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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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.
According to the fourth Gospel, on the first day of the week, after sending to his disciples the message regarding his Ascension, which we have discussed, when it was evening: xx. 19. "And the doors having been shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith unto them: Peace be unto you. 20. And having said this, he
1 The statement in xxiv. 44, however, is suggestive as
showing how the fulfilment of the Prophets and Psalms is in
the mind of the writer. We have seen how much this idea
influenced the account of the Passion in the Gospels.
showed unto them both his hands and his side. The disciples, therefore, rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21. So then he said to them again: Peace be unto you: as the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22. And when he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: 23. Whosesoever sins ye forgive they are forgiven unto them; whosesoever ye retain they are retained." This appearance of Jesus to the eleven bears so far analogy to that in the third Gospel, which we have just examined, that it occurs upon the same day and to the same persons. Is it probable that Jesus appeared twice upon the same evening to the eleven disciples? The account in the fourth Gospel itself confirms the only reasonable reply: that he did not do so; but the narrative in the third Synoptic renders the matter certain. That appearance was the first to the eleven (xxiv. 36 f.), and he then conducted them towards Bethany, and ascended into heaven (v. 50 f.). How then, we may inquire, could two accounts of the same event differ so fundamentally? It is absolutely certain that both cannot be true. Is it possible to suppose that the third Synoptist could forget to record the extraordinary powers supposed to have been on this occasion bestowed upon the ten Apostles to forgive sins and to retain them? Is it conceivable that he would not relate the circumstance that Jesus breathed upon them, and endowed them with the Holy Ghost? Indeed, as regards the latter point, he seems to exclude it, v. 49, and in the Acts (ii.) certainly represents the descent of the Holy Spirit as taking place at Pentecost. On the other hand, can we suppose that the fourth Evangelist would have ignored the walk to Bethany and the solemn parting there? or the injunction to remain in Jerusalem?
not to mention other topics. The two episodes cannot be reconciled.
In the fourth Gospel, instead of showing his hands and feet, Jesus is represented as exhibiting "his hands and his side," and that this is not accidental is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that Thomas, who is not present, refuses to believe (v. 25) unless he see and put his finger into the print of the nails in his hands and put his hand into his side; and Jesus, when he appears again, allows him (v. 27) to put his finger into his hands and his hand into his side. In the Synoptic, the wound made by that mythical lance is ignored and, in the fourth Gospel, the wounds in the feet. The omission of the whole episode of the leg-breaking and lance-thrust by the three Synoptics thus gains fresh significance. On the other hand, it may be a question whether, in the opinion of the fourth Evangelist, the feet of Jesus were nailed to the cross at all, or whether, indeed, they were so in fact. It was at least as common, not to say more, that the hands alone of those who were crucified were nailed to the cross, the legs being simply bound to it by cords. Opinion is divided as to whether Jesus was so bound or whether the feet were likewise nailed, but the point is not important to our examination and need not be discussed, although it has considerable interest in connection with the theory that death did not actually ensue on the cross, but that, having fainted through weakness, Jesus, being taken down after so unusually short a time on the cross, subsequently recovered. There is no final evidence upon the point.
None of the explanations offered by apologists remove the contradiction between the statement that Jesus bestowed the Holy Spirit upon this occasion and that of the
third Synoptic and Acts. There is, however, a curious point to notice in connection with this: Thomas is said to have been absent upon this occasion, and the representation, therefore, is that the Holy Spirit was only bestowed upon ten of the Apostles. Was Thomas excluded? Was he thus punished for his unbelief? Are we to suppose that an opportunity to bestow the Holy Spirit was selected when one of the Apostles was not present?(l) We have, however, somewhat anticipated the narrative (xx. 24 if.), which relates that upon the occasion above discussed Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not present, and hearing from the rest that they have seen the Lord, he declares that he will not believe without palpable proof by touching his wounds. The Evangelist continues: v. 26. "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas was with them. Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut [———], and stood in the midst and said: Peace be unto you. 27. Then saith he to Thomas: Reach hither thy finger and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand and put it into my side, and be not unbelieving but believing. 28. Thomas answered and said unto him: My Lord and my God. 29. Jesus saith unto him: Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed."
The third Synoptic gives evidence that the risen Jesus is not incorporeal by stating that he not only permitted himself to be handled, but actually ate food in their presence. The fourth Evangelist attains the same result in a more artistic manner through the doubts of Thomas, but in allowing him actually to put his finger into the prints of the nails in his hands, and his hand into the
wound in his side, he asserts that Jesus rose with the same body as that which had hung on the cross. He, too, however, whilst doing this, actually endows him with the attribute of incorporeality; for, upon both of the occasions which we are discussing, the statement is markedly made that, when Jesus came and stood in the midst, the doors were shut where the disciples were. It can scarcely be doubted that the intention of the writer is to represent a miraculous entry.(1)
We are asked, however, to believe that when Thomas had convinced himself that it was indeed Jesus in the flesh who stood before him, he went to the opposite extreme of belief and said to Jesus: [———] "My Lord and my God!" In representing that Jesus, even before the Ascension, was addressed as "God" by one of the Twelve, the Evangelist commits one of those anachronisms with which we are familiar, in another shape, in the works of great painters, who depict pious bishops of their own time as actors in the scenes of the Passion. These touches, however, betray the hand of the artist, and remove the account from the domain of sober history. In the message sent by Jesus to his disciples he spoke of ascending "to your God and my God," but the Evangelist at the close of his Gospel strikes the same note as that upon which he commenced his philosophical prelude.
We shall only add one further remark regarding this episode, and it is the repetition of one already made. It is much to be regretted that the writer does not inform us how these interviews of Jesus with his disciples terminated. We are told of his entry, but not
of his mode of departure. Did he vanish suddenly? Did he depart like other men? Then, it would be important to know where Jesus abode during the interval of eight days. Did he ascend to heaven after each appearance? or did he remain on earth? Why did he not consort as before with his disciples? These are not jeering questions, but serious indications of the scantiness of the information given by the Evangelists, which is not compensated by some trifling detail of no value occasionally inserted to heighten the reality of a narrative. This is the last appearance of Jesus related in the fourth Gospel; for the character of Ch. xxi. is too doubtful to permit it to rank with the Gospel. The appearance of Jesus therein related is in fact more palpably legendary than the others. It will be observed that in this Gospel, as in the third Synoptic, the appearances of Jesus are confined to Jerusalem and exclude Galilee. These two Gospels are, therefore, clearly in contradiction with the statement of the first two Synoptics.(2)
It only remains for us to refer to one more appearance of Jesus: that related in the first Synoptic, xxviii. 16 ff. In obedience to the command of Jesus, the disciples are represented as having gone away into Galilee, "unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them." We have not previously heard anything of this specific appointment. The Synoptist continues: v. 17. "And when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted. 18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying: All authority was given to me [———] in heaven and on earth. 19. Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you; and lo, I am with
you all the days, unto the end of the world." This appearance not only is not mentioned in the other Gospels, but it excludes the appearances in Judaea, of which the writer seems to be altogether ignorant. If he knew of them, he practically denies them.
There has been some discussion as to what the doubt mentioned in v. 17 refers, some critics maintaining that "some doubted" as to the propriety of worshipping Jesus, whilst others more correctly consider that they doubted as to his identity,(1) but we need not mention the curious apologetic explanations offered.(2) Are we to regard the mention of these doubts as an "inestimable proof of the candour of the Evangelists"? If so, then we may find fault with the omission to tell us whether, and how, those doubts were set at rest. As the narrative stands, the doubts were not resolved. Was it possible to doubt without good reason of the identity of one with whom, until a few days previously, the disciples had been in daily and hourly contact at least for a year, if not longer? Doubt in such a case is infinitely more decisive than belief. We can regard the expression, however, in no other light than as a mere rhetorical device in a legendary narrative. The rest of the account ueed have little further discussion here. The extraordinary statement in v. 18(3) seems as clearly the expression of later theology as the baptismal formula
in v. 19, where the doctrine of the Trinity is so definitely expressed. Some critics suppose that the Eleven were not alone upon this occasion, but that either all the disciples of Jesus were present, or at least the 500 brethren l to whom Paul refers, 1 Cor. xv. G. This mainly rests on the statement that "some doubted," for it is argued that, after the two previous appearances to the disciples in Jerusalem mentioned by the other Evangelists, it is impossible that the Eleven could have felt doubt, and consequently that others must have been present who had not previously been convinced. It is scarcely necessary to point out the utter weakness of such an argument. It is not permissible, however, to patch on to this Gospel scraps cut out of the others.
It must be clear to every unprejudiced student that the appearances of Jesus narrated by the four Gospels in Galilee and Judæa cannot be harmonised,(2) and we have shown that they actually exclude each other.(3) The first Synoptist records (v. 10) the order for the disciples to go into Galilee, and with no further interruption than the
mention of the return of the discomfited guard from the sepulchre to the chief priest, he (v. 16) states that they went into Galilee, where they saw Jesus in the manner just described. No amount of ingenuity can insert the appearances in Jerusalem here without the grossest violation of all common sense. This is the only appearance to the Eleven recorded in Matthew.
We must here again point out the singular omission to relate the manner in which this interview was ended. The episode and the Gospel, indeed, are brought to a very artistic close by the expression, "lo, I am with you all the days unto the end of the world," but we must insist that it is a very suggestive fact that it does not occur to these writers to state what became of Jesus. No point could have been more full of interest than the manner in which Jesus here finally leaves the disciples, and is dismissed from the history. That such an important part of the narrative is omitted is in the highest degree remarkable and significant. Had a formal termination to the interview been recounted, it would have been subject to criticism, and by no means necessarily evidence of truth; but it seems to us that the circumstance that it never occurred to these writers to relate the departure of Jesus is a very strong indication of the unreality and shadowy nature of the whole tradition.
We are thus brought to consider the account of the Ascension, which is at least given by one Evangelist. In the appendix to the second Gospel, as if the later writer felt the omission and desired to complete the narrative, it is vaguely stated: xvi. 19. "So then after the Lord spake unto them he was taken up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God."(1) The
writer, however, omits to state how he was taken up into heaven; and sitting "at the right hand of God" is an act and position which those who assert the "Personality of God" may possibly understand, but which we venture to think betrays that the account is a mere theological figment. The third Synoptist, however, as we have incidentally shown, gives an account of the Ascension. Jesus having, according to the narrative in xxiv. 50 ff., led the disciples out to Bethany, 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."(1) The whole of the appearances narrated in the third Synoptic, therefore, and the Ascension are thus said to occur on the same day as the Resurrection.(2) In Matthew, there is a different representation made, for the time consumed in the journey of the disciples to Galilee obviously throws back the Ascension to a later date. In Mark, there is no appearance at all recorded, but the command to the disciples to go into Galilee confirms the first Synoptic. In the fourth Gospel, Jesus revisits the eleven a second time after eight days; and, therefore, the Ascension is here
necessarily later still. In neither of these Gospels, however, is there any account of an ascension at all.
We may here point out that there is no mention of the Ascension in any of the genuine writings of Paul, and it would appear that the theory of a bodily ascension, in any shape, did not form part of the oldest Christian tradition.(1) The growth of the legend of the Ascension is apparent in the circumstance that the author of the third Gospel follows a second tradition regarding that event, when composing Acts.(2) Whether he thought a fuller and more detailed account desirable, or it seemed necessary to prolong the period during which Jesus remained on earth after his Resurrection and to multiply his appearances, it is impossible to say, but the fact is that he does so. He states in his second work: that to the Apostles Jesus "presented himself alive after he suffered by many proofs, being seen [———] by them during forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the Kingdom of God." It is scarcely possible to doubt that the period of forty days is suggested by the Old Testament(3) and the Hebrew use of that number, of which indeed we already find examples in the New Testament in the forty days temptation of Jesus in the wilderness,(4) and his fasting forty days and forty nights.(5) Why
Jesus remained on earth this typical period we are not told,(1) but the representation evidently is of much more prolonged and continuous intercourse with his disciples than any statements in the Gospels have led us to suppose, or than the declaration of Paul renders in the least degree probable.
If indeed the account in Acts were true, the numbered appearances recited by Paul show singular ignorance of the phenomena of the Resurrection. We need not discuss the particulars of the last interview with the Apostles, (i. 4 if.) although they are singular enough, and are indeed elsewhere referred to, but at once proceed to the final occurrences: v. 9. "And when he had spoken these things, while they are looking he was lifted up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10. And as they were gazing stedfastly into the heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11. which also said: Men of Galilee [———], why stand ye looking into the heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into the heaven, shall come in like manner as ye saw him going into the heaven. 12. Then returned they into Jerusalem," &c. A definite statement is here made of the mode in which Jesus finally ascended into heaven, and it presents some of the incongruities which might have beeu expected. The bodily Ascension up the sky in a cloud, apart from the miraculous nature of such an occurrence, seems singularly to localise "Heaven," and to present views of cosmical and celestial phenomena suitable certainly to the age of the writer, but which are not endorsed by modern science.
1 The testimony of the Epistle of Barnabas (c. xv.) does not
agree with this.
The sudden appearance of the "two men in white apparel," the usual description of angels, is altogether in the style of the author of Acts, but does it increase the credibility of the story? It is curious that the angels open their address to the Apostles in the same form as almost every other speaker in this book. One might ask, indeed, why such an angelic interposition should have taken place? for its utility is not apparent, and in the short sentence recorded nothing which is new is embodied. No surprise is expressed at the appearance of the angels, and nothing is said of their disappearance. They are introduced, like the chorus of a Greek play, and are left unceremoniously, with an indifference which betrays complete familiarity with supernatural agency. Can there be any doubt that the whole episode is legendary?(1)
It may not seem inappropriate to mention here that the idea of a bodily Ascension does not originate with the author of the third Synoptic and Acts, nor is it peculiar to Christianity. The translation of Enoch(2) had long been chronicled in the sacred books; and the ascent of Elijah(3) in his whirlwind and chariot of fire before the eyes of Elisha was another well-known instance. The vision of Daniel (vii. 13), of one like the "Son of man" coming with the clouds of heaven, might well have suggested the manner of his departure, but another mode has been suggested.(4) The author of Acts was, we maintain, well acquainted with the works of Josephus.(5)
We know that the prophet like unto Moses was a favourite representation in Acts of the Christ. Now, in the account which Josephus gives of the end of Moses, he states that, although he wrote in the holy books that he died lest they should say that he went to God, this was not really his end. After reaching the mountain Abarim he dismissed the senate; and as he was about to embrace Eleazar, the high priest, and Joshua, "a cloud suddenly having stood over him he disappeared in a certain valley."(1) This, however, we merely mention in passing.
Our earlier examination of the evidence for the origin and authorship of the historical books of the New Testament very clearly demonstrated that the testimony of these works for miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation, whatever that testimony might seem to be, could not be considered of any real value. We have now examined the accounts which the four Evangelists actually give of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, and there can be no hesitation in stating as the result that, as might have been expected from works of such uncertain character, these narratives must be pronounced mere legends, embodying vague and wholly unattested tradition. As
evidence for such stupendous miracles, they are absolutely of no value. No reliance can be placed on a single detail of their story. The aim of the writers has obviously been to make their narrative of the various appearances of Jesus as convincing as possible,(1) and they have freely inserted any details which seemed to them calculated to give them impressiveness, force, and verisimilitude.
A recent apologetic writer has said: "Any one who will attentively read side by side the narratives of these appearances on the first day of the resurrection, will see that they have only been preserved for us in general, interblended and scattered notices (see Matt, xxviii. 16; Luke xxiv. 34; Acts i. 3), which, in strict exactness, render it impossible, without many arbitrary suppositions, to produce from them a certain narrative of the order of events. The lacuna, the compressions, the variations, the actual differences, the subjectivity of the narrators as affected by spiritual revelations, render all harmonies at the best uncertain."(2) Passing over without comment, the strange phrase in this passage which we have italicised, and which seems to claim divine inspiration for the writers, it must be obvious to any one who has carefully read the preceding pages that this is an exceedingly moderate description of the wild statements and irreconcilable contradictions of the different narratives we have examined. But such as it is, with all the glaring inconsistencies and impossibilities of the accounts even thus subdued, is it possible for any one who has formed even a faint idea of the extraordinary nature of the allegations which have to be attested, to
consider such documents really evidence for the Resurrection and bodily Ascension?
The usual pleas which are advanced in mitigation of judgment against the Gospels for these characteristics are of no avail. It may be easy to excuse the writers for their mutual contradictions, but the pleas themselves are an admission of the shortcomings which render their evidence valueless. "The differences of purpose in the narrative of the four Evangelists,"(1) may be fancifully set forth, or ingeniously imagined, but no "purpose" can transform discordant and untrustworthy narratives into evidence for miracles. Unless the prologue to the third Gospel be considered a condemnation of any of the other Synoptics which may have existed before it, none of the Evangelists makes the smallest reference to any of his brethren or their works. Each Gospel tacitly professes to be a perfectly independent work, giving the history of Jesus, or at
least of the active part of his life, and of his death and Resurrection. The apologetic theory, derived from the Fathers, that the Evangelists designed to complete and supplement each other, is totally untenable. Each work was evidently intended to be complete in itself; but when we consider that much the greater part of the contents of each of the Synoptics is common to the three, frequently with almost literal agreement, and generally without sufficient alteration to conceal community of source or use of each other, the poverty of Christian tradition becomes painfully evident. We have already pointed out the fundamental difference between the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. In no part of the history does greater contradiction and disagreement between the three Synoptics themselves and likewise between them and the fourth Gospel exist, than in the account of the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension. It is impossible to examine the four narratives carefully without feeling that here tradition, for natural reasons, has been more than usually wavering and insecure. Each writer differs essentially from the rest, and the various narratives not only disagree but exclude each other. The third Synoptist, in the course of some years, even contradicts himself. The phenomena which are related, in fact, were too subjective and unsubstantial for sober and consistent narrative, and free play was allowed for pious imagination to frame details by the aid of supposed Messianic utterances of the Prophets and Psalmists of Israel.
Such a miracle as the Resurrection, startling as it is in our estimation, was common-place enough in the view of these writers. We need not go hack to discuss the story of the widow's son restored to
life by Elijah,(1) nor that of the dead man who revived on touching the bones of Elisha.(2) The raising from the dead of the son of the widow of Nain(3) did not apparently produce much effect at the time, and only one of the Evangelists seems to have thought it worth while to preserve the narrative. The case of Jairus' daughter,(4) whatever it was, is regarded as a resurrection of the dead and is related by two of the Synoptists; but the raising of Lazarus is only recorded by the fourth Evangelist. The familiarity of the age with the idea of the resurrection of the dead, however, according to the Synoptists, is illustrated by the representation which they give of the effect produced by the fame of Jesus upon Herod and others. We are told by the first Synoptist that Herod said unto his servants: "This is John the Baptist; he was raised from the dead; and therefore the powers work in him."(5) The second Synoptist repeats the same statement, but adds: "But others said that it is Elijah; and others said that it is a prophet like one of the prophets."(6) The statement of the third Synoptist is somewhat different. He says: "Now Herod the tetrarch heard all that was occurring: and he was perplexed because it was said by some that John was raised from the dead, and by some that Elijah appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets rose up. And Herod
said: John I beheaded, but who is this of whom I hear such things, and he sought to see him."()1 The three Synoptists substantially report the same thing; the close verbal agreement of the first two being an example of the community of matter of which we have just spoken. The variations are instructive as showing the process by which each writer made the original form his own. Are we to assume that these things were really said? Or must we conclude that the sayings are simply the creation of later tradition? In the latter case, we see how unreal and legendary are the Gospels. In the former case, we learn how common was the belief in a bodily resurrection. How could it seem so strange to the Apostles that Jesus should rise again, when the idea that John the Baptist or one of the old prophets had risen from the dead was so readily accepted by Herod and others? How could they so totally misunderstand all that the chief priests, according to the first Synoptic, so well understood of the teaching of Jesus on the subject of his Resurrection, since the world had already become so familiar with the idea and the fact?
Then, the episode of the Transfiguration must have occurred to every one, when Jesus took with him Peter and James and John into a high mountain apart, "and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment became white as the light. And behold, there was seen [———] by them Moses and Elijah
talking with him;" and then "a bright cloud overshadowed them" and "a voice came out of the cloud: This is my beloved son," &c. "And when the disciples heard they fell on their face and were sore afraid."(1) The third Synoptist even knows the subject of their conversation: "They were speaking of his decease which he was about to fulfil in Jerusalem."(2) This is related by all as an objective occurrence.(3) Are we to accept it as such? Then how is it possible that the disciples could be so obtuse and incredulous as they subsequently showed themselves to be regarding the person of Jesus, and his resurrection? How could the announcement of that event by the angels to the women seem to them as an idle tale, which they did not believe?(4) Here were Moses and Elijah before them, and in Jesus, we are told, they recognized one greater than Moses and Elijah. The miracle of the Resurrection was here again anticipated and made palpable to them. Are we to regard the Transfiguration as a subjective vision? Then why not equally so the appearances of Jesus after his passion? We can regard the Transfiguration, however, as nothing more than an allegory without either objective or subjective reality. Into this at present we cannot further go. It is sufficient to repeat that our examination has shown the Gospels to possess no value as evidence for the Resurrection and Ascension.
