issue from it, and yet he is not there. May we not ask what

was the use, in this narrative, of the removal of the stone at all? As

no one apparently came forth, the only purpose seems to have been to

permit those from without to enter and see that the sepulchre was empty.

Another remarkable point is that the angel desires the women to go

quickly and inform the disciples: "he goeth before you into Galilee:

there shall ye see him." One is tempted to inquire why, as he rose

from the dead in Jerusalem and, in spite of previous statements, the

disciples are represented as being there also,(1) Jesus did not appear

to them in the Holy City, instead of sending them some three days'

journey off to Galilee. At the same time, Jesus is represented by the

first two Synoptics as saying at the last Supper, when warning the

disciples that they will all be offended at him that night and be

scattered: "But after I shall have been raised, I will go before you

into Galilee."(2) At present we have only to call attention to the fact

that the angel gives the order. With how much surprise, therefore, do we

not immediately after read that, as the women departed quickly to tell

the disciples in obedience to the angel's message, v. 9: "Behold Jesus

met them, saying, Hail. And they came up to him and laid hold of his

feet, and worshipped him. 10. Then saith Jesus unto them: Be not afraid:

go, tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there they shall

see me."(3) What was the use of the angel's message since Jesus himself

immediately after appears and delivers the very same instructions in

person? This sudden and apparently unnecessary appearance has all the

character of an afterthought. One point,

{451}

however, is very clear: that the order to go into Galilee and the

statement that there first Jesus is to appear to the disciples are

unmistakable, repeated and peremptory.

We must now turn to the second Gospel. The women going to the sepulchre

with spices that they might anoint the body of Jesus--which, according

to the fourth Gospel, had already been fully embalmed and, in any case,

had lain in the sepulchre since the Friday evening--are represented as

saying amongst themselves: "Who will roll us away the stone from the

door of the sepulchre?"(1) This is a curious dramatic speculation, but

very suspicious. These women are apparently not sufficiently acquainted

with Joseph of Arimathaea to be aware that, as the fourth Gospel

asserts, the body had already been embalmed, and yet they actually

contemplate rolling the stone away from the mouth of a sepulchre which

was his property.(2) Keim has pointed out that it was a general rule(3)

that, after a sepulchre had been closed in the way described, it should

not again be opened. Generally, the stone was not placed against the

opening of the sepulchre till the third day, when corruption had already

commenced; but here the sepulchre is stated by all the Gospels to have

been closed on the first day, and the unhesitating intention of the

women to remove the stone is not a happy touch on the part of the second

Synoptist. They find the stone already rolled away.(4) Ver. 5: "And

entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right

side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were

4 Mk. xvi. 4. The continuation: "for it was very great" [--

----], is peculiar, but of course intended to represent the

difficulty of its removal.

{452}

affrighted. 6. And he saith unto them: Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus

of Nazareth, the crucified: he was raised [------]; he is not here;

behold the place where they laid him. 7. But go, tell his disciples and

Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as

he said unto you. 8. And they went out and fled from the sepulchre: for

trembling and astonishment seized them, and they said nothing to any

one; for they were afraid."(1) In Matthew, the angel rolls away the

stone from the sepulchre and sits upon it, and the women only enter to

see where Jesus lay, upon his invitation. Here, they go in at once,

and see the angel ("a young man") sitting at the right side, and are

affrighted. He re assures them and, as in the other narrative, says:

"he was raised." He gives them the same message to his disciples and

to Peter, who is specially named, and the second Synoptic thus fully

confirms the first in representing Galilee as the place where Jesus is

to be seen by them. It is curious that the women should say nothing to

anyone about this wonderful event, and in this the statements of the

other Gospels are certainly not borne out. There is one remarkable point

to be noticed, however, that, according to the second Synoptist also,

not only is there no eye-witness of the Resurrection, but the only

evidence of that marvellous occurrence which it contains is the

information of the "young man," which is clearly no evidence at all.

There is no appearance of Jesus to any one narrated, and it would seem

as though the appearance described in

{453}

Matt, xxviii. 9 f. is excluded. It is well known that Mark xvi. 9-20

did not form part of the original Gospel and is inauthentic. It is

unnecessary to argue a point so generally admitted. The verses now

appended to the Gospel are by a different author and are of no value as

evidence. We, therefore, exclude them from consideration. In Luke, as

in the second Synoptic, the women find the stone removed, and here it

is distinctly stated that "on entering in they found not the body of the

Lord Jesus. 4. And it came to pass as they were perplexed thereabout,

behold two men stood by them in shining garments; 5. And as they were

afraid, and bowed their faces to the earth, they said unto them: Why

seek ye the living among the dead? 6. He is not here, but was raised

[------]; remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7. saying, that the Son of Man must be delivered up into the hands of

sinful men, and be crucified and the third day rise again. 8. And they

remembered his words, 9. and returned from the sepulchre, and told all

these things unto the eleven and to all the rest.... 11. And these words

appeared to them as an idle tale, and they believed them not."(1) The

author of the third Gospel is not content with one angel, like the first

two Synoptists, but introduces "two men in shining garments," who seem

suddenly to stand beside the women, and instead of re-assuring them, as

in the former narratives, rather adopt a tone of reproof (v. 5). They

inform the women that "Jesus was raised;" and here again not only has no

one been an eye-witness of the resurrection, but the women only hear of

it from the angels. There is one striking peculiarity in the above

{454}

account. There is no mention whatever of Jesus going before his

disciples into Galilee to be seen of them, nor indeed of his being seen

at all; but "Galilee" is introduced by way of a reminiscence. Instead

of the future, the third Synoptist substitutes the past and, as might be

expected, he gives no hint of any appearances of Jesus to the disciples

beyond the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. When the women tell the disciples

what they have seen and heard, they do not believe them. The thief on

the cross, according to the writer, was more advanced in his faith and

knowledge than the Apostles. Setting aside Mat. xxviii. 9,10, we have

hitherto no other affirmation of the Resurrection than the statement

that the sepulchre was found empty, and the angels announced that Jesus

was raised from the dead.

The account of the fourth Evangelist, however, differs completely from

the narratives of all the Synoptists. According to him, Mary Magdalene

alone comes to the sepulchre and sees the stone taken away. She

therefore runs and comes to Simon Peter and to "the other disciple whom

Jesus loved," saying: "They took [------] the Lord out of the sepulchre

and we know not [------](1) where they laid [------] him. 3. Peter,

therefore, went forth and the other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

4. And the two ran together; and the other disciple outran Peter and

came first to the sepulchre; 5. and stooping down, looking in, he seeth

the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. C. Then cometh Simon Peter

following him and went into the

1 From the use of this plural, as we have already pointed

out, it is argued that there were others with Mary who are

not named. This by no means follows, but if it were the case

the peculiarity of the narrative becomes all the more

apparent.

{455}

sepulchre and beholdeth the linen clothes lying, 7. and the napkin that

was on his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped in one

place by itself. 8. Then went in, therefore, the other disciple also,

who came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed. 9. For as yet

they knew not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead. 10.

So the disciples went away to their own homes."(1) Critics have long

ago pointed out the careful way in which the actions of "the beloved

disciple" and Peter are balanced in this narrative. If the "other

disciple" outstrips Peter, and first looks into the sepulchre, Peter

first actually enters; and if Peter first sees the careful arrangement

of the linen clothes, the other sees and believes. The evident care with

which the writer metes out a share to each disciple in this visit to

the sepulchre, of which the Synoptics seem totally ignorant, is very

suggestive of artistic arrangement, and the careful details regarding

the folding and position of the linen clothes, which has furnished so

much matter for apologetic reasoning, seems to us to savour more of

studied composition than natural observation. So very much is passed

over in complete silence which is of the very highest importance, that

minute details like these, which might well be composed in the study, do

not produce so much effect as some critics think they should do. There

is some ambiguity as to what the disciple "believed," according to v.

8, when he went into the sepulchre; and some understand that he simply

believed what Mary Magdalene had told them (v. 2), whilst others hold

that he believed in the resurrection, which, taken in connection with

the following verse, seems undoubtedly to be the author's meaning. If

the former were the reading it would be too trifling a point to be so

{456}

prominently mentioned, and it would not accord with the contented return

home of the disciples. Accepting the latter sense, it is instructive

to observe the very small amount of evidence with which "the beloved

disciple" is content. He simply finds the sepulchre empty and the linen

clothes lying, and although no one even speaks of the resurrection, no

one professes to have been an eye-witness of it, and "as yet they

know not the scriptures, that he must rise again from the dead," he is

nevertheless said to see and believe.

It will have been observed that as yet, although the two disciples

have both entered the sepulchre, there has been no mention whatever of

angels: they certainly did not see any. In immediate continuation of

the narrative, however, we learn that when they have gone home, Mary

Magdalene, who was standing without at the tomb weeping, stooped down

and, looking into the sepulchre,--where just before the disciples had

seen no one,--she beheld "two angels in white sitting, one at the head

and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus lay. 13. They say unto her:

Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them: Because they took away

[------] my Lord, and I know not where they laid him."(1) This again is

a very different representation and conversation from that reported

in the other Gospels. Do we acquire any additional assurance as to the

reality of the angels and the historical truth of their intervention

from this narrative? We think not. Mary Magdalene repeats to the angels

almost the very words she had said to the disciples, v. 2. Are we to

suppose that "the beloved disciple," who saw and believed, did not

communicate his conviction to the others, and that Mary was left

{457}

precisely in the same doubt and perplexity as before, without an idea

that anything had happened except that the body had been taken away and

she knew not where it had been laid? She appears to have seen and spoken

to the angels with singular composure. Their sudden appearance does not

even seem to have surprised her.

We must, however, continue the narrative, and it is well to remark the

maintenance, at first, of the tone of affected ignorance, as well as the

dramatic construction of the whole scene: v. 14. "Having said this, she

turned herself back and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that

it was Jesus. 15. Jesus saith unto her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom

seekest thou? She, supposing that it was the gardener, saith unto him:

Sir, if thou didst bear him hence, tell me where thou didst lay him,

and I will take him away. 16. Jesus saith unto her: Mary. She turned

herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew:(1) Rabboni, which is to say,

Master. 17. Jesus saith unto her: Touch me not [------]; for I have not

yet ascended to the Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them: I

ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God. 18. Mary

Magdalene cometh announcing to the disciples that she has seen the Lord,

and he spake these things unto her."(2) To those who attach weight

to these narratives and consider them historical, it must appear

astonishing that Mary, who up to the very last had been closely

associated with Jesus, does not recognise him when he thus appears

to her, but supposes him at first to be the gardener. As part of the

evidence of the Gospel, however,

1 This is the reading of the Vatican and Sinaitic codices,

besides D and many other important MSS.

{458}

such a trait is of much importance, and must hereafter be alluded to.

After a couple of days not know Jesus whom she had daily seen for so

long! The interpretation of the reply of Jesus, v. 17: "Touch me not,"

&c, has long been a bone of contention among critics, but it does not

sufficiently affect the inquiry upon which we are engaged to require

discussion here.(1) Only one point may be mentioned in passing, that

if, as has been supposed in connection with Mt. xxviii. 9, Jesus be

understood to repel, as premature, the worship of Mary, that

very passage of the first Gospel, in which there is certainly no

discouragement of worship, refutes the theory. We shall not say more

about the construction of this dialogue, but we may point out that, as

so many unimportant details are given throughout the narrative, it is

somewhat remarkable that the scene terminates so abruptly, and leaves so

much untold that it would have been of the utmost consequence for us to

know. What became of Jesus, for instance? Did he vanish suddenly? or did

he bid Mary farewell, and leave her like one in the flesh? Did she not

inquire why he did not join the brethren? whither he was going? It is

scarcely possible to tell us less than the writer has done; and as it

cannot be denied that such minor points as where the linen clothes

{459}

lay, or whether Mary "turned herself back" (v. 14) or "turned herself"

(v. 16) merely, cannot be compared in interest and importance to the

supposed movements and conduct of Jesus under such circumstances, the

omission to relate the end of the interview, or more particular

details of it, whilst those graphic touches are inserted, is singularly

instructive. It is much more important to notice that here again there

is no mention of Galilee, nor, indeed, of any intention to show himself

to the disciples anywhere, but simply the intimation sent to them: "I

ascend unto my Father and your Father," &c, a declaration which seems

emphatically to exclude further "appearances," and to limit the vision

of the risen Jesus to Mary Magdalene. Certainly this message implies in

the clearest way that the Ascension was then to take place, and the only

explanation of the abrupt termination of the scene immediately after

this is said is, that, as he spoke, Jesus then ascended. The subsequent

appearances related in this Gospel must, consequently, either be

regarded as an after-thought, or as visions of Jesus after he had

ascended. This demands serious attention. We shall see that after

sending this message to his disciples he is represented as appearing to

them on the evening of the very same day.

According to the third Synoptic, the first appearance of Jesus to

any one after the Resurrection was not to the women, and not to Mary

Magdalene, but to two brethren,(1) who were not apostles at all, the

name of one of whom, we are told, was Cleopas.(2) The story of the

walk to Emmaus is very dramatic and interesting, but it is clearly

legendary.(3) None of the other Evangelists

{460}

seem to know anything of it. It is difficult to suppose that Jesus

should after his resurrection appear first of all to two unknown

Christians in such a manner, and accompany them in such a journey. The

particulars of the story are to the last degree improbable, and in its

main features incredible, and it is indeed impossible to consider

them carefully without perceiving the transparent inauthenticity of

the narrative. The two disciples were going to a village called

Emmaus threescore furlongs distant from Jerusalem, and while they are

conversing Jesus joins them, "but their eyes were holden that they

should not know him." He asks the subject of their discourse, and

pretends ignorance, which surprises them. Hearing the expression of

their perplexity and depression, he says to them: 25. "O foolish and

slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spake. 26. Was it not

necessary that the Christ should suffer these things, and enter into his

glory? 27. And beginning at Moses and at all the prophets, he expounded

unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." When

they reach the village, he pretends to be going further (v. 28), but

they constrain him to stay. 30. "And it came to pass, as he sat at meat

with them he took the bread and blessed and brake, and gave to them; 31.

and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of

their sight." Now why all this mystery? why were their eyes holden that

they should not know him? why pretend ignorance? why make "as though

he would go further?" Considering the nature and number of the alleged

appearances of Jesus, this episode seems most disproportionate and

{461}

inexplicable. The final incident completes our conviction of the

unreality of the whole episode: after the sacramental blessing and

breaking of bread, Jesus vanishes in a manner which removes the story

from the domain of history. On their return to Jerusalem, the Synoptist

adds that they find the Eleven, and are informed that "the Lord was

raised and was seen by Simon." Of this appearance we are not told

anything more.

Whilst the two disciples from Emmaus were relating these things to the

eleven, the third Synoptist states that Jesus himself stood in the midst

of them: v. 37. "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed

that they saw a spirit." The apparent intention is to represent a

miraculous sudden entry of Jesus into the midst of them, just as he

had vanished at Emmaus; but, in order to re-assure them, Jesus is

represented as saying: v. 39. "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is

I myself; handle me and behold, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones

as ye see me having. 41. And while they yet believed not for joy, and

wondered, he said unto them: Have ye here any food? 42. And they gave

him a piece of a broiled fish.(1) 43. And he took it and did eat before

them," The care with which the writer demonstrates that Jesus rose again

with his own body is remarkable, for not only does he show his hands and

feet, we may suppose for the purpose of exhibiting the wounds made by

the nails by which he was affixed to the cross, but he eats, and thereby

proves himself to be still possessed of his human organism. It is

apparent, however, that there is direct contradiction between this and

the representation of his vanishing at Emmaus,

{462}

and standing in the midst of them now. The Synoptist who is so lavish in

his use of miraculous agency naturally sees no incongruity here. One

or other alternative must be adopted:--If Jesus possessed his own

body after his resurrection and could eat and be handled, he could not

vanish; if he vanished, he could not have been thus corporeal. The

aid of a miracle has to be invoked in order to reconcile the

representations. We need not here criticise the address which he is

supposed to make to the disciples,(1) but we must call attention to

the one point that Jesus (v. 49) commands the disciples to tarry

in Jerusalem until they be "clothed with power from on high." This

completes the exclusion of all appearances in Galilee, for the narrative

proceeds to say, that Jesus led them out towards Bethany and lifted up

his hands and blessed them: v. 51. "And it came to pass, while blessing

them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven;" whilst

they returned to Jerusalem, where they "were continually in the temple"

praising God. We shall return to the Ascension presently, but, in the

meantime, it is well that we should refer to the accounts of the other

two Gospels.