THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES: THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.  

The miracles of the New Testament are distributable into five classes: first, those wrought by Jesus; second, those wrought upon Jesus, such as his birth and his resurrection; third, those wrought by the Apostles; fourth, the inspiration of the Apostles; and fifth, the predictions which Jesus and the Apostles uttered. In considering the evidence of their reality, our task is simplified by the relation which all of them sustain to a single one. If Jesus arose from the dead, the other miracles will be admitted, as well as all else that is claimed for Jesus in the New Testament. This is freely granted by Strauss, who pronounces the resurrection "the crowning miracle --the touchstone, not only of Lives of Jesus, but of Christianity itself;" and who, when he reaches the formal consideration of it in his New Life of Jesus, says: "Here we stand on that decisive point where, in the presence of the accounts of the miraculous resurrection of Jesus, we either acknowledge the inadmissibility of the natural and historical view of the life of Jesus, and consequently retract all that precedes, and so give up our whole undertaking, or pledge ourselves to make out the possibility of the result of these accounts, i. e., the origin of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, without any corresponding miraculous fact'' (i. 41; 397). On the other hand, if the resurrection of Jesus was not a reality, all the other miracles would be valueless even if real, and all effort to establish their reality would be abandoned. This is admitted by the Apostle Paul, who says: "If Christ bath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised" (I. Cor. xv. 14, 15). The reason given is conclusive; for if the Apostles are found false witnesses concerning the main fact of which they testify, we can not credit them as to anything else; and as all we know of Jesus comes to us through them, it must all be laid aside as untrustworthy.

From these concessions, and their obvious propriety, it appears that in discussing the question of New Testament miracles it is necessary to discuss the reality of only one of them. This simplifies the inquiry, and it should lead to a concentration of the whole discus-ion on this single point. The conflict between belief and unbelief is thus reduced to an issue like that presented by the challenge of Goliath: ' Choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me. If he be able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants; but if I prevail against him. and kill him, then shall ye be our servants." Let us settle all by settling the question, Did Jesus rise from the dead? This inquiry is simplified by the admissions of unbelievers. By the leading skeptics it is now admitted, first, that Jesus actually died and was buried;1 second, it is admitted that on or before the third morning his body disappeared from the tomb; third, that the disciples came to believe firmly that he arose from the dead.2 The exact issue has reference to the last two facts, and may be stated by the two questions, Did the body disappear by a resurrection, or in some other way? and Did the belief of the disciples originate from the fact of the resurrection, or from some other cause? In seeking to answer these questions, infidels have adopted as their line of argument, first, an attack on the credibility of the witnesses; and second, the propounding of adverse theories as to the disappearance of the body, and of the origin of the belief in the resurrection. We shall state and consider the chief points in this line of argument before we present the body of the direct evidence.

Before considering the attack on the witnesses, it is necessary that we distinctly understand who the witnesses are and where their testimony is to be found. To us the witnesses are a group of women, not less than five in number; the twelve older Apostles; and the Apostle Paul. The testimony of the women and of the twelve is recorded in the four Gospels, in Acts, in the Epistles of Peter and John, and in Revelation. That of Paul is found in Acts and his Epistles. Of these documents none are admitted by infidels in general to be genuine, except Revelation and four of Paul's Epistles, viz.: Romans, Galatians, and I. and II. Corinthians. But while the genuineness of the other books is disputed, it is admitted that in these books the testimony originally given by the witnesses to the resurrection is preserved. We stand on common ground, then, with the unbeliever when we treat the testimony of the several witnesses which we find in these books as that by which the question must be settled.

The first charge against the witnesses which we shall consider is that, apart from the main fact of the resurrection, they assert some things which are incredible, and some which are impossible, and that they contradict, one another, thus throwing discredit on their testimony to the main fact.

The most prominent specification of things incredible, and one which is urged by all recent infidels, is the account given by Matthew of the guard of Roman soldiers set to prevent the opening of the tomb. It is held to be incredible that the priests, as represented in this account, remembered the prediction by Jesus of his own resurrection on the third day, when the disciples did not; incredible that Pilate, at the request of the priests, would grant a guard; incredible that the soldiers reported to the priests rather than to Pilate, their commander; and incredible that, at the risk of their lives, they admitted for the sake of money that they had been asleep on guard.3 In reply to all this it is sufficient to observe, first, that the soldiers took no risk at all in saying they had gone to sleep; when their statement came to the ears of Pilate, the priests had only to tell him privately that the soldiers had not been asleep at all, but had said this at their instigation, to prevent him from proceeding against them. Second, Pilate, according to the story told, had put the soldiers at the disposal of the priests, and to these it was their duty to report when the special service for which they had been detailed was accomplished. Third, Pilate was as much interested in preventing the circulation of a report that Jesus had arisen as were the priests; and therefore he would naturally be as ready to grant a guard as they to ask for it. Finally, there is a good and sufficient reason why the chief priests should remember the prediction of the resurrection, and speak of it after the death of Jesus; and why the disciples should not think of it at all. The reason is found in the totally different views of that prediction taken by the two parties when it was uttered. The disciples would not, and could not, believe that Jesus meant what he said when he spoke either of his death or of his resurrection. They construed his repeated remarks on the subject as a dark parable, the meaning of which they could not even conjecture.4 When, therefore, he was put to death, they could not at first regard this as the fulfillment of the first part of the prediction, and consequently they could not look forward to a resurrection as the fulfillment of the second part. On the contrary, when the priests and elders heard that he had uttered this prediction they as naturally understood it literally, inasmuch as they not only expected him to die, but intended to kill him. They as naturally understood him to speak literally of his resurrection, and they expected to triumph over his disciples by his failure to rise. Thinking now that this triumph was certainly within their reach, if only the body of Jesus could be kept secure till the three days should pass, they had every reason which shrewd and cunning men could have under such circumstances to proceed as they are said to have done.

It should also be observed, in reference to this matter of the guard, that in all the subsequent controversy between the Apostles and the chief priests the story of the guard was never denied, as it certainly would have been if it had been false; that, on the contrary, it was tacitly admitted in the very report which the priests caused to be spread abroad, that the disciples stole the body away while the soldiers were asleep. And if it should be assumed that neither this report nor the story of the guard had an existence until the publication of Matthew's Gospel, still the fact remains that it was published in the Gospel written especially for Jewish readers, and that after its publication the Jews made no such denial. Since it was not denied at the time when men knew the facts, it is too late to deny it now.5

As a second specification, it is held to be incredible that Mary did not at once recognize Jesus, if she saw him, instead of supposing him to be the gardener.6 But it is answered, first, that her own statement, that she did not recognize him at first, is proof that her story was not made up; for surely she would not have made it up this way, but would have said, "As soon as I laid my eyes on him I knew him." Second, her failure to at once recognize him is naturally accounted for by the considerations that she thought he was still dead, that she was anxiously inquiring where his dead body could be found, and that her eyes were full of tears when she first turned toward the person who spoke to her.

Under the head of things impossible, it is said that Jesus could not have vanished as he is said to have done frequently, nor have entered a room through the boards of closed doors, if he had been in a real body. But these two things can be declared impossible only on the assumption that Jesus possessed no supernatural power; for if he had such power, neither was impossible. Both of the infidel writers cited in the foot-note below unconsciously provide in their own words this answer to their objection. One of them says, if the incidents in question occurred, "there could be no question that the natural corporeality of the body and life of this human being was of a very peculiar, perfectly supernatural order;" while the other says of the entrance into the room, "It can scarcely be doubted that the intention of the writer is to represent a miraculous entry."7 This charge is in reality based on the assumption that Jesus had not really risen from the dead; for if he had, he could certainly do all that is said of him; and the objection therefore contains a fallacious assumption of the very thing to be proved. In other words, it is an attempt to discredit the proof of the resurrection by assuming that the resurrection did not occur, and that therefore the witnesses must be mistaken. No fallacy could be more inexcusable. In reality, the sudden appearance of Jesus in a closed room, and his equally sudden disappearance without passing through the door, are no more wonderful than the omnipresence of God, or the fact that he sees in the darkness as well as in the light.

The second general charge against the witnesses is that they were incompetent. This charge is not made formally, but is involved, as will be seen, in certain specifications.

First, it is insisted that not one of these witnesses actually saw Jesus come out of the tomb By the author of Supernatural Religion the objection is stated in these words: "The remarkable fact is, therefore, absolutely undeniable, that there was not, and it is not pretended that there was, a single eye-witness of the actual resurrection."8 There can be no reason for thus insisting on this fact, unless it be to show that the witnesses were incompetent for want of opportunity. But in this direction it has no bearing whatever; for if they saw him alive after his death, this is proof that he came to life. The fact that no one claims to have witnessed the actual resurrection is indeed a remarkable fact, remarkable as proof that the story of the resurrection was not made up by pretence; for if it had been, the witnesses, or at least some of them, would almost certainly have claimed to have seen him come out of the tomb, especially as some of them claim to have reached the tomb very nearly at the time of his departure from it.

A second specification is that the witnesses were demented, and therefore mentally incompetent. This objection is one of the oldest ever employed by unbelievers, and it has been more elaborately set forth in modern times than almost any other. It was urged by Celsus, the first known writer against the evidences of Christianity. He sneeringly remarks concerning the evidence of the resurrection, that the witnesses were "a half frantic woman," and some one else who "had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or, under the influence of a wandering imagination, had formed to himself an appearance according to his wishes."9 Echoing the sneer of the ancient Epicurean, modern infidels, notably Renan, say that Mary of Magdala, because seven demons had been cast out of her, was a woman of unsound mind, and that her vision of Jesus was a hallucination10 As to the other women, having heard Mary's story, they were seized with the hallucination that they had seen a young man in white who told them that Jesus had risen.11 The two men at Emmaus fell into re very as a stranger who had journeyed with them was breaking bread at the supper table; the stranger walked away; they recovered from their revelry, and concluded that the stranger was Jesus.12 The twelve, shut up in a room, feel a light breath pass over them, or they hear a window creak, or a chance murmur, and they fancy that the feeble sound is the voice of Jesus. At once they conclude that Jesus is in their midst, and afterwards it was pretended that they had seen his wounds.13 If we accept these statements, we must certainly conclude that the women and the Twelve were demented almost to idiocy.

One would suppose that Paul, with his sturdy common sense, would be excepted from this charge of hallucination; but it is boldly affirmed that at the time of his supposed conversation with Jesus a sunstroke or an attack of ophthalmia had thrown him into a delirious fever; a flash of lightning or a peal of thunder had blinded him, and for the time being he was demented.14 It has also been affirmed that he was subject to epilepsy, with a view to making it appear possible that he had a fit at the time that he thought he saw Jesus.15

While this charge is as old as Celsus, those who prefer it have to this day made no attempt at proof that is worthy of the name. There are only two ways to prove that a man's testimony as to an object of sight is untrustworthy because of unsoundness of mind. If, in the first place, he gave evidence of insanity either before or after the event to which he testifies, his testimony may be ascribed to the workings of a disordered brain, provided there is in it anything highly improbable. But in the case of these witnesses nothing of this kind is claimed except Mary's possession, which had long ago passed away, and the above mentioned charge against Paul, which is a mere fiction of the imagination. All that was done or said by any of the witnesses up to the moment of seeing Jesus, and all from that moment onward, is perfectly rational--it is that which any sane person under the same circumstances would do and say; and the only ground for charging them with insanity is the fact that they claim to have seen Jesus. But, in the second place, one may be pronounced a subject of hallucination without previous evidence of insanity if he sees something which is known by others present not to be a reality, or which is known for any reason to be impossible. For example, when a man sees snakes crawling on his bed, and feels them twining around his arms and his neck, while others standing at his bedside can see nothing of the kind, it is known that he is suffering from hallucination; or when he sees hobgoblins grinning at him through the ceiling and thrusting at him red-hot irons, he is known to be hallucinated because of the impossibility of what he sees. But in the cases of the witnesses to the resurrection neither of these conditions existed. When one of the women saw Jesus, all saw him who were present; and so with the Twelve. When Paul saw him, his companions saw the miraculous light in which he appeared, and they heard the voice speaking to Paul, though they heard not the words that were spoken. There is a total absence in every case of such circumstances as give evidence of hallucination, unless it be the assumed impossibility of what they saw; and this is not impossible if there is a God; for it is certainly not impossible that God should raise the dead, and especially such a dead man as Jesus. It appears, then, that the only ground for the charge of hallucination is the mere fact that these witnesses claim to have seen Jesus. If such a mode of reasoning were employed in the investigation of any other event, those who employ it, and not the witnesses to the event, would be pronounced of unsound mind.  

The third and last charge against the witnesses which we shall consider is the charge that they contradict one another. If this were true, and the contradictions had a bearing on the main fact of the resurrection, some of the witnesses making statements inconsistent with this main fact, there would be force in the objection; and we would be left, as in other cases of conflicting testimony, to the necessity of deciding between the witnesses by the preponderance of evidence. But it is not claimed, nor is it true, that the alleged contradictions take this form. It is only subordinate and unessential details that are affected by them. Such contradictions could exist in large numbers, as they often do in the testimony of credible witnesses in courts of justice, without invalidating the evidence as to the main fact. Infidels themselves admit this in regard to the evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus; for while they claim that John contradicts the other Evangelists in respect to the hour of the crucifixion, yet not one of them on this account doubts the reality of the crucifixion itself. So it should be in respect to the resurrection; they should not allow similar contradictions about details to make them doubt the united and harmonious testimony as to the resurrection itself.

But is it true that the witnesses contradict one another? This can be determined only by examining closely the specifications under this charge, hearing in mind while we do so that a contradiction, as we have said before (page 31), can not be justly charged except when two statements are made which can not both be true; that if, on any rational hypothesis, they both can be supposed true, they both may be true, and no contradiction is made out. This rule is made necessary by the fact that writers and speakers often omit details, the absence of which give their statements the appearance of inconsistency, whereas their presence in the narrative would have prevented this appearance. It is unjust to refuse any writers the benefit of this rule; for in doing so we are liable to charge with falsehood the most truthful writers, and with incorrect information those best informed.

The first specification to be noticed under this head has reference to the time at which the women went to the sepulcher. Matthew says they came "as it began to dawn;" and John, "while it was yet dark," as it always is when it begins to dawn. In apparent conflict with this, Mark says they came "when the sun was risen." Now if the word "came" (ἔρζομαι) used by all of these writers is employed here in the sense of arriving, which is its usual meaning, there is a contradiction of Matthew and John by Mark. But this word is sometimes used in reference to starting instead of arriving, and examples of this use are found elsewhere in the writings of both Matthew and John. A notable instance is the statement (Matt. xiv. 12) that the disciples of John "came and took up the corpse and buried him; and they went and told Jesus;" where the word occurs twice, once rendered "came," and once "went," the former referring to their arrival where the corpse was, and the latter to their starting for Galilee to tell Jesus. In John (vi. 17) we find this instance: "They entered into a boat, and were going over the sea to Capernaum;" where the word in question is rendered "were going," with reference to their start and progress, and with no reference at all to their arrival. In the case in hand we have only to suppose that these two writers have their minds on the time when the women started to the sepulcher in order, according to their own usage elsewhere, to see that they do not contradict Mark; and at the same time it is not till we do this that we exactly understand their meaning. That Mark, on the other hand, refers to the arrival at the tomb is clear from the fact that in the preceding clause he mentions the purchase of spices by the women while on the way: "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. And very early on the first day of the week they came to the tomb when the sun was risen."

Second, a contradiction is charged in reference to the names of these women. The most casual reader of the Gospels has observed that there is a difference on this point. Luke says that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and "other women" went; Mark, that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went; Matthew, that Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph went; and John, that Mary Magdalene went. Now if either Mark, Matthew or John had said that only those whom he mentions went, they would all have contradicted Luke; if Matthew had said that the two whom he mentions were all who went, he would have contradicted both Luke and Mark; and if John had said that the one whom he mentions was the only one who went, he would have contradicted all three of the other writers; but not one of them speaks thus. No exclusive term is used. If all these women went, then all these writers tell the truth. The only fair and just way, therefore, to deal with the several statements is to suppose that all of the women mentioned went, and that each writer, for reasons which we may or may not discover, chose to speak of them as he does. An omission is not a contradiction.

A third specification has reference to the number of angels said to have been seen by the women at the tomb.16 Matthew mentions the one who rolled the stone away, and represents him as speaking to the women, while Luke says there were two angels, and John also says that two were seen by Mary Magdalene. This case is precisely like that of the number of women. Matthew having mentioned the one who rolled away the stone, and who was the speaker, sees fit to say nothing about the other; while Luke and John, not having mentioned the removal of the stone, see fit to speak of both the angels without distinguishing the one who did the speaking. It is an every day occurrence to speak of having met a friend and had a conversation with him, without mentioning another friend who was present at the time; and yet, in referring again to the same incident, to speak of having met both.

Fourth, a contradiction is charged in reference to the conduct of the women immediately after they left the tomb. Matthew says that they were told by the angel to go and tell the male disciples that Jesus had arisen and would meet them in Galilee. Luke says that they delivered this message, while Mark says that "they fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid." Whether this is a contradiction depends on the meaning of Mark. If he means that they said nothing even to the male disciples, there is a contradiction; but if he means that they said nothing to any except those to whom they were told to speak, there is none. The latter is the natural meaning of his words, for they stand in immediate connection with the angel's command to go and tell the disciples; and the fear which is mentioned as the cause of their not telling could not be a motive for not telling them, but only for not telling other men who might be enemies. In other words, their fear could not have been a motive for disobeying the angel; on the contrary, the greater their alarm, the greater their natural impulse to tell their brethren what they had seen and heard.

Fifth, it is charged that the writers contradict one another concerning the first appearance of Jesus to the male disciples. Matthew mentions first, that on a mountain in Galilee; Mark and John, that in Jerusalem on the night after the resurrection; Luke, that to Cleopas and his companion on their way to Emmaus; Paul, that to Peter alone (I Cor. xv. 5); and this variation is the alleged contradiction.17 These statements would be contradictory if the several writers had said that the appearance which they mention first was first in order of time; but not one of them makes such a statement, though Paul says that the appearance to Peter preceded that to the Twelve. The variation is fully accounted for if we suppose that all these appearances took place, and that each writer made his own selection of those which he chose to mention, and intentionally omitted the others. The omission is not readily accounted for, though there is a reason for it yet to be mentioned; but whether accounted for or not, it involves no inconsistency.

Sixth, it is alleged that Luke represents Jesus, at his first interview with the apostles, as commanding them to remain in Jerusalem, thus contradicting Matthew and John, who both represent him as meeting them in Galilee. The truth of this charge depends on the question whether the whole of the conversation in the last chapter of Luke (36-49), occurred at the first interview with the apostles. If it did, then the command (verse 49) to tarry in Jerusalem was given, as is alleged, at this first interview. It must be admitted that, with Luke's Gospel alone before us, we would thus conclude; but this would not be a necessary conclusion, for it is the well known habit of the Gospel writers to often pass from one incident to another widely separated from it, without a note of time. For example, in the midst of his account of the last supper, Luke introduces, without a note of time, the statement, "And there arose also a contention among them, which of them is accounted to be the greatest;" whereas this contention had arisen among them several months previous, as we learn both from Luke himself and from Matthew.18 Again, the conversation with certain of his disciples about following him is mentioned by Luke directly after that about the Samaritan village whose inhabitants would not receive him, and it is introduced by the words, "And as they went in the way;" yet it really occurred while they were yet in Galilee, and as they were about to take a boat for the eastern side of the lake.19 With this knowledge of the writer's habit, one could not be sure that the conversation in question, beginning "and he said to them" (verse 44), followed in point of time immediately upon the preceding; and consequently the charge of contradiction could not be made out, though it would have more plausibility in this instance than in any of the preceding. When, however, we turn to Luke's second narrative, and allow him to explain himself, as he did to Theophilus, his meaning is left without uncertainty, and the appearance of contradiction vanishes. In his introduction to Acts, as if for the very purpose of making clearer his condensed account in the close of his Gospel, he tells Theophilus that there was an interval of forty days between the first interview with the eleven and the one in which he gave them their last instruction and ascended to heaven (i. 1-9).

The seventh and last specification which we shall consider under this charge is based on the passage in Acts last cited. It is charged that the statement about the interval of forty days is a contradiction of the preceding narrative, and that it is adopted in order to make room for the different appearances of Jesus.20 It is difficult to have patience with critics who thus refuse to allow the later and fuller statements of a writer to modify and explain his earlier and more concise narrative, without the charge of fraudulent design. The author of these two narratives certainly had no thought that his friend Theophilus was in danger of seeing a contradiction between the two accounts, or he would have made some effort to guard against such a construction; and if he had the intention of deceiving, he would most certainly have made such an effort. The absence of the faintest trace of such an effort is proof sufficient that the need of it was not felt, but that, on the contrary, the writer was conscious of that candid truthfulness which casts aside all thought of guarding against suspicion. If a writer of the present day were to publish an account of having visited a certain friend at a certain date, and in connection with it were to repeat some conversation with that friend; and in a subsequent publication were to say that the visit lasted forty days, and that the conversation reported was separated by this interval, no sane man would think of charging him with contradicting himself; yet this is precisely the case before us. We have now explained all the alleged contradictions in the several accounts of the resurrection which we consider worthy of notice, and we find that the charge is not sustained by a single specification. We may therefore safely dismiss the charge, and at the same time dismiss from our minds all thought of having to apologize, as some believers seem ready to do, for immaterial discrepancies. No discrepancies either material or immaterial have been discovered in these accounts after a search which began eighteen centuries ago, and has continued with little interruption to the present time.

1 The hypothesis was advanced by Herder, and afterward supported by Paul us and Schleiermacher, that Jesus was not actually dead when he was placed in the tomb, and that he revived and disappeared; but it has been thoroughly refuted by Strauss himself, as well as by believing writers. (See New Life of Jesus, i. §§ 3, 4, 5.)

2 "In any case it is only through the consciousness of the disciples that we have any knowledge of that which was the object of their faith; and thus we can not go fart her than to say that by whatever means this result was brought about, the resurrection of Jesus became a fact of their consciousness, and was as real to them as any historical event." (Baur, Church History, i. 43.)

3 Sup. Rel, iii. 444, 445.

4 Mark ix. 10.

5 Strauss attempts to explain the origin of the story that a guard was placed over the sepulcher, in the following way: "In the dispute upon this point, a Jew may have said: No wonder that the sepulcher was found empty, for of course you had stolen the body away. 'We stolen it away,' said the Christian; 'how could we have done that, when you had certainly set a watch over it V He believed this because he assumed it." (New Life, i. 207.) But it is certain that if such a conversation had occurred, it would not have stopped here. When the Christian said, "You had certainly set a watch over it," the Jew would have replied, 11 Now you are lying; and you know you are lying;" and thus the story would have been nipped in the bud.

6 Sup. Rel., iii, 457, 45S.

7 Now in this case, if the eating and the touching were historically true, it could not be doubtful that what appeared to the disciples was a human body, endowed with a natural life and a natural body; and if the showing and feeling of the marks of the wounds were so. there could be as little doubt that the human being was the Jesus who died on the cross; finally, if the entrance with closed doors were true, there could be no question that the natural corporeality and life of this human being was of a very peculiar, perfectly supernatural order." (Strauss, New Life, i. 407.) "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. ... It can scarcely be doubted that the intention of the writer is to represent a miraculous entry." (Sup. Rel., iii. 462, 466.)

8 Ib. iii. 449.

9 Origen Against Celsus, b. ii. c. 55.

10 "Divine power of love! sacred moments in which the passion of a hallucinated woman gives to the world a resurrected God!" (Renan, Jesus, 357). "If wisdom refuses to console this poor human race, betrayed by fate, let folly attempt the enterprise. Where is the sage who has given to the world as much joy as the possessed Mary of Magdala?" (Ib., Apostles, 61.)

11 Ib., 62.

12 Ib., 66.

13 Ib., 67, 68.

14 Ib., 172. 173.

15 Strauss, New Life, i. 417; Sup. Rel., iii. 557-560.

16 Celsus stated this objection in these words: "It is related also that there came to the tomb of Jesus himself, according to some, two angels; according to others, one." Origen replies: "They who mention one say that it was he who rolled away the stone from the sepulcher; while they who mention two refer to those who appeared in shining raiment to the women who repaired to the sepulcher, or who were seen within sitting in white garments." (Origen against Celsus, book v. chap. 56.)

17 Sup. Rel, iii. 451, 459, 489.

18 Luke xxii. 24; cf. ix. 46; Matt. xviii. 1.

19 Luke ix. 51-62; cf. Matt. viii. 18-23.

20 Strauss, New Life, i. 403; Renan, Apostles, 20.