[2.3] Ibid. xxvi. 32.
[2.4] Matt. xxviii. 16; John xxi.; Luke xxiv. 49, 50, 52, and the Acts i. 3, 4, are here in flagrant contradiction to Mark xvi. 1–8, and Matthew. The second conclusion of Mark (xvi. 9, et seq.), and even of the two others which are not a part of the received text, appeared to be included in the system of Luke. But this cannot avail in opposition to the harmony of a portion of the synoptical tradition with the fourth Gospel, and even indirectly with Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8), on this point.
[2.5] Matt. xxviii. 16.
[2.6] Ibid, xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7.
[2.7] Conclusion of Mark, in St. Jerome, Adv. Pelag. ii.
[2.8] Matt. xxviii. 16.
[2.9] John xxi. 2, et seq.
[2.10] The author of the Acts i. 14, makes them remain at Jerusalem until the Ascension. But this agrees with his systematic determination (Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4), not to allow of a journey into Galilee after the resurrection (a theory contradicted by Matthew and by John). To be consistent in this theory he is compelled to place the Ascension at Bethany, in which he is contradicted by all the other traditions.
[2.11] I. Cor. xv. 5, et seq.
[2.12] John xxxi. 1, et seq. This chapter has been added to the already completed Gospel, as a postscript. But it is from the same pen as the rest.