[3.3] Matthew is exclusively Galilean; Luke and the second Mark, xvi. 9–22, are exclusively Jerusalemitish. John unites the two traditions. Paul (I. Cor. xv. 5–8) also admits the occurrence of visions at widely separated places. It is possible that the vision of “the five hundred brethren” of Paul, which we have conjecturally identified with that “of the mountain of Galilee” of Matthew, was a Jerusalemite vision.
[3.4] I. Cor. xv. 7. One cannot explain the silence of the four canonical Evangelists respecting this vision in any other way than by referring it to an epoch placed on this side of the scheme of their recital. The chronological order of the visions, on which St. Paul insists with so much precision, leads to the same result.
[3.5] Gospel of the Hebrews, cited by St. Jerome De Viris Illustribus, 2. Compare Luke xxiv. 41–43.
[3.6] Gospel of the Hebrews, cited above.
[3.7] John vii. 5.
[3.8] Could there be an allusion to this abrupt change in Gal. ii. 6?
[3.9] Acts i. 14, weak authority indeed. One already perceives in Luke a tendency to magnify the part of Mary. Luke, chap. i. and ii.
[3.10] John xix. 25, 27.
[3.11] The tradition respecting his sojourn at Ephesus is modern and valueless. See Epiphanius. Adv. heret. lxxviii. 11.
[3.12] See Life of Jesus.