¥ 
 238s iS 
 ae Sei 
 cohetgee FyF eit; sees 
 
 SEAS 
 SFist 
 iesess Aes 
 
 SS Stee 
 bert se 
 
 prt 
 pears 
 
 Xs 
 
 ay 
 
 1, 
 
 ee 
 aot 
 
 et 
 
 a 
 ais 
 
 erty 
 
 actA 
 etyext ¢ 
 
 aaa 
 
 inte: 
 
 a ea 
 + 
 
 oe 
 x 
 ate? 
 
 pe 
 
 ape 
 
 ate 
 
 
 

 
 heat 
 
 4 
 { 
 k 
 
 ee eee Sea 
 i Spe ep pte 
 IFiViS1IOn 
 
 Section’. Lect 4 
 

 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR 
 
 The Treatment of 
 The Remains at the Eucharist 
 
 after Holy Communion 
 
 AND 
 
 The Time of the Ablutions 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX ON 
 
 Reservation and the Book of Common Prayer 
 Revised Price 10s. net. 
 
 ‘A learned examination of the methods of disposing of the 
 remains of the consecrated elements after Communion.’— 
 ‘ The Times’ Literary Supplement. 
 
 ‘ This;very scholarly book ... a most important contribu- 
 tion to the study of the Liturgy.’—The Church Times. 
 ‘Mr. Lockton has written a very good and useful book.’— 
 The Guardian. 
 ‘This painstaking little monograph.’—The Month. 
 
 ‘The author, the Rev. W. Lockton, is a serious student 
 of the early Christian liturgies ... his work is in every way 
 scholarly.’.—-The Rev. H. THursTon, S.J. in The Tablet. 
 
 ‘A very useful book... a very creditable and serviceable 
 piece of work.’—The Rev. R. H. Connotty, O.S.B. in The 
 Journal of Theological Studies. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
THE RESURRECTION 
 
 AND« 
 
 THE VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 TWO ESSAYS 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/resurrectionotheOOlock 
 

 
 THE RESURRECTION AND ys 
 OTHER GOSPEL NARRATIVES" 
 
 AND 
 THE NARRATIVES OF THE 
 VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 TWO ESSAYS 
 BY 
 
 W. LOCKTON, B.D. 
 
 VICE-PRINCIPAL AND LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS 
 WINCHESTER DIOCESAN TRAINING COLLEGE 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 
 89 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C,4 
 
 NEW YORK, TORONTO 
 BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS 
 
 1924 
 
Made in Great Britain 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Ir is generally admitted that in the accounts 
 of the first Easter morning recorded in the 
 gospels there are various discrepancies and 
 even contradictions. The purpose of the 
 first of these essays is to suggest a fresh 
 solution of the problem, and frankly aban- 
 doning the commonly accepted Mark-Q 
 hypothesis, which indeed seems to create 
 unnecessary difficulties, to show how, if 
 Luke be taken as giving the most primitive 
 form of the evangelical tradition which has 
 survived, we have an explanation of the 
 development of the story which is both 
 reasonable and adequate. Comparison of 
 the different narratives suggests indeed that 
 in many ways the fourth gospel in spite of 
 its later date and more obvious interpretative 
 elements is more reliable historically than 
 Mark. The writer makes no claim to any 
 special literary capacity, or even indeed to a 
 quite ordinary facility in the art of writing — 
 most of his time is spent in quite different 
 pursuits—and he puts forward the two essays 
 
 only because in spite of their crudeness 
 Vv 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 and inadequacy he has been told that they 
 may be of value to those interested in, 
 or who have difficulties about, the Resur- 
 rection and Virgin Birth. In a discussion 
 on a very different topic with the late Dr. 
 Wickham Legg that great scholar was in- 
 sistent upon the desirability of those whose 
 researches had led them to definite results 
 publishing them at the earliest opportunity, 
 and for this reason by the kindness of the 
 editors of the Church Quarterly Review the 
 writer has printed his conclusions with 
 regard to *The Eucharistic Prayer’ and 
 ‘The Origin of the Gospels,’ though with the 
 merest suggestion of proof. The first of the 
 two essays in this book is a continuation and 
 application of the principles of the latter, 
 and like it is based on a paper prepared for 
 the Winchester Clerical Association. The 
 Mark-Q hypothesis is to-day regarded as 
 almost axiomatic in any study of the gospels, 
 and the writer is well aware of his audacity 
 in suggesting that what has been called ‘ the 
 great literary achievement of the last fifty 
 years of New Testament scholarship’ is 
 really only a mare’s nest, yet the more he 
 examines the question by the help of 
 whatever books are published, the more he 
 is convinced that this is correct. The ease 
 
PREFACE vil 
 
 with which so many put on one side the 
 difficulties of the Mark-Q hypothesis, par- 
 ticularly the many points of agreement of 
 Luke and Matthew against Mark, raises a 
 doubt in many cases whether the writers 
 have ever studied the problem at first hand 
 and apart from reliance on the all too con- 
 venient, though by no means exhaustive, 
 lists compiled by Dr. Abbott and Sir John 
 Hawkins. That the writer’s conclusions 
 will be generally accepted at once is not 
 expected, but it is hoped that, in spite of 
 many deficiencies of style and method, the 
 argument will be found not unworthy of 
 the attention of some even of those who 
 have made a speciality of Gospel studies, 
 as well as of others who can make no such 
 claim. The original purpose of the writer 
 was not apologetic, but simply to follow a 
 line of argument whithersoever it led. On 
 some points he has to confess that he would 
 not have been sorry if the conclusions had 
 been different, as for example, with regard 
 to the stone at the door of the sepulchre; but 
 if his contentions are correct, it will be seen 
 that there is more to be said for the tradi- 
 tional view than we are frequently allowed 
 to suppose. 
 
 It is hoped that the examination of the 
 
vill PREFACE 
 
 accounts of the various ecstatic visions re- 
 corded in the New Testament and elsewhere 
 will be of value in explaining the apparent 
 contradiction between Mark and the other 
 synoptic gospels with regard to the conduct 
 of the women at the sepulchre and their 
 report to the apostles, as well as in enabling 
 us to gain a better grasp of the significance 
 of other events in the gospel story. 
 
 The second essay seeks to prove that the 
 earliest evangelical tradition included a 
 statement of the fact of the Virgin Birth, 
 and that the verses frequently impugned as 
 interpolated are an original element of the 
 third gospel. The comparison with other 
 accounts of ecstasies it is hoped will be of 
 some value for a proper appreciation of 
 the story of this mystery also. 
 
 The text of the many quotations from 
 the gospels and elsewhere is usually that of 
 the Revised Version, and the writer wishes 
 to express his thanks to the University 
 Presses of Oxford and Cambridge for per- 
 mission to use it. Sometimes, however, for 
 purposes of the argument another transla- 
 tion was necessary, and the writer alone is 
 responsible for all such deviations from the 
 Revised Version, as for any other lapses 
 from strict accuracy of quotation. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 THE RESURRECTION AND OTHER GOSPEL 
 NARRATIVES 
 
 CHAP, 
 I. THE SECONDARY CHARACTER OF ST, 
 
 MARK . ; ; - 8 . 
 II, THe BurIAL OF ouR LORD ‘ : 
 Ill. THe VISIT OF THE WOMEN TO THE 
 TOMB . f : “ : : 
 
 IV. EcsSTASIES RECORDED BY St. LUKE . 
 V. Tue BApTISsM OF OUR LORD . 2 
 
 VI. THe TRANSFIGURATION AND THE 
 ASCENSION OF OUR LORD ‘ : 
 
 VII. THe VISION AT THE SEPULCHRE : 
 VIII. THe MESSAGE OF THE ANGELS. : 
 
 IX. St. Marxk’s SToRY OF THE ECSTASY 
 AT THE TOMB ; : : ; 
 X. St. JoHN’s Story oF MARY AT THE 
 TOMB . : ; ; : : 
 
 XI, THE APPEARANCE OF OUR LORD IN 
 
 GALILEE ’ A 3 ; : 
 ix 
 
 PAGH 
 
 105 
 
- CONTENTS 
 
 THE NARRATIVES OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 CHAP. 
 I. St. LuUKE’s ACCOUNT 
 
 II. St. MattHEw’s ACCOUNT . 
 lil. Tor Faminty at NAZARETH 
 
 IV. THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST . 
 
 V. Tue BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 VI. BRETHREN WHO WERE APOSTLES 
 
 VII. THE Sources OF THE BirtH NARRA- 
 TIVES 
 
 PAGE 
 
 123 
 131 
 143 
 147 
 153 
 168 
 
 178 
 
THE RESURRECTION 
 AND 
 OTHER GOSPEL NARRATIVES 
 
Victimae Paschali 
 Laudes immolent Christiani. 
 Agnus redemit oves ; 
 Christus innocens Patri 
 Reconciliavit 
 Peccatores. 
 Mors et vita duello 
 Conflixere mirando ; 
 Dux vitae mortuus 
 Regnat vivus. 
 Dic nobis, Maria, 
 Quid vidisti in via ? 
 Sepulehrum Christi viventis, 
 Et gloriam vidi resurgentis ; 
 Angelicos testes, 
 Sudarium et vestes. 
 Surrexit Christus, spes mea, 
 Praecedit suos in Galilea. 
 Credendum est magis soli 
 Mariae veraci 
 Quam Judaeorum turbae fallaci. 
 Scimus Christum resurrexisse 
 Ex mortuis vere. 
 Tu nobis, victor rex, miserere. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE SECONDARY CHARACTER OF 
 ST. MARK 
 
 SOME time ago the writer published an essay 
 on the ‘ Origin of the Gospels,’! and put 
 forward reasons for thinking that not Mark 
 but Luke represents the earliest evangelical 
 tradition which has survived, Mark, though 
 in some degree exhibiting the teaching of 
 Peter, being for the most part merely an 
 altered and not infrequently an inaccurate 
 version of what we find in Luke, while 
 Matthew, which is even more strongly 
 Petrine, is largely a combination of the 
 traditions found in Mark and Luke, the 
 changes in each case being due, at any rate 
 frequently, to oral transmission, not to the 
 deliberate revision of an editor. It is hoped 
 that it will be not without value to apply 
 the methods enunciated on the former 
 occasion to the stories of the resurrection, 
 
 1 Church Quarterly Review, July, 1922. 
 
4 THE SECONDARY CHARACTER 
 
 and an attempt will be made not only to 
 illustrate the priority of Luke, but also to 
 bring out what exactly was the course of 
 events on the first Easter morning, and at 
 the same time show how the different 
 accounts came to be what they are, and 
 to differ in so many particulars. 
 
 It will be useful first of all to draw 
 attention to the points of agreement of Luke 
 and Matthew against Mark, in the accounts 
 of the events from Good Friday evening 
 to the morning of the first Easter Day, 
 beginning with the story of the women at 
 the cross. Luke and Matthew agree in 
 saying that they followed Jesus ‘from 
 Galilee,’ while Mark says ‘when he was in 
 Galilee.’ Neither Luke nor Matthew says 
 anything of the ‘many other women which 
 came up with him unto Jerusalem,’ of 
 whom Mark speaks. Luke and Matthew 
 agree in omitting the reason for Joseph of 
 Arimathea’s appeal to Pilate, ‘ because it 
 was the Preparation, that is, the day before 
 the sabbath,’ though Luke gives a similar 
 note of time later, presumably as a reason 
 for the haste in burial. ‘And it was the 
 day of the Preparation, and the sabbath 
 drew on.’ Both Luke and Matthew speak 
 
 of “a man’ named Joseph, though they 
 
OF ST. MARK 5 
 
 use different Greek ‘words, Mark having 
 nothing to correspond. Both Luke and 
 Matthew say he was ‘ named’ Joseph, while 
 Mark introduces him at once as Joseph. 
 Luke and Matthew say ‘this man’ went to 
 Pilate, Mark giving no pronoun. They 
 agree, too, in using the participle where 
 Mark has the finite verb followed by ° and.’ 
 They agree also in using the same form of 
 compound verb, ° went to,’ Mark employing a 
 verb with a different prefix, ‘ went in.’ Luke 
 and Matthew have ‘to Pilate,’ the dative, 
 but Mark ° unto Pilate,’ using a preposition. 
 Both Luke and Matthew omit the incident 
 of Pilate marvelling whether Jesus were 
 already dead, his calling for the centurion 
 and his report, narrated by Mark. They 
 both likewise make no mention of Joseph 
 buying a linen cloth. Matthew and Luke 
 speak of taking ‘the body,’ ‘it,’ while 
 Mark says ‘him.’ Luke and Matthew say 
 Joseph ‘wrapped’ the body, but Mark 
 that he ‘wound’ him in a linen cloth. 
 Again Matthew, like Luke, says ‘it,’ but Mark 
 ‘him.’ Luke says the tomb was one * where 
 never man had yet lain,’ and with this 
 Matthew agrees, though saying only that 
 it was ‘new.’ Mark says nothing to this 
 effect. Luke says the women beheld ‘the 
 
6 THE SECONDARY CHARACTER 
 
 tomb,’ and Matthew that they sat over 
 against ‘the sepulchre,’ Mark making no 
 mention of the grave at this point. Luke 
 says the women ‘returned,’ and Matthew 
 that Joseph ‘ departed,’ from the sepulchre, 
 Mark having nothing to correspond. Luke 
 and Matthew begin the account of the 
 women’s visit to the sepulchre with one con- 
 junction, ‘but,’ Mark with another, * and.’ 
 Luke and Matthew both say the women 
 ‘came’ (aorist) to the tomb; Mark has the 
 historic present, ‘come.’ Luke and Matthew 
 both use a remarkable verb, properly meaning 
 to dawn, for the approach of another day, 
 in Luke the sabbath, in Matthew the first 
 day of the week (Luke xxii. 54, Matt. xxvii. 
 1); Mark, however, avoids it. Luke says 
 the women’s visit was ‘at early dawn,’ and 
 with this Matthew agrees, “as it began to 
 dawn.’ Mark speaks of a later moment, 
 “when the sun was risen.’ Luke and 
 Matthew introduce the angelic vision with 
 the word, ‘ behold,’ but it is not in Mark. 
 Luke says the angels’ apparel was ‘ lightning- 
 like,’ and Matthew that the angel’s appear- 
 ance was ‘ as lightning,’ Mark having nothing 
 to correspond. Luke says the women were 
 ‘ afraid,’ and Matthew speaks of the ‘ fear’ 
 of the watchers. Mark merely says the 
 
OF ST. MARK i 
 
 women were ‘amazed.’ Luke says the 
 women ‘ became’ afraid, and Matthew that 
 the watchers ‘became’ as dead men, the 
 verb being absent from Mark. Luke’s state- 
 ment that the women * bowed down their 
 faces to the earth,’ and Matthew’s that the 
 watchers ‘ became as dead men,’ seem to be 
 merely different versions of the same thing, 
 as we see in the account of similar visions 
 in Daniel, ‘I fell into a deep sleep with my 
 face toward the ground’ (viii. 18), ‘I re- 
 tained no strength ... then was I fallen 
 into a deep sleep on my face, with my face 
 toward the ground’ (x. 8-9); Mark has 
 nothing to correspond. Luke and Matthew 
 use the aorist ‘said’ to introduce the 
 speech of the angels, or angel, but Mark the 
 present, ‘he saith.’ In Matthew the angel 
 says “Fear not ye,’ which agrees with 
 Luke’s statement that the women were 
 ‘afraid’; Mark has ‘ Be not amazed.’! In 
 both Luke and Matthew the angels appeal 
 
 1 According to the ordinary text of Luke in the angels’ 
 speech we read, ‘ He is not here, but is risen.’ The words 
 are absent, however, from Codex Bezae and _ other 
 authorities, and so may be an early interpolation—a view 
 supported, as we shall see later, by other and more con- 
 clusive evidence—so that we cannot include in our list the 
 fact that the order of the words is in agreement with what 
 we find in Matthew, ‘ He is not here; for he is risen,’ and 
 not with Mark, who has ‘ He is risen ; he is not here.’ 
 
8 MARK’S SECONDARY CHARACTER 
 
 to our Lord’s own words as prophesying 
 His resurrection; in Mark they are recalled 
 as evidence that they would see Him in 
 Galilee. In Luke and Matthew the angels 
 speak of ‘ the dead,’ but not in Mark. Luke 
 says the women ‘ told all these things to the 
 eleven, and to all the rest,’ and Matthew 
 that they ran ‘to bring his disciples word,’ 
 while Mark says ‘ they said nothing to any 
 one; for they were afraid.’ 
 
 In the seventeen verses of Luke which 
 we have examined we notice some thirty- 
 one points on which Luke agrees with 
 Matthew against Mark. It is surely im- 
 possible to explain these facts on the hypo- ’ 
 thesis that Mark is the earliest gospel, and 
 that the other two are derived from it. 
 Allowing to the full the possibility of an 
 early assimilation of the texts of the first 
 and third gospels on the part of the scribes, 
 many of the details of agreement are such 
 that we still find the explanation quite 
 insufficient. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE BURIAL OF OUR LORD 
 
 WE will now examine in some detail the 
 narratives of the burial and resurrection as 
 given by St. Luke, comparing them with 
 what we find in the other gospels, and 
 tracing out so far as we can the develop- 
 ment in the story. Luke, speaking of the 
 events at our Lord’s death, says * And all 
 his acquaintance, and the women _ that 
 followed with him from Galilee, stood afar 
 off, beholding these things’ (xxi. 49), in 
 which we may trace reminiscences of Psalm 
 XxXxvil. 11 and Psalm Ixxxvii. 8. Mark says 
 nothing about * his acquaintance,’ but gives 
 the names of some of the women, ‘ And 
 there were also women beholding from afar : 
 among whom were both Mary Magdalene, 
 and Mary the mother of James the less and 
 of Joses, and Salome; who, when he was 
 in Galilee, followed him, and ministered 
 unto him; and many other women which 
 
10 THE BURIAL 
 
 came up with him unto Jerusalem’ (xv. 40- 
 41). The Marcan account we notice not only 
 gives the information found in the corre- 
 sponding passage in Luke, but also what we 
 find in two other passages of that gospel. 
 ‘He went about through cities and villages 
 
 . and with him the twelve, and certain 
 women ... Mary that was called Magda- 
 lene ...and Joanna the wife of Chuza, 
 Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many 
 others, which ministered unto them of their 
 substance’ (vill. 1-3), and “He went on 
 before, going up to Jerusalem’ (xix. 28). 
 Clearly we have a conflation of several 
 passages of Luke, for it would be very un- 
 natural to explain these as derived from the 
 one statement of Mark. The account in 
 Matthew to a large extent reproduces Mark. 
 He notes at the beginning the fact that 
 there were ‘many women,’ and so discards 
 the clause which speaks of the ‘ many other 
 women which came up with him unto 
 Jerusalem,’ thus agreeing with Luke. He 
 omits the description of James as ‘ the less,’ 
 and instead of Salome mentions ‘ the mother 
 of the sons of Zebedee,’ meaning probably 
 the same person, though not perhaps 
 certainly in view of the many women who 
 were present, and the fact that the third 
 
OF OUR LORD 11 
 
 name in Mark, Salome, is different from 
 that in Luke, Joanna. In John’s account, 
 which has points of affinity with Luke’s, 
 though referring to an earlier moment, 
 during the actual crucifixion, three women 
 are named, and the third here is the mother 
 of our Lord. ‘ But there were standing by 
 the cross of Jesus his mother, and _ his 
 mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, 
 and Mary Magdalene’ (xix. 25). ‘By the 
 cross ’ does not necessarily contradict Luke’s 
 statement that they stood ‘afar off ’—it 
 depends on the point of view—but the order 
 of words in the Greek and the fact that we 
 have echoes of the psalter suggest that in 
 Luke the words ‘ afar off’ refer primarily to 
 ‘his acquaintance,’ and not to the women. 
 That they moved farther away is very 
 improbable. 
 
 Luke next proceeds to tell of the good 
 offices of Joseph of Arimathea. In Mark 
 there is added a note of time, °‘ And when even 
 was now come,’ and similarly in Matthew, 
 but this is impossible if the words have their 
 natural meaning, for with the evening the 
 sabbath began, and no burial rites could be 
 performed. Mark also gives the reason for 
 Joseph’s interposition, ° because it was the 
 Preparation, that is, the day before the 
 
12 THE BURIAL 
 
 sabbath.’ John gives the same reason, but 
 explains it at greater length. ‘The Jews 
 therefore, because it was the Preparation, 
 that the bodies should not remain on the 
 cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that 
 sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate 
 that their legs might be broken, and that 
 they might be taken away. ... And after 
 these things Joseph of Arimatheea . . . asked 
 of Pilate that he might take away the body 
 of Jesus’ (xix. 31, 88). The law of Deuter- 
 onomy required the body of a criminal who 
 had been hanged to be taken down and 
 buried before nightfall. “And if a man have 
 committed a sin worthy of death, and he 
 be put to death, and thou hang him on a 
 tree; his body shall not remain all night 
 upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury 
 him the same day; for he that is hanged is 
 accursed of God; that thou defile not thy 
 land which the Lord thy God giveth thee 
 for an inheritance ’ (Deut. xxi. 22-8). This 
 rule we notice was carried out in the case 
 of the king of Ai (Josh. viii. 29), and the five 
 kings at Makkedah (Josh. x. 27). A man 
 crucified frequently lived two or three days. 
 * Blood, it polluteth the land’ (Num. xxxv. 
 33), bringing the curse of God (cf. Gen. iv. 
 11), so that alive or dead a criminal hanging 
 
OF OUR LORD 13 
 
 on a tree was a defilement. That a body 
 should remain on the cross upon the sabbath 
 would necessarily involve a profanation of 
 the sabbath, a particularly grievous offence 
 when the sabbath was a high day, but if 
 death occurred on the sabbath the con- 
 dition of things would be still more awkward, 
 for then they must either break the sabbath 
 —and that a high day in the present in- 
 stance—by burying the body, or else break 
 the law which required the body to be buried 
 before nightfall. There was thus good 
 reason for the anxiety of the Jews that death 
 should occur early enough for the bodies 
 to be buried before the sabbath arrived. 
 Joseph’s intervention, according to John, 
 would seem to have been occasioned by his 
 knowledge of that of the Jews, to prevent 
 our Lord’s body from being cast into one 
 of the two burial places for criminals. We 
 have thus in John, and the same thing is 
 suggested in Mark, a quite reasonable ex- 
 planation of an incident which Luke—and 
 likewise Matthew—leaves unexplained. 
 Mark agrees with Luke in saying that 
 Joseph was a councillor, Matthew omitting 
 the point. Luke says he was ‘a good man 
 and a righteous,’ which is paraphrased in 
 Mark as ‘of honourable estate,’ the Greek 
 
14 THE BURIAL 
 
 word used being one which according to 
 Phrynichus, the grammarian, was in vulgar 
 circles synonymous with wealthy,! the de- 
 scription given in Matthew, ‘a rich man.’ 
 Luke alone adds ‘he had not consented to 
 their counsel and deed’ (xxiii.51). According 
 to Mark, if his words are to be taken literally, 
 there was absolute unanimity with regard 
 to our Lord’s condemnation. ‘The chief 
 priests and the whole council sought witness 
 against Jesus to put him to death ’ (xiv. 55), 
 ‘ And they all condemned him to be worthy 
 of death’ (xiv. 64), while ‘in the morning 
 the chief priests with the elders and scribes, 
 and the whole council, held a consultation, 
 and bound Jesus, and carried him away, 
 and delivered him up to Pilate’ (xv. 1). 
 Matthew’s account is substantially the same 
 (xocviel) 59, 665s xxvil. 01. 2)2 in kee 
 narrative the unanimity is limited to those 
 present, and we are not told, as in Mark, 
 that these were * the whole council.’ ‘ And 
 as soon as it was day, the assembly of the 
 elders of the people was gathered together, 
 both chief priests and scribes; and they 
 led him away into their council ... And 
 the whole company of them rose up, and 
 
 1 Rutherford, The New Phrynichus, § cccix. p. 417; 
 Swete, St. Mark, p. 891. 
 
OF OUR LORD 15 
 
 brought him before Pilate (xxii. 66 ; xxiii. 1). 
 In view of the attitude of the rich young 
 ruler (Luke xviii. 18), and Nicodemus (John 
 iil. 1), it is much more probable that there 
 were some who ‘had not consented to their 
 counsel and deed’ than that, as Mark says, 
 the whole council was unanimous, though as 
 a matter of fact even Mark seems to contra- 
 dict this later when he tells us Joseph was 
 a councillor, unless we are to understand 
 that he gave his vote against our Lord, and 
 yet was willing not only to beg for His body, 
 but to prepare it for burial with his own 
 hands. Luke says he * was looking for the 
 kingdom of God,’ a description which re- 
 minds us of what he says of Simeon, and of 
 those to whom Anna spake (11. 25, 38), one 
 which was applicable really to any pious 
 Jew. Mark likewise says he ‘ was looking 
 for the kingdom of God,’ but adds that he 
 ‘boldly ’ went in unto Pilate. In Matthew 
 there is further development, and he has 
 become ‘Jesus’ disciple.’ Verbally John 
 endorses Matthew’s statement, saying that 
 he was ‘a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for 
 fear of the Jews,’ yet the qualifying clause 
 suggests that in the evangelist’s opinion his 
 discipleship was not so very different from 
 that of those of whom he speaks elsewhere, 
 
16 THE BURIAL 
 
 who said ‘ He is a good man’ yet dare not 
 speak openly of Him ‘ for fear of the Jews’ 
 (vii. 12-13), and so much the same as that 
 of the ruler, who likewise called Jesus 
 ‘good’ and whom, looking upon him, Jesus 
 loved (Mark x. 17, 21), or the scribe of whom 
 Jesus said ‘Thou art not far from the king- 
 dom of God’ (Mark xu. 84), words not very 
 different from those used by Luke of Joseph, 
 but scarcely implying that he was ‘ Jesus’ 
 disciple,’ to use Matthew’s phrase, except 
 in the very broadest sense. So far as Pilate 
 was concerned it would require no very 
 great boldness on the part of a councillor, 
 or indeed of anybody who could put forward 
 a reasonable claim, to go in and beg the 
 body of Jesus, for the Roman government 
 had no quarrel with the dead, but it meant 
 an open confession of discipleship before the 
 Jews on the part of one who had approved 
 His teaching in secret, being afraid to take 
 any such step before. John’s words explain 
 a point which Mark leaves rather ambiguous, 
 and the other evangelists ignore. 
 
 Luke says nothing about Pilate’s attitude 
 to Joseph’s request. Mark says, ‘And Pilate 
 marvelled if he were already dead: and 
 calling unto him the centurion, he asked him 
 whether he had been any while dead. And 
 
OF OUR LORD 17 
 
 when he learned it of the centurion, he 
 granted the corpse to Joseph’ (xv. 44-45). 
 As crucified persons usually lingered several 
 days the incident is very probable, and 
 agrees with John’s explanation of the reason 
 for Joseph’s intervention, and with his 
 statement that when they came to break 
 the legs of Jesus they found that He was 
 dead already. Mark alone at this point 
 informs us that Joseph ‘bought a linen 
 cloth,’ which would have been impossible 
 if it had been literally true that ‘even 
 was now come’ when he went to Pilate. 
 Matthew’s addition of the adjective * clean’ 
 is perhaps a modification of the same 
 tradition. Luke continues * And he took it 
 down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and 
 laid him in a tomb that was hewn in stone, 
 where never man had yet lain’ (xxiii. 58). 
 Mark uses a different word, °* wound,’ but 
 the idea seems much the same. Luke’s 
 statement that the tomb was ‘hewn in 
 stone,’ employing an adjective frequently 
 used of dressed stone, may perhaps imply 
 that there was masonry at the entrance, 
 as in the case of sepulchres which were 
 ‘built’ and ‘adorned’ (Luke xi. 47-8; 
 Matt. xxiii. 29); the same adjective is used 
 in the Septuagint to translate Pisgah (Deut. 
 
 Cc 
 
18 THE BURIAL 
 
 iv. 49; cf. Num. xxi. 20, xxiii. 14; Deut. i. 
 27), which Jerome in his ‘Onomasticon’ ex- 
 plains as meaning ‘abscisum,’+ steep or 
 precipitous. The literal meaning of the 
 word, therefore, can hardly be pressed, and 
 it is practically a synonym for * hewn in the 
 rock,’ though we might perhaps translate 
 ‘fashioned in rock,’ to keep the root idea. 
 Mark says the tomb was ‘hewn out of 
 rock,’ probably the earliest interpretation 
 of Luke’s adjective, but Matthew develops 
 the statement, and speaks of * his own new 
 tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock.’ 
 Remembering his description of Joseph as 
 *a rich man,’ we may perhaps see the in- 
 fluence of Isaiah li. 9, ‘they made his grave 
 
 . with the rich.’ At any rate it seems 
 probable that we have an interpretative 
 addition of the evangelist, not evidence of 
 a different tradition. We notice that the 
 fourth gospel does not repeat the statement. 
 Luke says further that the tomb was one 
 * where never man had yet lain,’ suggesting 
 that, as was usual, 1t was intended for the 
 reception of more than one corpse, though 
 as yet none had been laid in it. Mark 
 gives no information on the point, but 
 
 1 P.L., xxiii. col. 867; cf. Eusebius’s Greek text in 
 Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra, p. 287. 
 
OF OUR LORD 19 
 
 Matthew says that it was ‘new.’ John 
 combines the statements of Luke and 
 Matthew, and says that it was °a new tomb 
 wherein was never man yet laid’ (xix. 41). 
 Luke says nothing about any closing of the 
 tomb, and with this John agrees, but Mark 
 says Joseph ‘ rolled a stone against the door 
 of the tomb’ (xv. 46), and Matthew repeats 
 almost the same words. It is at this point 
 that Luke tells us that *it was the day of 
 the Preparation, and the sabbath drew on’ 
 (xxii. 54), not as in Mark to explain Joseph’s 
 part in the burial, but presumably as a 
 reason for the choice of the new tomb and 
 the haste in disposing of the body. Again 
 John combines the two ideas, this time 
 those of Mark and Luke, and though he has 
 explained the intervention of the Jews, and 
 so apparently of Joseph, as due to the fact 
 that it was the Preparation, he is equally 
 clear that it was the same fact which deter- 
 mined the choice of the new tomb. ‘ Now 
 in the place where he was crucified there 
 was a garden; and in the garden a new 
 tomb wherein was never man yet laid. 
 There then because of the Jews’ Preparation 
 (for the tomb was nigh at hand) they laid 
 Jesus’ (xix. 41-42). If this explanation of 
 the selection of a sepulchre be correct we 
 
20 THE BURIAL 
 
 have further evidence that the statement 
 of Matthew that the tomb was Joseph’s is 
 not historical. It seems probable indeed - 
 that the tomb may have been intended 
 merely as a temporary, not as a final, resting- 
 place. This view seems implied in Mary 
 Magdalene’s question to Jesus recorded in 
 the fourth gospel. ‘She, supposing him to 
 be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou 
 hast borne him hence, tell me where thou 
 hast laid him’ (xx. 15). If it were Joseph’s 
 tomb, and the burial intended to be final, 
 such a question to the gardener would surely 
 have been quite impossible. 
 
 Luke continues ‘ And the women, which 
 had come with him out of Galilee, followed 
 after, and beheld the tomb, and how that 
 his body was laid ’ (xxiii. 55). The intention 
 of the evangelist seems to be to provide 
 evidence of the reality of the burial, the 
 fact ‘that he was buried,’ as St. Paul says 
 (1 Cor. xv. 4), being an important item in 
 early Christian tradition, not to tell us that 
 the women watched the details of the burial. 
 ‘The women .. . followed after,’ and even 
 if not ‘afar off’ they were probably some 
 distance away. If at the well of Sychar our 
 Lord’s disciples “‘marvelled that he was 
 speaking with a woman’ (John iv. 27), and 
 
OF OUR LORD 21 
 
 the doctors of the law laid it down that ‘a 
 man should not salute a woman in a public 
 place, not even his own wife,’! it is clear 
 that a company of women would not venture 
 to intrude upon so important a person as 
 a member of the Sanhedrin even to offer 
 assistance. According to both Mark and 
 Matthew the women must have seen the 
 stone rolled to the door of the tomb before 
 they left, but Luke, as we have noticed, 
 says nothing of this, According to his 
 account as soon as the women had evidence 
 that our Lord’s body was being buried 
 “they returned,’ and in the short time 
 which remained before the sabbath pre- 
 vented it ‘ prepared spices and ointments.’ 
 Apparently Nicodemus, of whom we are not 
 told that he had anything to do with the 
 taking of our Lord’s body down from the 
 cross, if he had appeared on the scene at 
 all, had not arrived with the spices of which 
 John speaks when the women departed 
 from the tomb, for had they known of these, 
 or expected them to be provided, they would 
 not have returned to make similar prepara- 
 tions themselves. Even if we suppose the 
 
 1 Westcott, St. John, p. 74. See Taylor, Sayings of 
 the Jewish Fathers; Pirge Aboth, I. 5, p. 153 Buxtorf, 
 Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbinicum, p. 1146. 
 
22 THE BURIAL 
 
 body to have been made ready within the 
 court of the tomb itself, they could not 
 well have failed to notice the arrival of so 
 bulky a quantity of spices as John describes. 
 Mark mentions only two of °*the women, 
 which had come with him out of Galilee,’ 
 spoken of by Luke, and says that ° Mary 
 Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses 
 beheld where he was laid’ (xv. 47). The 
 last words are evidently another version of 
 what St. Luke says, which we have inter- 
 preted as meaning that they saw that the 
 body was buried, and, in view of the attitude 
 of such high personages as Joseph to women, 
 whether strangers or even friends, they 
 cannot be interpreted differently, or as 
 meaning that they saw the body in the 
 loculus, or other place provided. Had Mark 
 meant this the words attributed to the angel 
 in the sepulchre, ‘ Behold, the place where 
 they laid him’ (xvi. 6), would be robbed 
 of much of their point. The women beheld 
 where he was laid, that is, the position of 
 the tomb, which after all is the most natural 
 interpretation of the words. Mark mentions 
 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of 
 Joses at this point, but we notice the absence 
 of Salome, who, he says, was present at the 
 cross. If she is to be identified with the 
 mother of Zebedee’s children, it seems not 
 
OF OUR LORD 23 
 
 improbable, as is sometimes suggested, that 
 she went away from the cross immediately 
 after our Lord’s death to join her son John 
 and the mother of Jesus, whose departure 
 at an earlier stage is recorded in the fourth 
 gospel (xix. 27). Matthew also mentions 
 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, but 
 not Salome, and says they were * sitting over 
 against the sepulchre’ (xxvii. 61), which 
 is an elaboration of what Mark says, and 
 directly contradicts Luke, who says that 
 they went home. John says nothing at 
 all about the women in connexion with the 
 burial, not even that they were spectators, 
 confirming the view that they had nothing 
 to do with it, though they may have watched 
 at a distance. John alone tells us of the 
 part played by Nicodemus. ‘And there came 
 also Nicodemus, he who at the first came to 
 him by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh 
 and aloes, about a hundred pound weight. 
 So they took the body of Jesus, and bound 
 it in linen cloths with the spices, as the 
 custom of the Jews is to bury’ (xix. 39-40). 
 The amount of myrrh and aloes is large, 
 over seventy pounds in modern weight, but 
 the reference to Jewish custom helps us 
 to understand how it was all utilised. Of 
 King Asa we are told * they buried him in 
 his own sepulchres, ... and laid him in 
 
24 THE BURIAL 
 
 the bed which was filled with sweet odours 
 and divers kinds of spices prepared by the 
 apothecaries’ art’ (2 Chron. xvi. 14). * The 
 linen cloths’ and ‘the napkin’ mentioned 
 in the story of the resurrection were pre- 
 sumably part of the provision made by 
 Nicodemus for use with the spices, and are 
 not to be identified with the ‘linen cloth,’ 
 or sheet, in which out of reverence Joseph 
 wrapped the naked body of Jesus for 
 removal from the cross to the sepulchre. 
 Luke continues ‘And on the sabbath they 
 rested according to the commandment’ 
 (xxiii. 56). The same thing is implied in 
 Mark’s statement that it was ‘when the 
 sabbath was past’ that they bought spices 
 (xvi. 1). Matthew says that on the sabbath, 
 which he curiously calls ‘the day after the 
 Preparation,’ ‘the chief priests and the 
 Pharisees were gathered together unto 
 Pilate,’ asking him to command ‘that the 
 sepulchre be made sure until the third day, 
 lest haply his disciples come and steal him 
 away ’ (xxvii. 62-64). It seems a very poor 
 excuse for a breach of the sabbath, for if 
 a guard were necessary it should have been 
 appointed on Friday afternoon. At that 
 time, however, the thought that His disciples 
 might come and steal the body never seems 
 to have occurred to them, their one anxiety 
 
OF OUR LORD 25 
 
 being to get rid of our Lord’s body before 
 sunset to avoid a profanation of the sabbath 
 even by inadvertence, a very minor breach 
 of the law compared with that involved in 
 their appeal to Pilate, where the offence 
 was deliberate and without the excuse of 
 necessity. If our Lord’s body had _ been 
 consigned to one of the common graves for 
 criminals, it would have been comparatively 
 easy for the disciples to steal it, and yet on 
 the Friday afternoon such a speedy burial 
 was all they seemed to desire or asked of 
 Pilate. Neither do they seem to have raised 
 any objection to the body being handed 
 over to Joseph, who, if not known to be a 
 disciple, was obviously a friend, though 
 this was surely playing into the hands of 
 those who would counterfeit a resurrection. 
 Their desire for security against theft, if 
 historical, must have been an afterthought, 
 and one which involved an entire change of 
 policy in a night. The story forms one of a 
 number peculiar to the first gospel in which 
 there is a distinct bias in favour of the 
 marvellous, as we see in the accounts of the 
 earthquakes at the death and resurrection 
 (xxvil. 51, xxviil. 2), and it is difficult not to 
 believe that we are dealing with a legendary 
 accretion. Matthew himself seems to have 
 recognised one of the objections to its 
 
26 THE BURIAL OF OUR LORD 
 
 historicity, but he hardly removes it, though 
 he makes it less obvious, by calling the 
 sabbath ‘the day after the Preparation.’ 
 For details of the story the author seems 
 to have been influenced by two Old Testa- 
 ment narratives, each concerned with the 
 rolling of a stone. or stones to the mouth 
 of a cave or pit. The first is the story of 
 the five kings who hid in the cave at Makke- 
 dah. ‘And Joshua said, Roll great stones 
 unto the mouth of the cave, and set men 
 by it for to keep them’ (Josh. x. 18). The 
 second is the story of Daniel in the lions’ 
 den, ‘And a stone was brought, and laid 
 upon the mouth of the den; and the king 
 sealed it with his own signet, and with the 
 signet of his lords’ (Dan. vi. 17). According 
 to Matthew also it was on the afternoon of 
 the sabbath, as the first day of the week was 
 approaching, if we interpret the Greek verb 
 used as in Luke, that the women came to 
 see the sepulchre, ‘late on the sabbath day, 
 as it began to draw towards the first day of 
 the week’ (xxvii. 1). Probably, however, 
 the evangelist has misunderstood his source, 
 and for the moment at any rate seems to 
 have thought that with Jews, as with 
 Gentiles, a new day began not with the 
 darkness but with the dawn. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE VISIT OF THE WOMEN TO THE TOMB 
 
 LUKE, as we have seen, says that the women 
 prepared the spices on the Friday afternoon 
 after their return from the sepulchre, before 
 the sabbath began, but Mark on Saturday 
 evening after the sabbath was over, pre- 
 sumably because, as he says the women 
 stayed at the tomb until the burial was 
 completed and a stone rolled to the door, 
 there was no time left for anything after 
 their return from the sepulchre before the 
 beginning of the sabbath. We read: * 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’ (xvi. 1). We notice the re- 
 appearance of Salome, who according to Mark 
 was absent on the Friday afternoon when 
 Luke tells us the spices were purchased. 
 The purchase of the spices in Mark, however, 
 is merely preliminary to the visit of the 
 
28 VISIT OF THE WOMEN 
 
 women to the tomb on the Sunday morning, 
 and what the evangelist is really anxious 
 that we shall understand is that she was 
 present on that occasion, though according 
 to Luke, as when he tells us the women 
 who ministered to Jesus, the third name is 
 Joanna, for speaking of those who came 
 to the sepulchre he says * they were Mary 
 Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother 
 of James’ (xxiv. 10). Luke is quite definite 
 in his statement of the reason for the visit 
 of the women to the tomb on the Sunday 
 morning: ° On the first day of the week, at 
 early dawn, they came unto the tomb, 
 bringing the spices which they had prepared ’ 
 (xxiv. 1). According to Mark the purpose 
 is the same, but in Matthew, presumably 
 because his story of the guard has made 
 any such intention manifestly impossible, they 
 came simply ‘to see the sepulchre.’ Accord- 
 ing to the Talmud it was customary to visit 
 the corpse in the tomb until the third day 
 when, corruption having set in, there could be 
 no doubt that the soul had left the body and 
 the person was dead. We read, *'They go out 
 to the cemetery and make inquisition concern- 
 ing the dead for three days, and are not 
 deterred lest it seem an Amorite practice.’ } 
 
 1 Semachoth, viii. § 1. Quotation kindly supplied by 
 Dr. Abrahams. 
 
TO THE TOMB 29 
 
 It is not till he speaks of the visit to the 
 sepulchre that Luke mentions the stone for 
 the first time, “And they found the stone 
 rolled away from the tomb’ (xxiv. 2). The 
 same is true in the fourth gospel. Nothing 
 is said about it until we are told that Mary 
 Magdalene * seeth the stone taken away from 
 the tomb’ (xx. 1). John’s words agree 
 with those he uses when speaking of the 
 grave of Lazarus, and probably the tomb 
 was of a similar type in both cases, both 
 being private burial places. We read: 
 * Jesus . . . cometh to the tomb. Now it 
 was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 
 Jesus saith, Take ye away the stone... 
 So they took away the stone’ (John xi. 
 38-39, 41). 
 
 Mark’s account is very detailed. ‘ And 
 very early on the first day of the week, 
 they come to the tomb, when the sun was 
 risen. And they were saying among them- 
 selves, Who shall roll us away the stone 
 from the door of the tomb? And looking 
 up, they see that the stone is rolled back : 
 for it was exceeding great’ (xvi. 2-4). Luke 
 says ‘they found the stone rolled away,’ 
 but in Mark the emphasis is on what they 
 saw, “looking up, they see that the stone is 
 rolled back.’ The reason for his statement 
 
30 VISIT OF THE WOMEN 
 
 that they came ‘when the sun was risen’ 
 is now apparent, the other evangelists agree- 
 ing that it was before daybreak, ‘ at early 
 dawn’ according to Luke, ‘as it began to 
 dawn’ according to Matthew, and according 
 to John ‘while it was yet dark.’ As we 
 read Mark’s account of the conversation 
 of the women we are bound to ask, Is it 
 credible? The women, we are told, had 
 been looking on when a stone, which was 
 ‘very great,’ was rolled to the door of the 
 tomb. The evangelist evidently intends us 
 to understand that to move it was beyond 
 the power of three women, and he tells us 
 that this was their own opinion. They had 
 a whole day in which to think over their 
 plans with regard to what they wished to do 
 to the Lord’s body, they went to the trouble 
 and expense of buying spices, they rose very 
 early on the first day of the week to bring 
 them to the tomb, all without thinking of the 
 difficulty of moving the stone and arrang- 
 ing with someone to move it for them. It 
 seems very improbable. In view of the 
 silence of both Luke and John with respect 
 to the closing of the sepulchre it would appear 
 not unreasonable to suppose that the stone 
 had never been rolled to the mouth of the 
 tomb at all, at any rate not since the work- 
 
TO THE TOMB 31 
 
 men who prepared the tomb and_ stone 
 departed. The words quoted from the 
 Talmud are sometimes interpreted as im- 
 plying that graves were ordinarily left un- 
 closed for three days, but however that 
 may be, if, as seems not unlikely, the 
 sepulchre in this case was regarded only 
 as a temporary resting-place, this would be 
 exactly what we should expect, for even 
 if the labour was not great, Joseph would 
 perhaps hesitate to close someone else’s 
 tomb. Luke’s words do not necessarily 
 imply that the stone had been rolled away 
 recently, or indeed at all, apart from the 
 trial closing by the masons who fitted it. 
 The emphasis is on the fact not on the 
 action which produced it, as frequently with 
 verbs of similar meaning in the perfect 
 tense.1 It is possible that the evangelist, 
 and even the women themselves, whether 
 the tomb was regarded as a temporary or 
 permanent resting-place, expected that the 
 tomb would be found closed, but this would 
 surely occasion no serious difficulty, for 
 Mark’s statement that the stone was ° very 
 great’ is probably only an interpretative 
 addition for purposes of edification, like the 
 
 1 Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 27 b, where the reference can hardly 
 be to widowers only. 
 
32 VISIT OF THE WOMEN 
 
 conversation of the women, of which indeed 
 it is the basis. Luke says nothing about 
 the size of the stone, and it is very unlikely 
 that it was unusually large. There is no 
 suggestion of difficulty in moving the stone 
 in the account of the raising of Lazarus. 
 It was probably a circular disc, such as was 
 usually provided for a tomb, and this is 
 perhaps implied in Mark’s expression ‘rolled 
 back,’ though possibly not in ‘ rolled away ’ 
 which all the synoptic gospels use. As a 
 rule such a stone would be no more than four 
 feet in diameter, and, rolling in the groove 
 provided, could be moved with no great 
 difficulty by one man, and so could scarcely 
 be regarded as an insuperable obstacle by 
 three women. The customary visiting of 
 the corpse for three days of which we have 
 spoken, unless as some suppose the grave 
 was left unclosed, implies the same thing. 
 A medizval commentary on the words 
 quoted from the Talmud above says, ‘ This 
 custom only applied in ancient times when 
 burial was in the kokim, and it was easy to 
 raise the coffin lid.’*! Though the reference 
 to the coffin lid is an anachronism, the writer 
 is surely correct in assuming that such a 
 
 1Turim. Tur Yoreh Deadh, § 394. Quotation kindly 
 supplied by Dr. Abrahams. 
 
TO THE TOMB 33 
 
 visit to the corpse as the Talmud describes 
 would only be possible when the body was 
 easily accessible, which he concludes was the 
 case in the kokim, and so, of course, in other 
 similar burial places. Mark says that Joseph 
 ‘rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.’ 
 ‘A stone’ is a very unnatural way of 
 speaking of the stone specially provided for 
 the sepulchre. Mark’s phraseology, how- 
 ever, reminds us of that of the story of 
 Jacob at the well. ‘And he looked, and 
 behold a well in the field, ... and the 
 stone upon the well’s mouth was great... 
 and they rolled the stone from the well’s 
 mouth, . . . and put the stone again upon 
 the well’s mouth in its place. . . . And he 
 said ... Water ye the sheep. . . . And they 
 said, We cannot, until all the flocks be 
 gathered together, and they roll the stone 
 from the well’s mouth . . . And it came to 
 pass ... that Jacob went near, and rolled 
 the stone from the well’s mouth ’ (Gen. xxix. 
 2, 8, 7, 8, 10). In the Greek the first time 
 the stone is mentioned there is no article, 
 and it is really ‘a stone,’ though it cannot 
 well be so translated in English. The Greek 
 word translated ‘roll away’ is found only 
 in this passage in the Septuagint, and in the 
 New Testament only in the synoptic gospels 
 D 
 
34 VISIT OF THE WOMEN 
 
 in the accounts of the resurrection. ‘And 
 he looked and behold’ reminds us of * And 
 looking up, they see,’ with the redundant 
 participle. ‘The stone... was great’ is 
 exactly reproduced in ‘the stone... it 
 was great exceedingly,’ though the identity 
 of expression is not so obvious in the English. 
 We thus get also an explanation of the 
 awkwardness of Mark’s Greek which other- 
 wise it is not easy to find. ° They will roll 
 away the stone from the mouth of the well,’ 
 as it is in the Septuagint, apart from changes 
 in the preposition and nouns necessitated 
 by the circumstances, is repeated even to 
 the order of words in *‘ Who shall roll us 
 away the stone from the door of the tomb ? ’ 
 In both accounts expression is given to the 
 difficulty of rolling away the stone, though 
 in Genesis it is properly moral rather than 
 physical. The same story seems also to 
 have influenced Mark’s earlier statement, 
 ‘he rolled a stone against the door of the 
 tomb,’ for there likewise we notice a repro- 
 duction of phraseology from the narrative in 
 Genesis. It seems difficult to resist the con- 
 clusion that the whole story of the stone 
 as given in the second gospel is an inter- 
 pretative expansion of the simple statement 
 of Luke that when the women arrived at 
 
TO THE TOMB 35 
 
 the sepulchre they found the stone rolled 
 away. The influence of the story of Jacob 
 ean hardly be doubted, and it would have 
 full scope in oral transmission. Matthew 
 continues the process of development. Of 
 Joseph he says ‘he rolled a great stone to 
 the door of the tomb’ (xxvii. 60). Here 
 we seem to notice the influence of another 
 Old Testament incident, of Saul at Mich- 
 mash, ‘And he said ... Roll a great stone 
 to me this day’ (1 Sam. xiv. 33). Besides 
 the similar use of the adjective ‘ great’ to 
 describe the stone, both Matthew and the 
 Septuagint employ the dative where Mark 
 has a preposition with the accusative. To 
 account for the removal of the stone Matthew 
 introduces a mighty portent, “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’ (xxvill. 2). The passage is quite 
 in the style of other sections peculiar to 
 Matthew, full of the miraculous and Old 
 Testament phraseology. An earthquake is 
 a common apocalyptical phenomenon. We 
 read in Ezekiel ‘ In that day there shall be 
 a great earthquake ...and all the men 
 that are upon the face of the earth, shall 
 quake at my presence’ (xxxvill. 19-20), and 
 
36 VISIT OF THE WOMEN 
 
 in agreement with the prophecy Matthew 
 also adds ‘the watchers did quake.’ The 
 exact words of the evangelist occur no less 
 than six times in the New Testament, so 
 that ‘there was a great earthquake’ was 
 evidently a familiar way of describing the 
 intervention of the supernatural (Matt. viii. 
 24, xxvill. 2; Acts xvi. 26; Rev. vi. 12, xi. 18, 
 Xvi 18); «> The angel “ofs the *Lord i715 
 common Old Testament expression to de- 
 scribe a manifestation of God in personal 
 form, appearing also four times in Matthew 
 (i. 20, 24; 11. 18, 19), twice in Luke (i. 11; 
 ii, 9) in the birth narratives, and four times 
 in Acts: (v; 19); ov. 263 2xli. 77428 ae 
 addition to the present passage. ‘ The angel 
 of the Lord’ called unto Abraham twice 
 ‘from heaven’ (Gen. xxii. 11, 15), ‘ The Lord 
 descended ’ upon Sinai (Exod. xxxiv. 5), and 
 ‘The angel of the Lord came and sat’ under 
 the oak at Ophrah (Jud. vi. 11), all suggesting 
 the phraseology of the present passage. The 
 influence of the story of Jacob at the well 
 appears in Matthew as well as in Mark, the 
 five Greek words for ‘and came and rolled 
 away the stone’ being repeated without the 
 slightest modification even in order from a 
 passage already quoted (in another trans- 
 lation), ‘Jacob came and rolled away the 
 
TO THE TOMB 37 
 
 stone from the well’s mouth.’ Though ‘the 
 angel of the Lord came and sat’ under the 
 oak at Ophrah, as the words immediately 
 preceding ‘and sat upon it’ are taken 
 from the story of Jacob at the well, it seems 
 not unlikely that in these last words we have 
 also a reminiscence of the similar story of 
 Moses at the well in which, according to the 
 Septuagint, we are told that * he sat upon’ it 
 (Exod.1i.15). The account given in Matthew 
 is exactly what a person steeped in the 
 Old Testament would imagine as an explana- 
 tion of the fact that the stone was found 
 rolled away, but it can hardly be regarded 
 as in the strict sense history. The evidence 
 indeed seems to point rather to the con- 
 clusion that the tomb had never been closed, 
 and that the stones in Mark and Matthew 
 are interpretative developments, or from 
 another point of view, legendary accretions, 
 such as with oral transmission would be 
 inevitable. The reason for the rolling away 
 of the stone in view of the nature of our 
 Lord’s resurrection body has frequently been 
 a difficulty, and the favourite explanation 
 has been that of Bishop Horsley, that it 
 ‘was not to let the Lord out, but to let 
 the women in.’+ Such a view, however, is 
 
 1 Nine Sermons on ... our Lord’s Resurrection, p. 202. 
 
38 VISIT OF THE WOMEN 
 
 unnecessary when the narratives are critically 
 examined. It is interesting to note further 
 developments in the story of the stone. In 
 ‘Codex Bezae’ and some other manuscripts 
 we are told at this point in Matthew that 
 Joseph, ‘when he had laid him, placed at 
 the tomb a stone which scarcely twenty 
 men could roll.’ In the ‘Gospel of Peter’ the 
 idea is still further elaborated: * There came 
 elders and scribes to the sepulchre and 
 having rolled a great stone with the cen- 
 turion and soldiers, all who were there 
 together, placed it at the door of the 
 tomb.’1 This account is especially remark- 
 able as containing a tradition in exact agree- 
 ment with what we have concluded on critical 
 grounds, that Joseph left the tomb unclosed, 
 though of course we need not believe that 
 the centurion and soldiers, elders and scribes 
 combined to remedy the omission, rolling so 
 great a stone to the entrance. 
 
 Luke continues, * And they entered in, 
 and found not the body (of the Lord Jesus) ’ 
 (xxiv. 8). Mark gives the first part only, 
 * And entering into the tomb’ (xvi. 5), but 
 says nothing about their not finding the 
 body, and presumably they do not realise 
 
 1 Swete, Gospel of St. Peter, chap. viii. p. 26; cf. Lake, 
 Resurrection of Jesus Christ, p. 152. 
 
TO THE TOMB 39 
 
 that the body is absent until the angel 
 speaks and points it out. John does not 
 actually say that they failed to find the 
 body, but it is presupposed in the report of 
 Mary Magdalene to Peter, * They have taken 
 away the Lord out of the tomb, and we 
 know not where they have laid him ’ (xx. 2), 
 and the similar words to the angel in the 
 sepulchre. John evidently supports Luke’s 
 statement that the women noticed the 
 absence of the body before the appearance 
 of the angels. We notice that Luke repeats 
 the tradition he incorporates in his text in 
 the words attributed to the two disciples 
 on the way to Emmaus. ‘ Moreover certain 
 women of our company amazed us, having 
 been early at the tomb; and when they 
 found not his body, they came, saying, that 
 they had also seen a vision of angels, which 
 said that he was alive’ (xxiv. 22-3). 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 ECSTASIES RECORDED BY ST. LUKE 
 
 WE have now to consider one of the most 
 difficult incidents of all those which happened 
 on the first EKaster morning, what the two 
 disciples called the ‘vision of angels.’ If 
 we compare it with other similar accounts 
 it is clear that it was a vision received in a 
 state of ecstasy. Such visions occupy an 
 important position in both the Old Testa- 
 ment and the New, and indeed in the history 
 of religion wellnigh at all times and in all 
 places. In the Old Testament many such 
 visions are recorded. They were specially 
 characteristic of prophets (Joel ul. 28, etc.), 
 and were vouchsafed to them frequently 
 at their call, but not seldom at other times 
 besides. We note them particularly in the 
 case of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 16), Micaiah 
 (1 Kings xxii. 19), Isaiah (Is. vi. 1), Jeremiah 
 (Jer. 1.' 11, 138);- Ezekiel (Eizekoa1.1, ener: 
 Amos (Amos vil. 1, 4, 7; vill. 1; ix. 1), and 
 
ECSTASIES IN ST. LUKE 41 
 
 Zechariah (Zech. 1. 8). The book of Daniel 
 is in a different category, but a large part 
 of it is taken up with a description of such 
 visions. In the New Testament, after the 
 vision of the day of Pentecost, Peter declares 
 that Christianity is a religion of visions, and 
 that the prophecy of Joel (1. 28) is fulfilled 
 (Acts i. 17). Paul glories in such ‘ visions 
 and revelations of the Lord’ (2 Cor. xii. 
 1-5). Several of those vouchsafed to both 
 Peter and Paul are recorded, but we find 
 also descriptions of those granted to various 
 other people. We notice them particularly 
 in the writings of St. Luke, but also else- 
 where. Of visions in ecstasy Luke describes 
 no less than thirteen apart from visions 
 received by night, which perhaps are not 
 really to be distinguished any more than 
 in the case of the Old Testament prophets, 
 and a few of doubtful type which from what 
 we are told might belong to one group or 
 the other. Visions in ecstasy were granted 
 to Zacharias in the temple, to Mary, to the 
 shepherds, at our Lord’s baptism, at the 
 transfiguration, at the sepulchre, at the 
 ascension, at Pentecost, to St. Stephen, to 
 St. Paul at his conversion, to Cornelius, to 
 Peter on the housetop, and to Paul in the 
 temple at Jerusalem. The night visions are 
 
A2 ECSTASIES RECORDED 
 
 all St. Paul’s, and we notice his vision of the 
 man of Macedonia, of our Lord at Corinth, 
 and at Jerusalem, and of the angel of God 
 on the ship. Of the visions more indefinite 
 in type we note the angel of the Lord who 
 spake to Philip, the vision of Ananias, and 
 of St. Paul in which he saw Ananias, and 
 if the text is authentic, as seems not im- 
 probable from both internal and external 
 evidence, the angel who appeared to our 
 Lord in Gethsemane. The appearances of 
 the angel to the apostles and to St. Peter 
 in prison ought not perhaps to be regarded 
 as supernatural, though at the time they 
 were so understood. Luke’s descriptions of 
 these ecstatic visions are remarkable for the 
 frequent recurrence of certain characteristic 
 ideas and phrases, many of which, however, 
 are by no means uncommon in the accounts 
 of similar experiences recorded elsewhere, 
 as even a slight acquaintance with mystical 
 literature makes plain. The story of the 
 transfiguration as given by Luke is _ par- 
 ticularly interesting from this point of view, 
 for in it the details characteristic of an 
 ecstasy are given with a fullness not found 
 in the other New Testament accounts. We 
 read: “Now Peter and they that were with 
 him were weighed down with sleep, but 
 
BY ST. LUKE 43 
 
 remaining fully awake, they saw his glory ’ 
 (ix. 82). Similarly of Balaam we read ‘ He 
 saith . .. which seeth the vision of the 
 Almighty, falling down, and having his eyes 
 open ’ (Num. xxiv. 4,16). In the Septuagint 
 instead of ‘ falling down’ we find ‘ in sleep,’ 
 a common method of describing a trance 
 or ecstasy, aS we notice in the case of 
 Abraham (Gen. xv. 12), and Daniel (viii. 18 ; 
 x. 9). St. Teresa gives an exactly similar 
 description of a state of ecstasy. ‘She is 
 thoroughly awake to God, though fast asleep 
 as to worldly things and to ourselves.’?4 A 
 study of the various types of ecstasy de- 
 scribed in St. Teresa’s ‘ Interior Castle,’ and 
 similar works,? is of the greatest value for a 
 proper understanding of the New Testament 
 examples. St. Teresa speaks only of visions 
 vouchsafed to individuals, but it seems 
 beyond question that an ecstasy may take 
 hold of a group of people at the same time, 
 so that they may see a vision in common, 
 
 1 Interior Castle: The Fifth Mansions (ed. Dalton), 
 chap. i. p. 97. Dalton’s is the translation usually quoted 
 in these pages, but occasionally another is preferred. 
 
 2 See also James, The Varieties of Religious Experience ; 
 and Poulain, The Graces of Interior Prayer. 
 
 3 Summing up the evidence Schmiedel says, ‘ That in 
 circumstances of general excitement and highly strung 
 
 expectation visions are contagious, and that others easily 
 perceive that which at first had been seen by only one, 
 
AA, ECSTASIES RECORDED 
 
 and this was the case we are told in several 
 of the examples Luke describes. A detailed 
 study of the instances of ecstasy in the New 
 Testament would be interesting, but here 
 we can only notice the occurrence of the 
 most characteristic mystical phraseology. 
 The vision took..place during prayer, the 
 most usual oceasion, according to St. Teresa 
 and other ecstatics, at our Lord’s baptism, 
 at the transfiguration, in the case of Cornelius, 
 of Peter on the housetop, and of Paul in the 
 temple at Jerusalem, the same thing also 
 being suggested in the case of Zacharias. 
 Heaven is said to have been opened at 
 our Lord’s baptism, in the visions of St. 
 Stephen and St. Peter, as in those o1 
 Ezekiel (i. 1), and St. John the Divine 
 (Rev. xix. 11), the same thing being implied 
 at the ascension, at Pentecost, and at the 
 conversion of St. Paul. -The vision is of 
 ‘two men’ at the transfiguration, and at the 
 sepulchre, and of ‘a man’ to Cornelius. At 
 is, in view of the accumulated evidence, a fact not to 
 be denied’ (Encyclopedia Biblica, iv. col. 4083-4). The 
 suggestion, however, that one person communicates the 
 details of his vision to the rest is normally impossible in 
 an ecstasy. Except when the ecstasy is incomplete, as 
 apparently with St. Stephen, there is an entire alienation 
 of the sensible faculties, and a person is quite unable to 
 
 impart the nature of his vision to another until the rapture 
 is over. 
 
BY ST. LUKE 45 
 
 the sepulchre and in the case of Cornelius 
 they are also spoken of as angels, while to 
 Zacharias, to Mary, and to the shepherds the 
 vision is said to be of angels. At the trans- 
 figuration, at the sepulchre, at the ascension, 
 and in the vision of Cornelius the men 
 appear in white and shining garments. 
 * His garment seems like the finest linen,’ } 
 says St. Teresa of one seen in a vision. 
 There is a manifestation of glory to the 
 shepherds, at the transfiguration, to St. 
 Stephen, and to St. Paul, and it is suggested 
 at the sepulchre, at the ascension, at Pente- 
 cost, and in the vision of Cornelius. St. 
 Teresa describes what is seen as a ‘ glorious 
 image,’ ‘its lustre is, as it were, a transfused 
 light, and, like that of the sun, covered with 
 something as beautiful and as bright as a 
 diamond, if it could be made so.’! The 
 position in which the visitant is seen, or the 
 manner of his advent, is usually described 
 by the verb ‘ stand,’ or one of its compounds, 
 the exact form of the word found in the 
 accounts of the visions of the shepherds 
 and of the women at the sepulchre (cf. 
 Acts xii. 7) being that used in classical 
 literature for similar appearances, other 
 forms being employed in the description 
 
 1 The Siath Mansions, chap. ix. p. 186. 
 
46 ECSTASIES RECORDED 
 
 of the vision of Zacharias, of the trans- 
 figuration, of the ascension, of Stephen, and 
 of Cornelius. In the vision of Zacharias, 
 at the transfiguration, at Pentecost, and at 
 the conversion of St. Paul the word 
 ‘appeared’ is used. ‘To Zacharias the angel 
 appears on the ‘right’ side of the altar of 
 incense, to Stephen our Lord appears on the 
 ‘right ’ hand of God, and according to Mark 
 the angel in the sepulchre is seated on the 
 ‘right’ side. In the vision of Zechariah 
 Satan is seen standing at the ‘right’ hand 
 of Joshua (Zech. iti. 1, but cf. Ps. cix. 6). 
 In the apocalyptic passages of the New Testa- 
 ment the ‘ right ’ hand of God is the position 
 of the exalted Christ, or Son of man, in 
 accordance with the Psalm, ‘Sit thou at 
 my right hand’ (cx. 1), and in the visions 
 of the Apocalypse it is always the ‘ right’ 
 hand which is noted (Rev. i. 16, 17, 20; 
 Hees WL Ts) X20 SIE Oye ne ve cane 
 left, just as in the vision of Enoch it is by 
 the ‘right’ hand that Michael seizes him 
 (Ixxi. 83). Speaking of a vision of our Lord, 
 St. Teresa likewise tells us ‘she saw Him 
 on her right hand,’! though, in contrast, in 
 other visions she says she saw St. Peter and 
 St. Paul, and one of the cherubim on her 
 1 The Sixth Mansions, chap. vi. p. 180. 
 
BY ST. LUKE AT 
 
 left1 At the ascension, and in the visions 
 of Stephen, Cornelius, and Peter on the 
 housetop those in the ecstasy are said to 
 have ‘ gazed ’ upon the vision, verbs of seeing 
 being naturally prominent in anything which 
 ean be called a vision, whether scriptural or 
 otherwise. At the transfiguration and the 
 ascension a cloud appears, as in the visions 
 of Ezekiel (i. 4; x. 4), Daniel (vu. 13), the 
 Apocalypse (x. 1; xi. 12; xiv. 14-16), in the 
 apocalyptical passages of the gospels, and 
 generally in descriptions of the manifesta- 
 tion of God. A voice is heard at our Lord’s 
 baptism, at the transfiguration, at Pentecost, 
 by St. Paul at his conversion, and by St. 
 Peter, as in the vision of Ezekiel (ii. 12), and 
 frequently in the visions of the Apocalypse, 
 and in ecstatic visions very generally. 
 Zacharias, Mary, and the women at the 
 sepulchre were troubled at the vision. 
 Zacharias, Mary, the shepherds, the apostles 
 at the transfiguration, the women at the 
 tomb, and Cornelius were afraid. St. Teresa 
 says ° the presence of such surpassing majesty 
 inspires the soul with great fear,’ and that 
 the vision ° disturbs all the powers and senses 
 with great terror.’? The term ‘ vision ’ (not 
 
 1 Life, chap. xxix. §§ 6, 16 pp. 261, 266. 
 2 The Sixth Mansions, chap. ix. pp. 186, 188. 
 
48 ECSTASIES IN ST. LUKE 
 
 always the same Greek word) is applied in 
 Luke to the appearance of the angel to 
 Zacharias, of the two men at the tomb, of 
 Jesus to St. Paul at his conversion, of the 
 angel to Cornelius, and of the vessel full of 
 unclean things to Peter on the housetop. 
 and in Matthew to the _ transfiguration. 
 Peter on the housetop and Paul in the 
 temple at Jerusalem are said to have been 
 in an ecstasy, while according to Mark an 
 ecstasy held the women at the sepulchre. 
 
CHAPTER VY 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF OUR LORD 
 
 THE significance of certain of the visions 
 recorded by Luke must now be examined at 
 length. At first sight it might be supposed 
 that the vision vouchsafed at our Lord’s 
 baptism was to Jesus alone, and the words 
 ‘he saw’ of Mark and Matthew support 
 such a conclusion. Luke’s account, however, 
 is more impersonal, and the descent of the 
 Holy Ghost ‘in a bodily form, as a dove, 
 upon him’ suggests the point of view of a 
 second person, and, if so, presumably of 
 John the Baptist. In the fourth gospel we 
 are told quite plainly that this was the case: 
 ‘John bare witness, saying, I have beheld 
 the Spirit descending as a dove out of 
 heaven; and it abode upon him’ (i. 82). 
 Luke continues, ‘ A voice came out of heaven, 
 Thou art my Son, the beloved ; in thee I am 
 well pleased’ (iii. 22). We can hardly fail 
 
 to notice an echo of Isaiah xli. 1, ‘ Behold 
 E 
 
50 THE BAPTISM 
 
 my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in 
 whom my soul delighteth.’ The Greek word 
 for ‘servant’ may equally be translated 
 ‘child,’ and so could be regarded as a 
 synonym for ‘son.’ ‘ Behold the blood of 
 the covenant’ (Exod. xxiv. 8) of the Old 
 Testament becomes in the Greek of the 
 New ‘This is the blood of the covenant ’ 
 (Heb. ix. 20), and so quite reasonably 
 ‘Behold my servant’ or ‘child’ might 
 appear as ‘ This is my son,’ the form the 
 saying actually takes in Matthew and at 
 the transfiguration, or, if the second person 
 is employed, ‘Thou art my son,’ which 
 would reproduce Psalm ii. 7. Quoting Isaiah 
 xlii. 1 in another place (xii. 18), Matthew 
 renders the Hebrew for *‘ my chosen ’ as * my 
 beloved,’ evidently regarding the two ex- 
 pressions as equivalent, an idea confirmed 
 by the fact that Luke gives ‘the chosen’ 
 at the transfiguration where Mark and 
 Matthew have ‘the beloved.’ In the same 
 passage Matthew also substitutes ‘is well 
 pleased’ for ‘ delighteth,’ so that the con- 
 nexion between the saying and Isaiah xlii. 1 
 is beyond question.!. These words of Isaiah 
 are part of the description of the ideal 
 servant of Jehovah, such a one as He would 
 1 See Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 229-83. 
 
OF OUR LORD 51 
 
 choose, and in whom He would be well 
 pleased, which is set before His actual 
 servant Israel for a pattern and encourage- 
 ment. John the Baptist evidently realised 
 the quotation from Isaiah when he greeted 
 Jesus with the words, ‘ Behold the Lamb 
 of God, which beareth the sin of the world ’ 
 (John i. 29). They are taken from another 
 servant passage, Isaiah li. 13—lIlni. 12. 
 * Behold, my servant,’ ‘as a lamb that is led 
 to the slaughter,’ “he bare the sin of many.’ 
 According to the fourth gospel John said 
 further: ‘I have seen, and have borne 
 witness that this is the Son of God’ (1. 34). 
 This is not a late Christological statement, 
 as is often supposed, but a reference to the 
 saying of the voice from heaven in which the 
 servant of Jehovah is the son of God. It is 
 interesting to compare the words of John 
 with a passage in the book of Wisdom which 
 is clearly based upon the servant passages of 
 Isaiah and quite plainly identifies the servant 
 of Jehovah as His son: “He .. . nameth 
 himself servant of the Lord... He is 
 grievous unto us even to behold... And 
 he vaunteth that God is his father . . . For 
 if the righteous man is God’s son, he will 
 uphold him . . . With outrage and torture 
 let us put him to the test, that we may learn 
 
52 THE BAPTISM 
 
 his gentleness, and may prove his patience 
 under wrong. Let us condemn him to a 
 shameful death’ (ii. 18, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; 
 Gh gis’ xlil's dit. 18% lui. 3; 7; Sacto 
 
 It is clear that Jesus likewise understood 
 the significance of the voice from heaven 
 and the reference to Isaiah, and applies the 
 prophet’s words to Himself, what the prophet 
 says both of the ideal servant and of the 
 real, as also of himself, as he attempts to 
 realise the picture of the ideal in his own 
 life and work. ‘I have put my Spirit upon 
 him’ (xli. 1), Jehovah had said of His ser- 
 vant, and it was fulfilled in the descent of 
 the Holy Ghost upon Jesus at His baptism. 
 Returning in the power of the Spirit into 
 Galilee He recognises a description of His 
 own work in the passage He reads in the 
 synagogue at Nazareth, ‘The Spirit of the 
 Lord is upon me, because he anointed me 
 to preach good tidings to the poor...’ 
 (Luke iv. 18). It is from the description of 
 the servant that He gained the conviction, 
 so frequently expressed, that He too must 
 suffer if He is to perform His work: ‘The Son 
 of man must suffer many things’ (Luke ix. 
 22), “And all the things that are written by 
 the prophets shall be accomplished unto the 
 Son of man’ (Luke xviii. 31). 
 
OF OUR LORD 53 
 
 John the Baptist was steeped in the 
 prophecies which bear the name of Isaiah. 
 Practically all his sayings are traceable in 
 either substance or phraseology to this 
 source, so that it 1s natural that he should 
 understand the voice from heaven at our 
 Lord’s baptism simply in terms of this book. 
 Whatever may be the truth about our Lord 
 ‘having never learned,’ it is plain that 
 somehow or other He had gained a know- 
 ledge of ‘letters’ (John vii. 15), and par- 
 ticularly of the book of Enoch, which though 
 composite in origin had apparently reached 
 its present form mn His days. We must 
 note certain passages which have a bearing 
 on our present discussion. ‘And I asked 
 the angel who went with me and shewed me 
 all the hidden things, concerning that Son 
 of Man, who he was, and whence he was, 
 (and) why he went with the Head of Days ? 
 And he answered and said unto me: This is 
 the Son of Man who hath righteousness, 
 with whom dwelleth righteousness . . . Be- 
 cause the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him... 
 And he shall be the light of the Gentiles, 
 and the hope of those who are troubled 
 of heart . .. In these days down-cast in 
 countenance shall the kings of the earth 
 have become... For they have denied 
 
54 THE BAPTISM 
 
 the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed... 
 And he shall judge the secret things... 
 For he is the Elect One before the Lord of 
 Spirits according to His good pleasure... 
 And one portion of them shall look on 
 the other, and they shall be terrified... 
 When they see -that Son of Man sitting 
 on the throne of his glory ... And the 
 righteous and elect shall be saved on that 
 day ... And the Lord of Spirits shall abide 
 over them, and with that Son of Man shall 
 they eat and lie down and rise up for ever 
 and ever... For I and My Son will be 
 united with them for ever’ (xlvi. 2, 3; 
 xlvin. 4, 8, 10; xlix. 4; lx. 5, 18, 14; cvig32 
 
 We notice the references to Isaiah, ‘ my 
 Son,’ ‘the Elect One’ or ‘the Chosen,’ 
 ‘according to His good pleasure,’ the three 
 points of Isaiah xlii. 1 contained in the saying 
 of the voice from heaven at our Lord’s 
 baptism.2. We recognise also allusions to 
 other phrases in, or connected with, the 
 servant passages of Isaiah, * My righteous 
 servant shall make many righteous ’ (li. 111), 
 ‘I the Lord have called thee in righteous- 
 ness,. .. fora light of the Gentiles’ (xlii. 6), 
 
 1 Charles, The Book of Enoch, pp. 86-8, 98-6, 123-5, 
 262-3. 
 2 Cf. Eph. i. 5-6. 
 
OF OUR LORD 55 
 
 ‘The Lord hath anointed me... to bind 
 up the brokenhearted’ (Ixi. 1). We note, 
 too, the references to Psalm 11. * The kings 
 of the earth set themselves . . . against the 
 Lord, and against his anointed’ (2); ‘ The 
 Lord said unto me, Thou art my son’ (7). 
 The servant of Jehovah is recognised as 
 God’s Son (Is. xlii. 1; Ps. ii. 7), the Son of 
 Man spoken of by Daniel (vii. 18), and the 
 anointed of the Lord, or the Christ, this 
 being the first time that the technical use 
 of this term is found in literature. What 
 are at first sight contradictory conceptions 
 are thus combined. There can be no reason- 
 able doubt that our Lord understood the 
 saying of the voice from heaven not only in 
 accordance with the ideas of the prophecies 
 of Isaiah, but also as these were developed 
 and combined with other ideas in the book 
 of Enoch. From the time of His baptism, 
 therefore, Jesus regarded Himself as both 
 the Servant, or Child, of God Who should 
 suffer, and the Christ, the Son of God and 
 the Son of man, Who shouldreign. It is the 
 fact that He was conscious of Himself as 
 being the Son of God in the fuller sense which 
 gives point to the story of the temptations, 
 whereby He put aside the idea of a public 
 manifestation of His messiahship and the 
 
56 THE BAPTISM 
 
 low views of popular expectation. The 
 difference between the Baptist’s estimate of 
 Jesus and that of those who were admitted 
 to intimate relations with Him is very re- 
 markable. To John He is the Son of God 
 and Servant of Jehovah Who, as Isaiah had 
 prophesied, would restore true religion to 
 the world, both to Israel and to the Gentiles, 
 and thus prepare the way of Jehovah. John 
 himself is the voice of one crying in the 
 wilderness, ‘ Prepare ye the way of the Lord’ 
 (cf. John iil. 28), Jesus is the Agent by Whom 
 that preparation is to be made so that all flesh 
 may see the salvation of God. To Jesus’ dis- 
 ciples He is very much more than this. Andrew 
 can say, ‘We have found the Messiah ’ (John 
 i, 41), Philip, ‘We have found him, of whom 
 Moses in the law, and the prophets, did 
 write ’ (John i. 45), and Nathanael, * Rabbi, 
 thou art the Son of God; thou art King of 
 Israel’ (John 1. 49). There is no need to 
 suppose that the evangelist is projecting 
 back into the earliest days of our Lord’s 
 career ideas which were not grasped until 
 very much later ; the sayings contain nothing 
 which had not been announced by the voice 
 from heaven. According to Luke, in the 
 power of the Spirit bestowed in His baptism 
 He declared Himself the Anointed of God 
 
OF OUR LORD 57 
 
 in the synagogue of Nazareth at the very 
 beginning of His ministry (iv. 18), which 
 explains how the man with the unclean 
 spirit in the synagogue of Capernaum soon 
 afterwards could acclaim Him, ‘ Jesus of 
 Nazareth,’ as ‘the Holy One of God’ 
 (Luke iv. 34; Mark i. 24), an incident which, 
 as recorded by Mark, is quite inexplicable, 
 and so affords further evidence of the 
 superiority of the narrative of Luke. John 
 the Baptist, however, never seems to have 
 advanced beyond the Isaianic interpretation 
 of the saying of the voice from heaven until 
 in prison he heard the rumours which arose 
 about Jesus after the raising of the widow’s 
 son at Nain, that ‘A great prophet is arisen 
 among us: and, God hath visited his people’ 
 (Luke vii. 16). Varied as the Messianic ex- 
 pectation was, it is plain that up to this 
 point John had not regarded ‘the Servant 
 of Jehovah,’ spoken of by Isaiah, as the 
 Messiah, in this agreeing with both earlier 
 and later Jewish commentators, or even as 
 the prophet who was to come, whether the 
 prophet like unto Moses (Deut. xvi. 15) 
 or Elijah himself (Mal. iv. 5). According 
 to Jewish expectation, as recorded in the 
 Talmudic tractate ‘Sotah’ (ix. 15), when 
 Elijah came he would raise the dead, as he had 
 
58 THE BAPTISM 
 
 done of old (1 Kings xvii. 22). When it was 
 known that the new Teacher had raised the 
 widow’s son it was natural that He should be 
 identified with Elijah, the prophet who was 
 to come, and this was evidently the report 
 which had reached the Baptist. He had 
 not, however, so understood the voice from 
 heaven, important as he realised the work 
 of Jesus to be. It is not in doubt but in 
 eager expectation that he sends his two 
 disciples to the Lord: ‘Art thou he that 
 cometh, or look we for another ?’ (Luke vii. 
 19-20). Although at first sight it might 
 seem that Jesus gave no direct reply, apart 
 from a public proclamation of Himself, 
 which was contrary to His purpose, He said 
 all that was possible. Like John’s own 
 sayings the answer was couched in the 
 phraseology of Isaiah, but it clearly tended 
 to encourage him in his expectation with 
 regard to one who could raise the dead. 
 *Go your way, and tell John what things 
 ye have seen and heard; the blind receive 
 their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are 
 cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are 
 raised up, the poor have good tidings 
 preached to them. And blessed is he, who- 
 soever shall find none occasion of stumbling 
 in me’ (Luke vil. 22-23). The popular view, 
 
OF OUR LORD 59 
 
 however, is raised to a higher level, and words 
 spoken by Isaiah of Jehovah (vii. 14-15) 
 Jesus applies to Himself. When the disciples 
 of John had departed Jesus bears witness 
 of him to the people, as John indeed had 
 borne witness of Jesus. ‘ This is he of whom 
 it is written, Behold, I send my messenger 
 before thy face, who shall prepare thy way 
 Beroresthee, ( Wukecvin 2s v- clo Malwa, <1), 
 To us these words are of special im- 
 portance as revealing indirectly the opinion 
 Jesus held of Himself. If John was the 
 “messenger ’ spoken of by the _ prophet, 
 Jesus must have been ‘the messenger of 
 the covenant’ Whose way he was to prepare. 
 According to the rabbis “the messenger of 
 the covenant’ is Elijah, of whom Malachi 
 speaks but a few verses later, ‘ Behold, I 
 will send you Elijah the prophet’ (iv. 5). 
 The words which Matthew adds to the 
 story as given by Luke, though possibly 
 the evangelist misunderstood them (cf. Matt. 
 xvii. 13), must refer properly to Jesus and 
 not to John. ‘And if ye are willing to 
 receive it, this is Elijah, which is to come’ 
 (xi. 14). Yet the words of Malachi suggest 
 much more than this. In the previous 
 chapter, speaking in the name of Jehovah, 
 he had said that the priest was ‘the 
 
60 THE BAPTISM 
 
 messenger of the Lord of hosts,’ and that 
 His covenant was with Levi (i. 4, 7, 8). 
 The coming of ‘the messenger of the cove- 
 nant’ must tell then of the coming of a 
 faithful priest who shall restore the cove- 
 nant which has been corrupted, and this 
 priest he calls ‘the Lord,’ the Lord whom 
 they were seeking (iii. 1). The reference 
 apparently is to Psalm cx., and the expecta- 
 tion of the Messiah of which it tells, ‘ The 
 Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my 
 right hand, until I make thine enemies thy 
 footstool ... Thou art a priest for ever 
 after the order of Melchizedek’ (1, 4). 
 Jesus Himself interpreted the psalm of the 
 Messiah (Luke xx. 41-44), and He cannot 
 have failed to appreciate the fulness of its 
 meaning. Testifying of John the Baptist 
 He thus bears witness to Himself, that He 
 is Elijah the prophet who was to come, the 
 Lord who will sit at God’s right hand, and 
 the priest after the order of Melchizedek 
 who will restore the covenant. The feast 
 of the eucharist gains a fuller significance. 
 It is the feast upon the sacrifice of the New 
 Covenant (Luke xxii. 20; Mark xiv. 24), 
 by which the atonement is made and the 
 veil of the temple rent in the midst (Luke 
 xxill. 45), Elijah himself, according to the 
 
OF OUR LORD 61 
 
 ‘Targum Pseudo Jonathan ’ on Exod. xl. 10, 
 being the high priest of Messianic days. 
 At every celebration of the passover accord- 
 ing to Jewish tradition a place was reserved 
 for Elijah, and in the eucharist we have the 
 paschal feast of the kingdom of God (Luke 
 xxii. 15-16, 18), the Messianic banquet of 
 which the prophets had told. Jesus in the 
 institution of the eucharist shows Himself 
 in His threefold office of prophet, priest, 
 and king. | 
 
 Not long after his deputation to Jesus 
 John was beheaded, and Herod, hearing of 
 the fame of Jesus, “was much perplexed, 
 because it was said by some, that John was 
 risen from the dead; and by some, that 
 Elijah had appeared ; and by others, that 
 one of the old prophets was risen again’ 
 (Luke ix. 7-8). We notice in particular 
 the double expectation, that Elijah should 
 come (Mal. iv. 5), and that the prophet like 
 unto Moses should be raised up (Deut. xviil. 
 15), the phraseology used leaving no doubt 
 about the identity of the prophet apart 
 from other considerations. ‘The people were 
 full of this expectation. At one time they 
 thought they saw Elijah, or ‘the prophet,’ 
 in John the Baptist (John i. 21, 25), at 
 another in Jesus, John himself sharing their 
 
62 THE BAPTISM 
 
 hope (Luke vii. 19). Jesus enquires about 
 it of His disciples, ‘ Who do the multitudes 
 say that Iam? And they answering said, 
 John the Baptist; but others say, Elijah ; 
 and others, that one of the old prophets is 
 risen again’ (Luke ix. 18-19). To the 
 disciples, however, He was more. Men had 
 ‘reasoned in their hearts concerning John, 
 whether haply he were the Christ’ (Luke 11. 
 15; cf. John 1. 20, 25). After communing 
 with Him Andrew saw the fulfilment of their 
 expectation in Jesus, and confided his belief 
 to his brother Simon, ‘ We have found the 
 Christ? (John i. 41). At length in the ful- 
 ness of experience Peter makes that tenta- 
 tive expression of faith in the deepest sense 
 his own. ‘He said unto them, But who 
 say ye that Iam? And Peter answering 
 said, The Christ of God’ (Luke ix. 20). 
 The truth which had been revealed to 
 Jesus at His baptism, at which so many times 
 He had hinted to His disciples and the 
 multitudes, yet with no explicit statement 
 such as would forestall the discernment of 
 faith, is now openly confessed, ‘But he 
 charged them, and commanded them to tell 
 this to no man’ (Luke ix. 21). And the 
 reason is that it is but a one-sided statement 
 of the truth, for the Son of God, Who is the 
 
OF OUR LORD 63 
 
 Son of Man and the Christ, is also the Child 
 or Servant of Jehovah Who must suffer. 
 *'The Son of man must suffer many things, 
 and be rejected of the elders and chief priests 
 and scribes, and be killed, and the third day 
 be raised up ’ (Luke ix. 21-22). 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE TRANSFIGURATION AND THE 
 ASCENSION OF OUR LORD 
 
 Now at length we are in a position to 
 examine the second great vision of our 
 Lord’s career. ‘He took with him Peter 
 and John and James, and went up into the 
 mountain to pray. And as he was praying, 
 the fashion of his countenance was altered, 
 and his raiment became white and dazzling. 
 . . . Now Peter and they that were with 
 him were weighed down with sleep, but 
 remaining fully awake, they saw his glory, 
 ... And... there came a cloud, and over- 
 shadowed them’ (Luke ix. 28-29, 32, 34). 
 The last words are clearly based on the 
 description of the tabernacle. °* The cloud 
 overshadowed it, and the glory of the Lord 
 filled the tabernacle ’ (Exod. xl. 35). We are 
 reminded of the words of the fourth gospel, 
 ‘The Word ... tabernacled among us, and 
 we beheld his glory, glory as of the only 
 
THE TRANSFIGURATION 65 
 
 begotten from the Father’ (John i. 14). 
 The evangelist is describing what they saw 
 with the eyes of the soul, not of the body, 
 like Balaam, in an ecstasy, which in this 
 case, as so often in the lives of ecstatics, 
 came upon them in prayer. A type of 
 vision described by St. Teresa has much in 
 common. She calls it a ‘ glorious image,’ 
 and says ‘its splendour, lke that of the 
 sun, dazzles the interior sight,’ ‘ His garment 
 seems like the finest linen,’ ‘He clearly 
 makes Himself known to be the Lord of 
 heaven and earth.’! Both Mark and 
 Matthew omit much which is of value for a 
 proper understanding of the vision; but 
 Matthew says ‘his face did shine as the 
 sun,’ a simile which appears also in the 
 visions of St. John the Divine (Rev. 1. 16; 
 x. 1), and is used by St. Teresa. Matthew 
 also adds that ‘they fell on their face’ 
 (xvil. 6), a common detail in ecstatic visions. 
 At the sepulchre the women ‘ bowed down 
 their faces to the earth’ (Luke xxiv. 5), and 
 at his conversion Paul ‘ fell upon the earth ’ 
 (Acts ix. 4). We see the same thing in the 
 visions of Ezekiel (i. 28, iii. 23, ix. 8, xiii. 3, 
 xliv. 4), Daniel (viii. 17), and St. John the 
 Divine (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 8). 
 1 The Sixth Mansions, chap. ix. p. 186. 
 
66 THE TRANSFIGURATION AND 
 
 Luke says also, ‘ And behold, there talked 
 with him two men, which were Moses and 
 Elijah ; who appeared in glory, and spake 
 of his decease which he was about to accom- 
 plish at Jerusalem’ (ix. 30-31). In the vision 
 they are recognised without difficulty. St. 
 Teresa says the same thing. ‘If she should 
 see any of the saints, she knows them as 
 well as if she had conversed with them for 
 a length of time.’+ There was an expecta- 
 tion among the Jews that Moses and Elijah 
 would appear together. The prophecy of 
 Malachi might be taken to suggest it (iv. 
 4—5), particularly when taken in conjunction 
 with the prophecy of Moses himself (Deut. 
 XVill, 15;18), "and it 1s “recordédiin Se 
 Midrash on Deuteronomy, where we read 
 that according to Jochanan ben Zakkai 
 God said to Moses, ‘If I send the prophet 
 Elijah, ye must both come together.’ * Moses 
 and Elijah, we are told, spake of our Lord’s 
 decease which was to be accomplished or 
 fulfilled, so that they are to be regarded 
 as witnesses to the truth of the Old Testa- 
 ment scriptures, particularly, it would seem, 
 of Isaiah hu., that the Son of God must 
 
 1 The Sixth Mansions, chap. v. p. 159. 
 2 Debar. R., x.i; Volz, Judische Eschatologie, p. 193; 
 Charles, Revelation, i. 281. 
 
ASCENSION OF OUR LORD _ 67 
 
 suffer, an idea the disciples were not ready 
 to accept from Jesus, Peter indeed, according 
 to Mark (viii. 32), rebuking our Lord when 
 first He taught them the necessity of it. 
 The Old Testament was summed up in ‘ the 
 law and the prophets,’ as we read so often 
 (Luke xvi. 16, xxiv. 44; Acts xii. 15, xxiv. 
 14; Matt. vil. 12, xxu. 40), and of the law 
 and the prophets Moses and Elijah were the 
 representatives, the scriptures of the Old 
 Testament, as it were, personified. They 
 had * testified beforehand the sufferings of 
 Christ ’ (1 Peter 1.11), and now in the vision 
 they appear as present witnesses to confirm 
 the truth of Jesus’ own word. It marks an 
 important stage in the realisation of what 
 became so important an element in the 
 Christian tradition, ‘ that Christ died for our 
 sins according to the scriptures’ (1 Cor. 
 xv. 3). The secondary character of the narra- 
 tive of Mark is shown by the fact that he 
 too, as well as Matthew, makes no mention 
 of this the chief purpose of the vision. An 
 interesting feature of the account is to be 
 found in the suggestion of Peter, ‘ And it 
 came to pass, as they were parting from 
 him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is 
 good for us to be here: and let us make 
 three tabernacles; one for thee, and one 
 
68 THE TRANSFIGURATION AND 
 
 for Moses, and one for Elijah: not knowing 
 what he said’ (Luke ix. 33). We have here 
 evidence that though a body of men may 
 see much the same vision yet their attitude 
 towards it varies according to differences of 
 temperament or spiritual capacity, so that 
 the message it conveys is not necessarily 
 the same for all. When our Lord prophesied 
 His death Peter rebuked Him, but when 
 Moses and Elijah appeared in glory saying 
 the same thing he wished to make the vision 
 permanent, and to build three tabernacles, 
 so that, as in the tabernacle of old with 
 Jehovah, they might commune with His 
 servants and listen to their words (Exod. 
 xxv. 22). We see thus the special meaning 
 of the message from heaven. ‘ And a voice 
 came out of the cloud, saying, This is my 
 Son, my chosen: hear ye him’ (Luke ix. 35). 
 As at the baptism, but even more clearly 
 according to Luke, who adopts the rendering 
 ‘the chosen’ instead of ‘the beloved,’ the 
 earlier words have reference to the saying 
 of Isaiah, * Behold, my servant... my 
 chosen’ (xlii. 1); and again we see the 
 double interpretation is intended, that Jesus 
 is the Son of God, the Servant of God Who 
 must suffer as well as the Son of Man Who 
 will reign; but the last words give a new 
 
ASCENSION OF OUR LORD ~ 69 
 
 turn to the meaning. ‘Hear ye him’ is 
 undoubtedly an allusion to the prophecy of 
 Moses, ‘The Lord thy God will raise up 
 unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, 
 of thy brethren, like unto me; him shall ye 
 hear’ (Deut. xviii. 15). Clearly Jesus is 
 the prophet who should be raised up, the 
 new Moses: Him they must hear. As the 
 Son of God He has full claim on their 
 obedience, such as is not due to Moses and 
 Elijah either as seen in the vision or as 
 representing the Old ‘Testament scriptures. 
 The voice from heaven is a rebuke of Peter 
 who would not accept his Master’s word 
 about His death until confirmed by Moses 
 and Elijah ; it is also the justification of the 
 great claim of the sermon on the mount, 
 * Ye have heard that it was said to them of 
 old time . . . but I say unto you’ (Matt. v. 
 21-22). Both Moses and Elijah bear witness 
 to Jesus in the vision of the transfiguration, 
 but though the fulfilment of both it is as 
 the new Moses that He is especially revealed 
 by the voice from heaven. In many ways 
 Mark seems to have failed to grasp the full 
 significance of the transfiguration, but in an 
 incident, not found in Luke, which he adds 
 on to his account we find emphasis on our 
 Lord’s claim to be Elijah: * And they asked 
 
70 THE TRANSFIGURATION AND 
 
 him, saying, The scribes say that Elijah 
 must first come. And he said unto them, 
 Iwhjah indeed cometh first, and restoreth 
 all things: and how is it written of the Son 
 of man, that he should suffer many things 
 and be set at nought? but I say unto 
 you, that Elijah is indeed come, and they 
 do unto him whatsoever they list, even as 
 it is written of him’ (ix. 11-13). It is plain 
 that it is the Son of man Who is Elijah, and 
 not John the Baptist, as is commonly 
 understood, for otherwise the words are 
 unintelligible. Mark indeed says nothing 
 whatever about the Baptist at this point, 
 and though Matthew adds * Then under- 
 stood the disciples that he spake unto 
 them of John the Baptist’ (xvi. 13), if the 
 words are not due to a misunderstanding 
 of the evangelist, it was not long before 
 they understood them differently. In his 
 speech after the healing of the lame man 
 Peter makes it plain not only that Jesus is 
 the Christ, but also the new Elijah and the 
 new Moses. ‘Repent ye therefore, . . . that 
 he may send the Christ who hath been 
 appointed for you, even Jesus: whom the 
 heaven must receive until the times of 
 restoration of all things, whereof God spake 
 by the mouth of his holy prophets which 
 
ASCENSION OF OUR LORD 71 
 
 have been since the world began (Mal. iv. 
 5, 6; cf. Mark ix. 12). Moses indeed said, 
 A prophet shall the Lord God raise up unto 
 you from among your brethren, like unto 
 me; to him shall ye hearken in all things 
 whatsoever he shall speak unto you’ (Deut. 
 Xvill. 15, 18) (Acts ii. 19-22). Mark’s sequel 
 to the story of the transfiguration thus con- 
 firms our interpretation of the vision, but the 
 words which Matthew adds to it suggest what 
 is really a misunderstanding (cf. John 1. 21). 
 
 Omitting for the present the vision at 
 the sepulchre we will consider that at the 
 ascension: “And when he had said _ these 
 things, as they were looking, he was taken 
 up; and a cloud received him out of their 
 sight. And while they were looking sted- 
 fastly into heaven as he went, behold, two 
 men stood by them in white apparel ; which 
 also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye 
 looking into heaven ? this Jesus, which was 
 received up from you into heaven, shall so 
 come in like manner as ye beheld him going 
 into heaven’ (Acts i. 9-11). At the end of 
 the gospel Luke gives a much shorter 
 account. According to what is_ perhaps 
 the more probable text, found in ‘Codex 
 Bezae’ and other manuscripts, we read, ‘ And 
 it came to pass, while he blessed them, he 
 
72 THE TRANSFIGURATION AND 
 
 parted from them. And they returned to 
 Jerusalem with great joy: and were con- 
 tinually in the temple, blessing God’ (xxiv. 
 51-58). The cloud, the two men who stood 
 by them in white apparel, and likewise the 
 words ‘he parted from them’ in the gospel 
 account remind us of the story of the trans- 
 figuration with the words * they were parting 
 from him.’ Another phrase, ‘they were 
 looking stedfastly into heaven,’ is repeated 
 in the story of Stephen’s vision, ‘he... 
 looked up stedfastly into heaven’ (Acts vi. 
 55). The result of the vision was exactly 
 what we find in the experience of ecstatics: 
 ‘They returned ... with great joy, and 
 were continually ... blessing God’ (Luke 
 xxiv. 52-53). St. Teresa describes at length 
 this ‘ great joy in the interior of the soul.’ 
 “It is very painful to her being possessed 
 with such a transport of joy to be silent ... 
 nor can she speak of anything else, except 
 what proceeds from this her joy, the praises 
 of God.’! 
 
 The phraseology of Luke’s account in 
 Acts is clearly based on that of the story 
 of the assumption of Elijah: ‘When the 
 Lord would take up Elijah . . . into heaven, 
 
 . as they still went on, and talked, ... 
 
 1 The Sixth Mansions, chap. vi. pp. 167-9. 
 
ASCENSION OF OUR LORD 738 
 
 behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, 
 and horses of fire, which parted them both 
 asunder; and Elijah went up .. . into 
 heaven. And Elisha saw it... And he 
 saw him no more’ (2 Kings u. 1, 11-12). 
 The ‘parting’ is mentioned in the gospel 
 account, but according to ‘Codex Bezae’ and 
 other authorities nothing is said about an 
 ascension. Of the covering cloud we read 
 also in accounts of the death of Moses. In 
 an old apocryphal writing, probably to be 
 identified with the ‘Assumption of Moses,’ 
 according to an ancient Catena on the 
 Pentateuch we are told that ‘at what time 
 Moses died a bright cloud encircled the 
 place of the sepulchre, and so blinded the 
 eyes of those who stood around that no one 
 saw either the lawgiver die or the place 
 where his corpse was buried.’! Josephus 
 gives a similar account: ‘And as he was 
 going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and 
 was still discoursing with them, a cloud 
 stood over him on the sudden, and he dis- 
 appeared in a certain valley, although he 
 wrote in the holy books that he died, which 
 was done out of fear, lest they should venture 
 to say that, because of his extraordinary 
 
 1 Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. V.T., vol. ii. pp. 121-2. See 
 Encyclopedia Biblica, i. col. 235. 
 
TA THE TRANSFIGURATION 
 
 virtue, he went to God.’! In describing 
 our Lord’s ascension Luke evidently had in 
 mind the assumption of Elijah and the 
 passing of Moses, and sees in it the fulfilment 
 of what was prefigured in them, so that 
 there is little room for doubt whom ‘the two 
 men in white apparel ’ are intended to 
 represent. Again Moses and Elijah are His 
 witnesses, and their witness is that of the 
 Old Testament scriptures, the law and the 
 prophets, which in Him are fulfilled. 
 
 1 Antiquities of the Jews, bk. iv. chap. viii. § 48, p. 108 
 (Whiston’s translation). 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE VISION AT THE SEPULCHRE 
 
 Now at last we may return to a consideration 
 of the women at the sepulchre when they 
 found not the body of Jesus. Luke con- 
 tinues, “And it came to pass, while they 
 were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men 
 stood by them in dazzling apparel: and as 
 they were affrighted, and bowed down their 
 faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why 
 seek ye the living among the dead ?’ (xxiv. 
 4-5). Cleopas said that they saw a vision 
 (Luke xxiv. 23), and the two men standing 
 by them, the dazzling apparel, the fear, 
 and the bowing of their faces to the earth 
 are characteristic of visions. The question 
 is reminiscent of injunctions of both the law 
 and the prophets, ‘Why seek ye about the 
 living from the dead ?’ (Is. viii. 19); ° Seek 
 them not out’ (Lev. xix. 31): The words 
 ‘behold, two men stood by them in dazzling 
 apparel,’ save for the adjective * dazzling ’ 
 
76 THE VISION 
 
 instead of ‘ white,’ are identical with what 
 we noticed in the account of the ascension, 
 and similar to those used in the description 
 of the transfiguration. There can be little 
 doubt but that again they are intended to 
 represent Moses and Elijah, the scriptures of 
 the Old Testament personified, as witnesses 
 to the fact that He has risen and 1s alive. 
 On the way to Jerusalem Jesus had taught 
 them this. ‘All the things that are written 
 by the prophets shall be accomplished unto 
 the Son of man. For... the third day 
 he shall rise again,’ but ‘they understood 
 none of these things; and this saying was 
 hid from them, and they perceived not the 
 things that were said ’ (Luke xviii. 31, 33, 34). 
 The empty tomb conveyed no message to 
 Peter and John, ‘ For as yet they knew not 
 the scripture, that he must rise again from 
 the dead ’ (John xx. 9), and to them no vision 
 was vouchsafed. In ecstasy the women 
 grasped the truth of that fact which is the 
 most important element in the Christian 
 tradition, and without which the Christian 
 faith is vain, that, as St. Paul says, Christ 
 ‘hath been raised on the third day according 
 to the scriptures ’ (1 Cor. xv. 2-4, 14). St. 
 Teresa’s description of a vision of a similar 
 type helps us to grasp the kind of phe- 
 
AT THE SEPULCHRE 77 
 
 nomenon which occurred: ‘ When the soul 
 is far from imagining that she is to see any- 
 thing, and has not the least thought thereof, 
 all at once the whole object is represented 
 to her together; and this disturbs all the 
 powers and senses with great terror, in order 
 to place them afterwards in that blessed 
 peace . . . and the soul is so fully instructed 
 in sublime truths, that she stands in need 
 of no other master.’! The lesson of the 
 vision is that which Jesus had tried to teach 
 them while yet present with them, as the 
 angel reminded the women according to 
 Luke, and that which He was so desirous of 
 teaching after His resurrection, both to the 
 disciples on the way to Emmaus and to the 
 eleven and the rest on the first Easter 
 evening. ‘O foolish men, and slow of heart 
 to believe in all that the prophets have 
 spoken! Behoved it not the Christ to suffer 
 these things, and to enter into his glory ? 
 And beginning from Moses and from all the 
 prophets, he interpreted to them in all the 
 scriptures the things concerning himself’ 
 (Luke xxiv. 25-27). ‘These are my words 
 which I spake unto you, while I was yet 
 with you, how that all things must needs 
 be fulfilled, which are written in the law 
 1 The Sixth Mansions, chap. ix. p. 188. 
 
78 THE VISION 
 
 of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, 
 concerning me. Then opened he their mind, 
 that they might understand the scriptures ; 
 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, 
 that the Christ should suffer, and rise again 
 from the dead the third day’ (Luke xxiv. 
 44-46). Which exactly the scriptures were 
 which Jesus explained we may perhaps see 
 in Peter’s words on the day of Pentecost 
 and other speeches in the Acts; the fact 
 that Paul’s speech at Antioch has much in 
 common with those of Peter both in substance 
 and in references to the Old Testament, 
 particularly to Isaiah lin. for the sufferings 
 of the Christ, and to Psalm xvi. for His 
 resurrection, 1s evidence that there was a 
 well-recognised tradition on such matters, 
 to which indeed Paul could appeal in writing 
 to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xv. 1—4), which 
 explained that Christ both died for our sins 
 and rose again ‘ according to the scriptures,’ 
 and doubtless specified which they were. 
 
 In three separate visions then we have 
 seen that Moses and Elijah, the representa- 
 tives of the Old Testament scriptures, have 
 appeared as witnesses of Jesus and to the 
 necessity of His passion, resurrection, and 
 ascension. That Moses and Elijah are the 
 two witnesses of Jesus is the basis of the 
 prophecy of the two witnesses in the Apoca- 
 
AT THE SEPULCHRE 79 
 
 lypse, and in its application His death, 
 resurrection, and ascension are re-enacted in 
 His witnesses, just as they were prefigured 
 in Moses and Elijah, the representatives of 
 the Old Testament scriptures which like- 
 wise bear witness of Him. ‘ And I will give 
 unto my two witnesses, and they shall 
 prophesy ... And if any man desireth to 
 hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, 
 and devoureth their enemies: and if any 
 man shall desire to hurt them, in this manner 
 must he be killed. These have the power to 
 shut the heaven, that it rain not during the 
 days of their prophecy (cf. Elijah, 2 Kings 1. 
 10 et seq.; 1 Kings xvu. 1 et seg.): and they 
 have power over the waters to turn them 
 into blood, and to smite the earth with 
 every plague, as often as they shall desire 
 (cf. Moses, Exod. vii. 17 et seq.). And when 
 they shall have finished their testimony, the 
 Weasuaee. Shall... overcome. them. and 
 Ppuchome~. «1... And after the three! days 
 and a half the breath of life from God 
 entered into them, and they stood upon 
 Poe tceys ..... And they heard sa /great 
 voice from heaven saying unto them, Come 
 up hither. And they went up into heaven 
 in the cloud; and their enemies beheld 
 them ’ (Rev. xi. 8, 5-7, 11-12). 
 
 Unlike that of Luke, the narrative of 
 
80 THE VISION 
 
 Mark does not make the nature of the 
 vision of the women at the sepulchre at all 
 clear, and if we had his account alone we 
 should gather that the appearance was 
 objective, not subjective. He does indeed 
 use the word ecstasy in his description of 
 its effects, but in such a way that it has 
 generally, and not unnaturally, been sup- 
 posed that his meaning is merely that the 
 women were ina panic. ‘ And entering into 
 the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on 
 the right side, arrayed in a white robe; 
 and they were amazed ’ (xvi. 5). Asin Luke 
 the phraseology appears to have been sug- 
 gested by that of the visions of Daniel. 
 ‘Behold, there stood before me as the 
 appearance of a man...and when he 
 came, I was amazed’ (vili. 15, 17); ‘ And 
 behold a man clothed in linen’ (x. 5). The 
 word used by Mark for ‘amazed’ is that 
 found in the Septuagint. Mark’s description, 
 however, is that of an apparition rather 
 than of a vision, comparable with the 
 appearance of the angel to the wife of 
 Manoah (Judges xii. 3), which Josephus calls 
 ‘an apparition,’ continuing * it was an angel 
 of God, and resembled a young man, beauti- 
 ful and tall.’1 We may compare it also 
 1 Antiquities, bk. v. chap. viii. § 2, p. 119. 
 
AT THE SEPULCHRE 81 
 
 with the ‘ great apparition ’ which appeared 
 to Heliodorus. *Two other also appeared 
 unto him, young men, . . . splendid in their 
 apparel. ... But as the high priest was 
 making the propitiation, the same young men 
 appeared again to Heliodorus, arrayed in the 
 same garments’ (2 Macc. i. 24, 26, 83). To 
 Matthew likewise the vision is objective, and 
 the angel is not an angel seen in a vision, but 
 the angel who rolled away the stone. ‘ His 
 appearance was as lightning, and his raiment 
 white as snow; and for fear of him the 
 watchers did quake, and became as dead 
 men’ (xxvill. 8, 4). Like Luke and Mark 
 he utilises the phraseology of Daniel, * Be- 
 
 hold a man clothed in linen, ... his face 
 as the appearance of lightning, . . . the men 
 that were with me saw not the vision; but 
 a great quaking fell upon them... and 
 
 there remained no strength in me’ (x. 5-8). 
 ‘His raiment was white as snow’ (vil. 9). 
 In oral transmission the assimilation of the 
 phraseology of one vision to that of another 
 is quite natural. We notice that both Mark 
 and Matthew mention only one angel, and from 
 both gospels the idea of Moses and Elijah as 
 witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, repre- 
 senting the witness of the scriptures, has 
 vanished. 
 G 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE MESSAGE OF THE ANGELS 
 
 Wuat exactly was the message of the 
 angels (or angel) at the sepulchre to the 
 women ? According to the most probable 
 text of Luke the words were ‘ Why seek ye 
 the living among the dead? Remember 
 how he spake unto you when he was yet in 
 Galilee, 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’ (xxiv. 5-7). According to Mark 
 they were ‘ Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, 
 the Nazarene, which hath been crucified : 
 he is risen; he is not here: behold, the 
 place were they laid him! But go, tell his 
 disciples and Peter, He goeth before you 
 into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he 
 said unto you’ (xvi. 6-7). At first sight, 
 at any rate, the account in Luke seems 
 much more probable, for the primary object 
 of the appearance to the women was to 
 
MESSAGE OF THE ANGELS — 83 
 
 convey the news that Jesus was alive. To 
 talk prosaically at such a moment of arrange- 
 ments which had been made for a meeting 
 in Galilee would be both incongruous and 
 premature, and indeed quite pointless if, 
 as Matthew tells us, and probably Mark 
 in the original ending of the _ gospel, 
 practically identical words were spoken by 
 Jesus Himself in a much more likely con- 
 nexion only a short time later. According 
 to each gospel there is an appeal to a saying 
 of Jesus, “ Remember how he spake unto you 
 when he was yet in Galilee’ in Luke, and 
 ‘He goeth before you into Galilee: there 
 shall ye see him, as he said unto you’ in 
 Mark. It is curious that the saying to which, 
 according to Luke, the angels refer is not 
 given in full in the present text of his gospel 
 (ix. 43-44), and there is no mention of 
 Galilee, though in the corresponding passage 
 of Mark the reference is complete, so that 
 on this point the tradition of Mark is prefer- 
 able, being presupposed even in Luke. We 
 read: * And they went forth from thence, and 
 passed through Galilee; and he would not 
 that any man should know it. For he 
 taught his disciples, and said unto them, 
 The Son of man is delivered up into the 
 hands of men, and they shall kill him; and 
 
84 THE MESSAGE 
 
 when he is killed, after three days he shall 
 rise again’ (Mark ix. 30-31). According to 
 Mark the angel refers to words spoken by 
 our Lord in the upper room the night before 
 His passion, when the women were not 
 present but only the twelve apostles (Luke 
 xxi. 14; Mark xiv. 17),%so° thatjinis 
 you ’ means not to the women as in Luke, 
 but to the twelve. We read: ‘And Jesus 
 saith unto them, All ye shall be offended : 
 for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, 
 and the sheep shall be scattered abroad. 
 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go 
 before you into Galilee. But Peter said 
 unto him, Although all shall be offended, 
 yet will not I’ (xiv. 27-29). We see the 
 reason for the special mention of Peter in 
 the angel’s speech: it is part of the passage 
 quoted. Though doubtless implied, it is 
 not stated in so many words that they will 
 see Him in Galilee, but it is in Matthew’s 
 account of the appearance of Jesus to the 
 women. ‘ Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear 
 not: go tell my brethren that they depart 
 into Galilee, and there shall they see me’ 
 (xxvii. 10). Even if we suppose Mark’s 
 account of the message of the angel to be 
 generally and in substance correct, the exact 
 words given would seem to be a conflation 
 
OF THE ANGELS 85 
 
 of what the angel actually said and the 
 words of Jesus spoken later. It seems more 
 probable, however, that Mark, or the oral 
 tradition which he wrote down, confused 
 the words of the angel with those of Jesus 
 to the women, modifying the latter in the 
 light of what He said the night before He 
 suffered, and interpreting the angel’s appeal 
 to a former utterance of Jesus in that 
 sense. Not infrequently we find similar 
 confusion in Mark’s narrative, presumably 
 as the result of oral transmission. What 
 according to Luke are details of our Lord’s 
 trial before the Sanhedrin he gives, most 
 improbably, as part of the search for 
 witnesses in the courtyard of the high priest’s 
 palace (Mark xiv. 57-64; cf. Luke xxii. 67— 
 71). Similarly details of our Lord’s trial 
 before Herod he introduces into his account 
 of the trial before Pilate (Mark xv. 3-5; ef. 
 Luke xxii. 9-10). A striking example of 
 the confusion of similar sayings appears in 
 each of the synoptic gospels, though in 
 different degrees. On one occasion, when 
 there had been a dispute among the apostles 
 which of them should be greatest, Luke says 
 * He took a little child, and set him by his 
 side, and said unto them, Whosoever shall 
 receive this little child in my name, receiveth 
 
86 THE MESSAGE 
 
 me: and whosoever shall recetve me re- 
 ceiveth him that sent me: for he that is 
 least among you all, the same is great’ 
 (ix. 47-48). We notice that the first and 
 last clauses have to do with an object lesson 
 in humility, but the second with the receiv- 
 ing of a little ehild. Mark’s account is 
 practically the same, except that he omits 
 the third part (ix. 386-37). On another 
 occasion, when the disciples rebuked those 
 who brought their babes to Jesus, Luke says 
 ‘But Jesus called them unto him, saying, 
 Suffer the little children to come unto me, 
 and forbid them not: for of such is the 
 kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, 
 Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom 
 of God as a little child, he shall in no wise 
 enter therein’ (xviii. 16-17). Mark’s account 
 is almost verbally identical (x. 14-15). 
 Here we notice the first part has to do with 
 the receiving of little children, and the 
 second with humility as a necessity for 
 entrance into the kingdom of God, the 
 exact opposite of what we found in the former 
 incident. The suggestion surely is that the 
 second sections of the narratives have been 
 interchanged, a very easy mistake to make 
 with sayings verbally so very similar in 
 the course of oral transmission. When we 
 
OF THE ANGELS 87 
 
 read Matthew’s version of the two incidents 
 our supposition becomes a practical certainty. 
 We read: ‘And he called to him a little 
 child, and set him in the midst of them, 
 and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye 
 turn, and become as little children, ye shall 
 in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. 
 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself 
 as this little child, the same is the greatest 
 in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso 
 shall receive one such little child in my 
 name receiveth me’ (xviil. 2-5). We notice 
 that this account consists of part one of 
 Luke’s first incident, part two of his second, 
 part three of his first, and part two of his 
 first. ‘There can be little doubt but that the 
 tradition of Matthew is the most accurate 
 version of what took place, and that of Mark 
 the least, yet though the evangelist relies 
 on another and better tradition for his 
 second clause, the influence of Mark persists 
 in the addition of his fourth clause, which 
 in both Luke and Mark is placed in the 
 wrong incident as the second section. Conse- 
 quently in relating the second incident, 
 having already used what should be the 
 second clause, he gives only the first, ‘ But 
 Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and 
 forbid them not, to come unto me: for of 
 
88 THE MESSAGE 
 
 such is the kingdom of heaven’ (xix. 14). 
 As in each of the synoptic gospels, and 
 particularly in Mark, we find confusion of 
 incidents and sayings, we need have little 
 hesitation in deciding that the same is true 
 in the case of Mark’s account of the angel’s 
 speech to the women at the sepulchre, and 
 that, as so often, Luke’s is preferable. We 
 notice now the point of Luke’s repeated 
 description of the women as those ‘that 
 followed with him from Galilee,’ and ‘ which 
 had come with him out of Galilee,’ and see 
 how it leads up to the words of the angels, 
 ‘Remember how he spake unto you when 
 he was yet in Galilee.’ Mark mentions 
 that the women were those ‘who, when 
 he was in Galilee, followed him,’ but the 
 words in no way lead up to * He goeth before 
 you into Galilee,’ so that in Mark’s tradition 
 the reason for the first statement according 
 to Luke has vanished, and the connexion 
 is lost. 
 
 If the latter part of the angel’s speech 
 is so inaccurately reported by Mark we may 
 not unreasonably enquire whether the earlier 
 part is more reliable. If, as we have con- 
 cluded, we are dealing with a vision seen in 
 ecstasy, the words ‘ he is not here: behold, 
 the place where they laid him’ are surely 
 
OF 'THE ANGELS 89 
 
 impossible. Quite apart from the fact that 
 during an ecstasy as a rule the senses cease 
 to act, so that the women would be unable 
 to examine the tomb, the revelations vouch- 
 safed in the mystic state are of a super- 
 natural order, and do not convey information 
 which it would be quite easy to gain in 
 ordinary ways. In form the words are 
 evidently intended to refer us back to the 
 previous statement that the two Maries 
 ‘beheld where he was laid’ (xv. 47), and 
 to give us more definite information. In 
 substance they are merely the equivalent 
 of Luke’s * Why seek ye the living among 
 the dead ?’ interpreted in the light of the 
 fact that they ‘found not the body’ of 
 Jesus. The latter part of the angel’s speech 
 we have decided is a conflation of the message 
 imparted to the women in ecstasy and of 
 words spoken by our Lord on two separate 
 oceasions, one before He suffered and the 
 other after His resurrection: it seems very 
 probable that the first part has a similar 
 composite origin, for besides reminiscences 
 of the speech as given by Luke it contains 
 echoes of phrases found in the third gospel 
 in the story of the journey to Emmaus. 
 ‘Jesus, the Nazarene’ is the description 
 used by Cleopas and his companion. 
 
90 THE MESSAGE 
 
 ‘Which hath been crucified: he is risen’ 
 in substance reproduces ‘be crucified, and 
 the third day rise again’ of Luke’s version 
 of the angels’ words, but more exactly 
 ‘erucified him,’ ‘is risen indeed’ of the 
 Kmmaus story, the word for ‘is risen’ being 
 exactly the same in this case but quite 
 different in the angels’ speech. The fact 
 that Mark misunderstood the nature of the 
 vision vouchsafed to the women in ecstasy, 
 and described it as though it were an 
 apparition of an objective kind, is proof 
 that his narrative is of a secondary character, 
 the change being such as would naturally 
 arise in the course of oral transmission, and 
 makes it less difficult to believe that the 
 speech attributed by Mark to the angel is, 
 if our analysis is correct, a mosaic of words 
 spoken at different times by different people, 
 and so is not in any strict sense historical. 
 Matthew on the whole repeats Mark, but 
 on several points, as we have noticed, he 
 reverts to Luke. Jesus is not called ‘ the 
 Nazarene,’ and Peter is not mentioned 
 separately. The words ‘as he said’ are 
 rightly referred to the fact that Jesus had 
 foretold His resurrection, not to a statement 
 that they would see Him in Galilee, which 
 had yet to be made, ‘ Lo, I have told you’ 
 
OF THE ANGELS 91 
 
 being substituted for ‘as he said unto you’ 
 at this point. 
 
 Luke continues his narrative, ‘ And they 
 remembered his words, and returned (from 
 the tomb), and told all these things to the 
 eleven, and to all the rest. Now they were 
 Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the 
 mother of James: and the other women 
 with them told these things unto the apostles. 
 And these words appeared in their sight 
 as idle talk; and they disbelieved them”! 
 (xxiv. 8-11). The language is rather in- 
 volved, particularly where the names are 
 introduced. What exactly did the writer 
 mean? Fortunately we have another ac- 
 count of the message of the women in the 
 discourse of the two disciples on the way 
 to Emmaus. We read: ° Moreover certain 
 women of our company amazed us, having 
 been early at the tomb; and when they 
 found not his body, they came, saying, 
 that they had also seen a vision of angels, 
 which said that he was alive. And certain 
 of them that were with us went to the tomb, 
 and found it even so as the women had 
 
 1 The account of the visit of Peter to the tomb which 
 follows in many manuscripts is absent from Codex Bezae 
 and other Western authorities, and though early, it is 
 
 probably not an original element of the gospel, and 
 seems to be dependent on John. 
 
92 THE MESSAGE 
 
 said: but him they saw not’ (xxiv. 22-24). 
 We notice at once what seems to be a contra- 
 diction in the two accounts. ‘° They dis- 
 believed them.’ ‘They found it even so as 
 the women had said.’ The two disciples 
 make a distinction between the statement 
 that the women found not the body of Jesus, 
 and their claim to have seen a vision of 
 angels. One is mentioned as a fact fully 
 accepted by the speakers, and only in- 
 cidentally, in relating the doubtful story 
 of the vision of angels, are we told that the 
 first statement also was part of the informa- 
 tion received from the women. Afterwards 
 they explain why there could be no doubt 
 about the emptiness of the tomb—the visit 
 of ‘certain of them that were with us’ had 
 placed it beyond question. The words of 
 the disciples might also be interpreted as 
 implying that they proved the vision of 
 angels to be true likewise, but probably this 
 is regarded as being in another category— 
 the truth about a vision of angels could not 
 be proved by a visit to a spot where it is 
 supposed to have taken place—and so still 
 lacking confirmation. With regard to the 
 women’s report about the empty tomb it is 
 clearly not true to say that at any time 
 ‘they disbelieved them,’ though that this was 
 
OF THE ANGELS 93 
 
 the case with regard to the vision of angels 
 is implied in the disciples’ story. Luke’s 
 words, however, are without qualification 
 and seem to apply to the whole of the 
 women’s report—‘ They disbelieved them.’ 
 There is no suggestion that almost im- 
 mediately a large part of their story was 
 proved quite accurate. Even though the 
 women’s report had been that they had 
 seen a vision of angels as well as that they 
 had found the sepulchre empty, as the 
 latter statement had been confirmed, to say 
 that ‘ they disbelieved them’ appears to be 
 a very unfair summary of the attitude of 
 the apostles and the rest towards them. 
 Women who had been proved correct on so 
 important a point as the emptiness of the 
 tomb, in itself just as unlikely as the vision 
 of angels, deserved to have any further 
 statement they might make, however extra- 
 ordinary, regarded as something better than 
 ‘idle talk,’ and it is difficult to imagine that 
 it could have been otherwise. The two dis- 
 ciples distinguished so clearly the different 
 parts of the information derived from the 
 women that we seem to be justified in sup- 
 posing that compressed into the one statement 
 there may be more reports than one, perhaps 
 also of more than one group of women. 
 
94 THE MESSAGE 
 
 In confirmation of this idea it will be 
 useful to consider Luke’s manner of reporting 
 speeches on other occasions, and particularly 
 we may instance Paul’s_ speech before 
 Agrippa, describing his conversion and call. 
 ‘And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou 
 persecutest. But arise, and stand upon 
 thy feet: for to this end have I appeared 
 unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a 
 witness both of the things wherein thou 
 hast seen me, and of the things wherein I 
 will appear unto thee; delivering thee from 
 the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom 
 I send thee, to open their eyes, that they 
 may turn from darkness to light, and from 
 the power of Satan unto God, that they may 
 receive remission of sins and an inheritance 
 among them that are sanctified by faith 
 in me. Wherefore, O king Agrippa, I was 
 not disobedient unto the heavenly vision ’ 
 (Acts xxvi. 15-19). The substance of this 
 speech we notice is derived from what 
 Jesus said to him at his conversion, what 
 Ananias said to him at Damascus, and what 
 Jesus said to him in the vision in the temple 
 (Acts xxii. 8, 15, 21), as also indeed from a 
 prophecy of Isaiah (xlu. 6-7, 16). And yet 
 he continues * Wherefore ...I was not 
 disobedient unto the heavenly vision,’ as 
 
OF THE ANGELS 95 
 
 though he were reporting only one saying, 
 and not giving with scriptural illustration a 
 summary of three. If we may suppose, as 
 is not unlikely in such a speech, a similar 
 compression in the statement of the two 
 disciples with regard to the report of the 
 women, all contradiction between Luke’s 
 own narrative and what he gives as theirs, 
 entirely disappears, for we may suppose 
 that there were at least two reports, one 
 about the emptiness of the tomb, and the 
 other, perhaps by different women, delivering 
 the message of the angels. If now we go 
 back to the evangelist’s own account we 
 see that the idea is confirmed. We read: 
 ‘They ... reported all these things to the 
 eleven,’ ‘the other women with them told 
 these things unto the apostles,’ *'These words 
 appeared ... as idle talk.’ We notice the 
 emphasis on ‘these ’—‘all these things,’ 
 * these things,’ ‘ these words.’ The reference 
 can hardly be different on each occasion, 
 and it would seem to be primarily to the 
 report of the words of the angels bringing to 
 remembrance our Lord’s own words, the 
 last thing mentioned, rather than to any 
 statement about the emptiness of the tomb, 
 though of necessity the latter would be 
 included or implied. If so, we can under- 
 
96 MESSAGE OF THE ANGELS 
 
 stand better the awkward verse in the 
 middle of Luke’s account. ‘ Now they were 
 Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary 
 the mother of James: and the other women 
 with them told these things unto the apostles.’ 
 Clearly the evangelist would have us under- 
 stand that the three women named were 
 among those who visited the sepulchre, but 
 it is rather curious that he tells us nothing 
 else about them, and proceeds to say that 
 not they but the other women told ‘ these 
 things’ unto the apostles. It seems not 
 improbable that Luke is here curtailing his 
 source, or that he has other information than 
 he gives. In the statement that the other 
 women reported ‘these things’ there is 
 perhaps a suggestion that there was also a 
 report of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and the 
 other Mary which in some way differed, and 
 so possibly did not include the angels’ words 
 to which primarily he is referring, but only 
 that the tomb was empty. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 ST. MARK’S STORY OF THE ECSTASY 
 AT THE TOMB 
 
 THE words of the two disciples on the way 
 to Emmaus conclude with the statement 
 with regard to those who visited the sepulchre 
 after the tidings of the women, ‘ but him 
 they saw not.’ Taken in conjunction with 
 the words which immediately precede, ‘ even 
 so as the women had said,’ these words seem 
 to suggest that there was also a report that 
 certain of the women had actually seen 
 Jesus, and, if so, in the speech attributed to 
 Cleopas there would be a combination of 
 the substance of three reports, quite in 
 Luke’s manner, as we have seen in his account 
 of Paul’s speech before Agrippa, where also 
 three sayings appear as one. Certainly the 
 words are not directly suggested by the 
 statement of the angels that He was alive, 
 for it does not follow that because He 
 
 was alive they should expect to see Him 
 H 
 
98 ST. MARK’S STORY OF THE 
 
 immediately and at the tomb. If there was 
 such a report, that some of the women had 
 seen Jesus, it could only have been made 
 by Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and the other 
 Mary. All this is, of course, merely hypo- 
 thesis, but it seems the most obvious way 
 of filling out Luke’s account, which is 
 plainly incomplete, and it fits in in an extra- 
 ordinary manner with what we are told 
 elsewhere both in Mark and John. 
 
 Mark tells us that Mary Magdalene, and 
 Mary the mother of James, and Salome came 
 to the sepulchre in the early morning, no 
 mention being made of other women. After 
 giving his version of the message of the 
 angel to the women in the tomb he continues : 
 “And they went out, and fled from the 
 tomb; for trembling and an ecstasy held 
 them: and they said nothing to anyone; 
 for they were afraid ’ (xvi. 8); and there the 
 gospel ends abruptly. Mark’s account, as 
 we have already noticed, seems quite to fail 
 to make the nature of the vision clear, and 
 he confuses the subjective with the objective, 
 so that we might imagine that he was 
 describing an exterior apparition. Fear, 
 trembling, and flight, however, are quite 
 the usual accompaniments of a vision seen 
 in ecstasy. In the descriptions of Daniel’s 
 
ECSTASY AT THE TOMB 99 
 
 visions we read: ‘ And, behold, there stood 
 before me as the appearance of a man... 
 and when he came, I was affrighted, and 
 fell upon my face (vil. 15, 17). “And I 
 Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men 
 that were with me saw not the vision; but 
 a great trembling fell upon them, and they 
 fled to hide themselves’ (x. 7). Unless, 
 however, the vision is in itself of an alarming 
 character, such experiences belong only to 
 the earlier stages, where indeed Mark does 
 say that ‘they were amazed’: afterwards 
 they are succeeded, as St. Teresa says, by 
 an inexpressible peace and joy and a dis- 
 position to praise God. The good news 
 that Jesus had risen and was alive ought 
 not to have left them in a state of fright 
 that they could say nothing to anyone. It 
 is all so contrary to what Luke says, and 
 yet it is difficult to suppose that the difference 
 is to be ascribed to the imagination of the 
 evangelist, or to a misunderstanding. The 
 probability is that Mary Magdalene and her 
 two companions, though, doubtless, like the 
 other women they saw the two angels and 
 were in an ecstasy, were conscious of no 
 message at all. As at the transfiguration 
 the effect upon Peter was somewhat different 
 1 The Sixth Mansions, chap. iii. pp. 140-1. 
 
100 ST. MARK’S STORY OF THE 
 
 from that upon the other two apostles, and 
 the suggestion to build tabernacles was his 
 alone, so here too the e:.ect of the vision 
 upon Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and the other 
 Mary would appear to have been quite 
 unlike that upon the other women. Indeed, 
 owing to difference in temperament and 
 predispositions, quite a different type of 
 ecstasy resulted. Again St. Teresa seems 
 to help us to understand it by her descrip- 
 tion of the condition of one, whom indeed 
 she likens to Mary Magdalene, who having 
 experienced the delight of union with her 
 Lord mourns and weeps continually in her 
 love and ardent desire, thinking only of the 
 torment of His absence. “° She seems to feel 
 herself to be in a strange solitude: all those 
 who live on earth are no company for her: 
 no, nor would . .. those in heaven be, if 
 her Beloved One were not there present ; 
 everything torments her, and she sees her- 
 self like one hanging in the air, neither able 
 to rest on anything belonging to earth, nor 
 able to ascend into heaven.’ ‘It happens 
 then sometimes that such a soul thus burning 
 in herself, upon a very slight thought that 
 she may have ... feels .. . a blow, asmig 
 it came from a fiery dart, though she under- 
 stands not whence, nor how.’ ‘ The soul 
 
ECSTASY AT THE TOMB 101 
 
 sees herself absent from God: and His 
 Majesty helps this at that time by so clear 
 a manifestation of Himself, as to increase 
 the pain.’ ‘In an instant it binds up the 
 faculties in such a manner, that they have 
 no liberty for anything whatever, except for 
 those things which tend to increase this grief.’ 
 ‘In this extremity she does not continue 
 long—at most . . . not above three or four 
 hours. . . . Sometimes it has not continued 
 for more than a quarter of an hour, and yet 
 the person has been as it were disjointed.’ 
 ‘The body is so disjointed that, for two or 
 three days after, it has no strength even to 
 write a few lines, for the pains are great.’ 
 * Then she fears indeed, . . . nor is it possible 
 for this pain to be removed, till our Lord 
 shall take it away. This is usually done 
 by a vision, whereby the true Comforter 
 both comforts and strengthens the soul.’ ! 
 The description seems to fit the case of Mary 
 Magdalene almost exactly. She had ex- 
 perienced the closest communion with her 
 Lord as she followed Him, but her bliss 
 had been cruelly broken. We think of her 
 mourning by the cross, and afterwards by 
 the sepulchre. To her, and so probably to 
 
 1 The Sixth Mansions, chap. xi. pp. 200, 198, 199, 
 198, 201, 199, 202. 
 
102 ST. MARK’S STORY OF THE 
 
 her companions likewise, the angelic vision 
 was exactly such a manifestation of the 
 supernatural as would increase her grief, 
 but would convey no message at all. The 
 vision ‘binds up the faculties,’ says St. 
 Teresa. ‘Trembling and an ecstasy held 
 them,’ says St.. Mark. ‘They have no 
 liberty for anything whatever,’ ‘ Then she 
 fears indeed,’ says St. Teresa. ‘* They said 
 nothing to anyone, for they were afraid,’ 
 says St. Mark. The effect of the vision was 
 very different from what it was upon the 
 other women from Galilee, as Luke describes 
 it: in one case it led to an ecstasy of joy 
 and in the other to an ecstasy of sorrow. 
 Upon these other women the effect was 
 much more transitory. To terror succeeded 
 peace, and they were able to grasp the 
 angels’ message; they remembered our Lord’s 
 words, and returning told all things to the 
 apostles and the rest. Mark’s account thus 
 fits in exactly with Luke’s, and gives meaning 
 to a difficult verse. ‘Now they were Mary 
 Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the 
 mother of James: and the other women 
 with them told these things unto the 
 apostles ’ (Luke xxiv. 10). 
 
 Matthew, as so often, combines the nar- 
 ratives of Mark and Luke, though properly, 
 
ECSTASY AT THE TOMB 103 
 
 as we have seen reason to suppose, they 
 refer to the widely differing experiences of 
 different groups of women, and making of 
 the two one story refers it to Mary Mag- 
 dalene and the other Mary. We read: 
 ‘And they departed quickly from the tomb 
 with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his 
 disciples word’ (xxviii. 8). He then con- 
 tinues with an incident which there is every 
 reason to believe historical. ‘ And behold, 
 Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they 
 came and took hold of his feet, and 
 worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto 
 them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that 
 they depart into Galilee, and there shall they 
 see me’ (xxvill. 9-10). Matthew’s narrative, 
 as we have noticed so frequently, is to a 
 large extent a fusion of the accounts of 
 Mark and Luke, and as this incident is not 
 in Luke, though there is a suggestion of it, 
 and it differs entirely from the type of story 
 peculiar to the first gospel, it seems not 
 improbable that it was derived from the 
 lost ending of Mark. This indeed agrees 
 with a conclusion we have already reached, 
 that it is the speech of the angels as given 
 in Luke which is authentic, not the speech 
 which takes its place in Mark, in which not 
 only are our Lord’s words and those of the 
 
104 THE ECSTASY AT THE TOMB 
 
 angels confused, but words are attributed 
 to him in the past which had yet to be 
 spoken in the future. If so, the appear- 
 ance to the women must be part of the 
 original tradition. St. Teresa, we remember, 
 declared that a vision was usually necessary 
 to remove the effects of an ecstasy of grief. 
 The appearance of Jesus to them was thus 
 exactly at the right psychological moment. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 ST. JOHN’S STORY OF MARY AT THE 
 TOMB 
 
 Our conclusions agree exactly with what we 
 are told in the fourth gospel. * Now on the 
 first day of the week cometh Mary Magda- 
 lene early, while 1t was yet dark, unto the 
 tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from 
 Piestomp. «(xx tiie Chesnote of times we 
 notice, agrees with what we read in Luke 
 and Matthew, but not in Mark. ‘She 
 runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon 
 Peter, and to the other disciple, whom 
 Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They 
 have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, 
 and we know not where they have laid 
 him’ (xx. 2). Her words to the apostles, 
 ‘we know not,’ suggest that she had 
 been accompanied by other women to the 
 sepulchre, as the other evangelists state, 
 and probably some of them returned with 
 her. There is no reason to suppose that 
 
106 ST. JOHN’S STORY OF 
 
 Mary hurried from the tomb as soon as she 
 saw the stone taken away. The more natural 
 thing would be that she would look more 
 closely into the matter. Her words to the 
 apostles seem rather to suggest that, as 
 Luke says, the women entered into the 
 sepulchre, and found it empty, ‘ They have 
 taken away the Lord out of the tomb.’ The 
 next section is an elaboration of the state- 
 ment of the two disciples on the way to 
 Emmaus, * And certain of them that were 
 with us went to the tomb, and found it 
 even so as the women had said’ (Luke 
 xxiv. 24). Weread: ‘ Peter therefore went 
 forth, and the other disciple, and they went 
 toward the tomb. And they ran both to- 
 gether: and the other disciple outran Peter, 
 and came first to the tomb; and stooping 
 and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths 
 lying; yet entered he not in. Simon Peter 
 therefore also cometh, following him, and 
 entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth 
 the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, that 
 was upon his head, not lying with the linen 
 cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. 
 Then entered in therefore the other disciple 
 also, which came first to the tomb, and he 
 saw, and believed. For as yet they knew 
 not the scripture, that he must rise again 
 
MARY AT THE TOMB 107 
 
 from the dead. So the disciples went away 
 again unto their own home’ (xx. 3-10). In 
 the fact that John had to stoop to look into 
 the sepulchre we find confirmation of our 
 conclusion that the stone could not have 
 been so very great, and so not beyond the 
 powers of three women to move, agreeing 
 with what must have been their own opinion 
 when they set out for the sepulchre, according 
 to the natural interpretation of Luke apart 
 from the other gospels. The tomb was 
 apparently of only one chamber, the place 
 for the body being clearly seen from the 
 entrance, either of the bench or loculus 
 type, not a tomb with kokim, which would 
 have allowed nothing but the lower part of 
 the body to be visible, and would have made 
 it quite impossible for Peter even after 
 entering the tomb to have seen ‘the linen 
 cloths lying, and the napkin, that was upon 
 his head, not lying with the linen cloths, 
 but rolled up in a place by itself’ (xx. 7). 
 John evidently wishes us to note the contrast 
 between the resurrection of Jesus, and what 
 he says about the raising of Lazarus. ‘* He 
 that was dead came forth, bound hand and 
 foot with grave-clothes; and his face was 
 bound about with a napkin’ (xi. 44). The 
 statement that John ‘ saw and believed’ can 
 
108 ST. JOHN’S STORY OF 
 
 mean no more than what the two disciples 
 on the way to Emmaus said, that those who 
 went to the sepulchre ‘found it even so as 
 the women had said,’ not that they believed 
 that He was risen from the dead, for the 
 verse which follows seems distinctly to tell us 
 it was not so, “As yet they knew not the 
 scripture, that he must rise again from the 
 dead’ (xx. 9). Mary Magdalene, and prob- 
 ably other women also, followed the apostles 
 back again to the tomb, remaining there even 
 when the apostles went away again home. 
 John describes the vision of angels from the 
 point of view of Mary Magdalene. ‘ But 
 Mary was standing without at the tomb 
 weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and 
 looked into the tomb; and she beholdeth 
 two angels in white sitting, one at the 
 head, and one at the feet, where the body 
 of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, 
 Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto 
 them, Because they have taken away my 
 Lord, and I know not where they have 
 laid him ’ (xx. 11-18). By itself the descrip- 
 tion would not perhaps suggest an ecstatic 
 vision, but there is nothing, as there is in 
 Mark’s account, which is incompatible with 
 such a view. According to Luke the women 
 were in perplexity, according to John Mary 
 
MARY AT THE TOMB 109 
 
 lingered at the tomb weeping. We are 
 reminded of St. Teresa’s description of the 
 woman who ‘ mourns and weeps continually ’ 
 in yearning for her Lord. As she weeps 
 Mary is in an ecstasy, and her ordinary 
 experience seems to be continued in the 
 vision. ‘So, as she wept, she stooped and 
 looked into the tomb; and she beholdeth 
 two angels in white sitting, one at the head, 
 and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus 
 had lain’ (xx. 11-12). As is usual in such 
 experiences the vision no doubt reproduces 
 the reality, so that the sepulchre must have 
 been one with a bench for bodies along one 
 or more sides, not with a loculus cut in the 
 wall. The vision of the angels in John’s 
 account is often described as purposeless, 
 and, if what John describes were all, it might 
 be difficult to see a motive, but, as so often, 
 his intention seems to have been to draw 
 attention to matters which the other evan- 
 gelists have omitted. The conversation be- 
 tween Mary and the angels which he records 
 would form an excellent introduction to the 
 words given by Luke, *‘ Woman, why weepest 
 thou?’ ‘ Because they have taken away 
 my Lord, and I know not where they have 
 laid him.’ ‘ Why seek ye the living among 
 the dead?’ Yet if our conclusion is correct 
 
110 ST. JOHN’S STORY OF 
 
 Mary Magdalene quite failed to grasp the 
 latter part of the conversation, and, as at the 
 transfiguration, in different people the vision 
 roused different emotions. One thought 
 only was dominant in the mind of Mary 
 Magdalene, ‘They have taken away my 
 Lord, and I know not where they have 
 laid him,’ and the vision of the angels 
 availed nothing to assuage her grief and 
 sense of loss. Mark, as we have seen, goes 
 further and says of both Mary and her 
 companions, ‘Trembling and an_ ecstasy 
 held them, and they said nothing to any one,’ 
 but John, who has avoided any direct 
 mention of the ecstasy, says nothing of this. 
 Lapse of time is hardly measurable in the 
 mystic state, and however long it lasts it 
 may seem little more than momentary. To 
 Mary it was when she had finished speaking 
 with the angel, really, we may suppose, when 
 she came to herself after the ecstasy, that 
 she turned and saw Jesus. ‘° When she had 
 thus said, she turned herself back, and 
 beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not 
 that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, 
 Woman, why weepest thou ? whom seekest 
 thou? She, supposing him to be the 
 gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast 
 borne him hence, tell me where thou hast 
 
MARY AT THE TOMB 111 
 
 laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus 
 saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, 
 and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; 
 which is to say, Master’ (xx. 14-16). 
 Matthew has combined in one narrative the 
 return of the women who reported the angel’s 
 words to the apostles and that of Mary 
 Magdalene and her two companions, and 
 he says: ‘And behold, Jesus met them, 
 saying, All hail.’ It is the sound of her 
 name, ° Mary,’ which rouses her to her true 
 self, and recognising Jesus the bonds of the 
 ecstasy are broken. ‘And they came and 
 took hold of his feet, and worshipped him,’ 
 says Matthew, and it explains the next 
 words of John, ‘ Jesus saith to her, Touch 
 me not; for I am not yet ascended unto 
 the Father’ (xx. 17). Like Matthew, John 
 also gives a message to the brethren. ‘ But 
 go unto my brethren, and say to them, I 
 ascend unto my Father and your Father, 
 and my God and your God’ (xx. 17). The 
 message seems supplementary to that of 
 Matthew, not contradictory. Usually in 
 literary problems it is unsafe to combine 
 divergent narratives, but this is not always 
 true in dealing with the fourth gospel, and 
 in the present instance a combination of 
 the two traditions makes better sense than 
 
112 MARY AT THE TOMB 
 
 either alone. ‘Go tell my brethren that 
 they depart into Galilee, and there shall they 
 see me.’ ‘I ascend unto my Father and 
 your Father, and my God and your God.’ 
 The appearance in Galilee, which Jesus had 
 foretold the night before He suffered, we see 
 to be intended as the great manifestation 
 of Jesus in His glory before His ascension 
 and the withdrawal of His visible presence. 
 John then continues, ‘Mary Magdalene 
 cometh and telleth the disciples, I have seen 
 the Lord; and how that he had said these 
 things ‘unto: ‘her *) (xx.. 18). (It 1s or tie 
 report, ‘ I have seen the Lord,’ that we seem 
 to find an echo in the words of the disciples 
 on the way to Emmaus, *‘ But him they saw 
 not,’ a conclusion which agrees exactly with 
 what we judged probable on other grounds. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE APPEARANCE OF OUR LORD IN 
 GALILEE 
 
 THERE is no need for a detailed discussion 
 of the journey to Emmaus or of the appear- 
 ance in the upper room on the evening of 
 the first Easter Day, recorded by both 
 Luke and John, or of the appearance to 
 Thomas also a week later, recorded only 
 by John. In the appendix to the fourth 
 gospel there is an appearance in Galilee, 
 intended presumably as a preliminary to 
 His great manifestation there. ‘ After these 
 things Jesus manifested himself again to the 
 disciples at the sea of Tiberias; . . . This is 
 now the third time that Jesus was manifested 
 to the disciples, after that he was risen 
 from the dead ’ (xxi. 1, 14). At the moment 
 they were not expecting to see Jesus, but 
 true to His promise He had gone before 
 them into Galilee (Mark xiv. 28). In 
 
 Matthew alone now do we find an account 
 I 
 
114 THE APPEARANCE OF 
 
 of that appearance in Galilee, which to 
 Jesus Himself was evidently of such great 
 importance, which He foretold the night 
 before His crucifixion, and of which He 
 spoke to Mary Magdalene and the other 
 women on the first Kaster morning, though 
 it must presumably have been recorded in 
 the ending of Mark now lost. Probably, 
 however, it is of this that St. Paul speaks 
 when writing to the Corinthians, ‘ Then he 
 appeared to above five hundred brethren 
 at once’ (1 Cor. xv. 6). Such a gathering 
 could hardly have taken place conveniently or 
 safely elsewhere than in Galilee—at Jerusalem 
 indeed even at a later period we read of only 
 a hundred and twenty (Acts 1. 15)—and ex- 
 cept by prearrangement for some important 
 object, which our Lord’s promise that He 
 would see them in Galilee provides, such an 
 assembly of disciples would have no purpose 
 at all. Matthew says: ‘ But the eleven dis- 
 ciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain 
 where Jesus had appointed them. And 
 when they saw him, they worshipped him : 
 but some doubted. And Jesus came to 
 them and spake unto them, saying, All 
 authority hath been given unto me in 
 heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and 
 make disciples of all the nations, [baptizing 
 
OUR LORD IN GALILEE 115 
 
 them into the name of the Father and of the 
 Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I commanded 
 you: and lo, I am with you alway, even 
 unto the end of the world’ (xxviil. 16-20). 
 
 For a Jew this must have been the climax 
 of the gospel story, for Jesus is manifest 
 as the Christ, the Son of God and Son of 
 Man. The announcement at His baptism, 
 ‘Thou art my Son, the beloved, in thee I 
 am well pleased,’ is declared to have re- 
 ceived fulfilment, ‘ All authority hath been 
 given unto me in heaven and on earth.’ 
 We are reminded of the temptation of the 
 devil at the beginning of His ministry when 
 first He was proclaimed the Son of God. 
 Showing Him all the kingdoms of the world 
 in a moment of time he said, ‘ To thee will 
 I give all this authority, and the glory of 
 them: for it hath been delivered unto me ; 
 and to whomsoever [ will I give it’ (Luke 
 iv. 5-6). Our Lord’s choice on that occasion 
 is seen to be vindicated, for He has received 
 not merely authority over the kingdoms of 
 this world, but all authority in heaven and 
 on earth. Having recorded the manifesta- 
 tion of Jesus as the Christ, Matthew finishes 
 his gospel, as not improbably Mark had done 
 before him. ‘The mountain where Jesus 
 
116 THE APPEARANCE OF 
 
 had appointed them’ is mentioned in both 
 Luke and Mark, but not in Matthew, who 
 has disarranged his material. Luke says: 
 ‘He went out into the mountain to pray; 
 and he continued all night in prayer to God. 
 And when it was day, he called his disciples : 
 and he chose from them twelve, whom 
 also he named apostles’ (vi. 12-13). Mark 
 says: ‘And he goeth up into the mountain, 
 and calleth unto him whom he himself 
 would: and they went unto him. And he 
 appointed twelve, that they might be with 
 him, and that he might send them forth 
 to preach’ (ii. 13-14). There can be little 
 doubt but that this is the mountain which 
 Matthew has in mind as the scene of the 
 appearance in Galilee, and not simply some 
 other mountain which Jesus appointed for 
 the purpose. The connexion between the 
 two scenes on the mountain is lost in 
 Matthew, because through rearrangement of 
 his sources, necessitated by the plan he 
 has adopted for his gospel, all the emphasis 
 is put upon the sermon preached on the 
 mountain (v. 1), while the other fact, which 
 Luke makes plain, that it was upon the 
 same mountain—and really on the mountain 
 and not practically at the bottom of it, 
 as seems to have been the case with the 
 sermon (Luke vi. 17)—that immediately 
 
OUR LORD IN GALILEE 117 
 
 before the apostles had been chosen. In the 
 original tradition we can hardly doubt both 
 scenes on the mountain must have been 
 recorded, and presumably in Mark, or the 
 mention of ‘the mountain where Jesus had 
 appointed them’ by Matthew would seem 
 to be inexplicable. We have then beyond 
 reasonable question two incidents which 
 must have been recorded in the lost ending 
 of Mark, the appearance to Mary Magdalene 
 and her companions on Easter morning, 
 when the manifestation in Galilee was for 
 the second time foretold (cf. Mark xiv. 28, 
 Matt. xxvi. 32), and the climax ‘of the 
 gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ 
 (Mark i. 1) in the appearance on the mountain 
 of the Son of Man in His resurrection glory 
 and fullness of divine authority. 
 
 Speaking to Mary our Lord had said 
 that His ascension would be the beginning 
 of a new type of friendship, * Touch me not ; 
 for [ am not yet ascended unto the Father ’ 
 (John xx. 17). The combination of our 
 Lord’s words to the women (Matt. xxvii. 10) 
 and to Mary Magdalene (John xx. 17) on 
 Easter morning, which we decided was 
 allowable, suggests that the appearance in 
 Galilee was but a preliminary to the ascension, 
 and the pledge of the reality of this new 
 and spiritual intimacy between Him and 
 
118 THE APPEARANCE OF 
 
 His disciples, ‘Lo, I am with you alway, 
 even unto the end of the world.’ With this 
 assurance of the perpetual presence of the 
 glorified Jesus Matthew closes his gospel, 
 nothing more being necessary for the com- 
 pletion of his scheme. Luke adds an account 
 of our Lord’s final departure from His dis- 
 ciples. In Acts he describes it much more 
 fully in language suggested by the assump- 
 tion of Elijah and the passing of Moses 
 as an ascension, the disciples gazing upon 
 Him in an ecstasy as He is taken up to 
 heaven, while Moses and Elijah themselves, 
 the representatives of the scriptures of the 
 Old Covenant, appear in glory, as at the 
 transfiguration and by the sepulchre, to bear 
 Him witness. 
 
 Our investigation has brought out many 
 points which are usually regarded as obscure 
 in the gospel story. It seems to be proved 
 beyond reasonable doubt that Luke is the 
 most original and reliable of the synoptic 
 gospels, and that it is quite inconceivable that 
 Mark is the basis of the other two and the 
 primary authority for the original evangelical 
 tradition. Frequently he has misunder- 
 stood his source, and where he elaborates 
 the earlier narrative of Luke he is not seldom 
 inaccurate, and it is plain that very often 
 his alterations are due, not to the posses- 
 
OUR LORD IN GALILEE 119 
 
 sion of additional information, whether from 
 St. Peter or elsewhere, but to a desire to 
 bring out more clearly what he believes to 
 be the meaning of the story. John, on the 
 other hand, is much more reliable, and _ his 
 narrative not only fits in with, but frequently 
 elucidates, what we are told by Luke. In 
 view of its undoubtedly late date no stronger 
 evidence of its apostolic origin 1s conceivable. 
 
 We have seen too that from the time of 
 His baptism the dominant idea in our Lord’s 
 life was the consciousness that He was the 
 Christ, both Son of God and Son of man. 
 The words attributed to John the Baptist 
 hailing Him as the Lamb of God that taketh 
 away the sin of the world are no anachronism 
 on the part of the fourth evangelist, but 
 express our Lord’s own conviction that, 
 as the Servant of Jehovah, He had come 
 into the world to save sinners: in St. Paul’s 
 words, to die for our sins, in His own, to 
 give His life a ransom for many. 
 
 With regard to the resurrection our 
 investigation has done nothing to discredit 
 the story of the empty tomb. We may 
 say, indeed, that the development of the 
 narrative which we have traced from Luke 
 to Mark and from Mark to Matthew, the 
 original story after many years being con- 
 firmed on many points by that of John, 
 
120 OUR LORD IN GALILEE 
 
 would be quite inexplicable on any other 
 hypothesis than that of its truth. We have 
 seen what an important place ecstatic visions 
 take in the development of the gospel story, 
 in connexion with the resurrection and ascen- 
 sion, but also at other times of crisis, in the 
 history of the early Church, as well as in the 
 narratives of our Lord’s birth and ministry. 
 The appearances of our Lord after His resur- 
 rection are seen to be of a quite different 
 order and very clearly distinguished from 
 visions of angels, the former being objective, 
 the latter subjective. Legendary accretion, 
 which has undoubtedly been at work, can- 
 not explain the fundamental facts, and no 
 explanation is conceivable except on the as- 
 sumption of their substantial accuracy. Our 
 criticism has shown the improbability of 
 certain of the details in later versions of the 
 Kaster story, but it is hoped that it has done 
 something at any rate to vindicate the essen- 
 tial truth of the traditional faith of the 
 Church with regard to the resurrection of 
 her Lord. 
 
 Per Baptismum tuum, 
 
 Per Crucem et Passionem tuam, 
 
 Per gloriosam Resurrectionem tuam, 
 
 Per admirabilem Ascensionem tuam, 
 Libera nos, Domine. 
 
THE NARRATIVES 
 OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
Veni, redemptor gentium ; 
 Ostende partum virginis ; 
 
 Miretur omne saeculum, 
 Talis decet partus Deo. 
 
 Non ex virili semine, 
 Sed mystico spiramine, 
 Verbum Dei factum est caro, 
 Fructusque ventris floruit. 
 
 Alvus tumescit virginis, 
 Claustrum pudoris permanet ; 
 
 Vexilla virtutum micant, 
 Versatur in templo Deus. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 ST. LUKE’S ACCOUNT 
 
 Few, if any, of those who refuse to credit 
 the narratives of our Lord’s resurrection 
 accept as historical the accounts of His 
 virgin birth. It will be well, therefore, to 
 give a similar critical investigation of the 
 stories given by the evangelists describing 
 the manner of His birth. According to our 
 contention that Luke preserves the earliest 
 evangelical tradition we should expect to 
 find the primary account in the third gospel, 
 but quite apart from this it will be generally 
 admitted that Luke’s account on the whole 
 is more likely to be authentic than Matthew’s. 
 Luke prefaces the story of our Lord’s birth 
 by a similar story of the birth of John the 
 Baptist, and it will be impossible for us to 
 consider one apart from the other. In both 
 cases, as we have noticed, the announcement 
 of the birth is made during an ecstatic vision. 
 Such visions, whether recorded in scripture 
 
124 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 or elsewhere, very commonly take place 
 during prayer, and this was the case at our 
 Lord’s baptism, at the transfiguration, with 
 Cornelius, with Peter on the housetop, and 
 with Paul in the temple. We are not 
 actually told that Zacharias was praying 
 at the time of his vision, but the words of 
 the angel suggest it, ‘Thy supplication is 
 heard’ (i. 18), and certainly it was a time 
 of prayer, for we are told ‘ the whole multi- 
 tude of the people were praying ’ (1. 10), and 
 Zacharias himself was offering incense, which 
 is a type of prayer. The vision was that 
 of an angel, and so comparable with that 
 vouchsafed to Mary, the shepherds, the 
 women at the sepulchre, and Cornelius, and 
 indeed others where the word angel is not 
 found. The angel is said to have * appeared ’ 
 to Zacharias, this word being used also at 
 the transfiguration, at Pentecost, and at the 
 conversion of St. Paul. The angel is said 
 to be the * angel of the Lord,’ the usual Old 
 Testament expression to describe a mani- 
 festation of God in personal form, being 
 employed also by Luke of the appearance 
 to the shepherds, of the deliverance of the 
 apostles from prison (Acts v. 19), of the mes- 
 sage to Philip (vi. 26), of the deliverance 
 
ST. LUKE’S ACCOUNT 125 
 
 of Peter (xii. 7), and the stroke of Herod 
 (xi. 23). It is found also four times in the 
 birth stories given by Matthew (i. 20, 24; 
 1. 18, 19). The angel appeared ‘ standing.’ 
 The same verb—or compounds of it—is 
 employed in the stories of the shepherds, 
 of the transfiguration, of the women at 
 the sepulchre, of the ascension, and of the 
 supposed vision of Peter (Acts xi. 7). The 
 angel was seen on the ‘right’ side of the 
 altar of incense. Mention of the ‘right’ 
 side or hand is common in descriptions of 
 visions, both in scripture and elsewhere. ! 
 To Stephen our Lord appeared on the right 
 hand of God, and according to Mark the 
 angel in the sepulchre is seated on the 
 ‘right ’ side, while in the vision of Zechariah 
 Satan stands at the ‘right’ hand of Joshua 
 (Zech. iii. 1). Zacharias was ‘ troubled’ at 
 the vision, the same being said also of Mary 
 and of the women at the sepulchre. ‘ Fear’ 
 also fell upon him, the same effect being 
 produced upon Mary, the shepherds, the 
 apostles at the transfiguration, the women 
 at the sepulchre, and Cornelius. Zacharias 
 is bidden, ‘ Fear not,’ the same injunction 
 being given in the visions of Mary, the 
 
 1 See pp. 46-7. 
 
126 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 shepherds, and St. Paul, both at Corinth and 
 on the ship, and according to Matthew to 
 the women at the tomb. The appearance 
 is called a ‘ vision,’ the description given to 
 that of the two angels at the sepulchre, of 
 Jesus to St. Paul at his conversion, and of 
 the angel to Cornelius. The ecstatic phrase- 
 ology of the account of the announcement 
 of the birth of John the Baptist to Zacharias 
 is thus very prominent, and the place of 
 the vision in the Gospel scheme of ecstatic 
 visions is plain. 
 
 In the account of the vision of Mary in 
 which the birth of Jesus was announced the 
 characteristic phraseology is not nearly so 
 abundant, though it is sufficiently apparent. 
 Again, as to Zacharias, we have the appear- 
 ance of an angel. Like him she was greatly 
 ‘troubled,’ and like him afraid. To her as 
 to Zacharias the angel says ‘Fear not.’ 
 Mention of the ecstatic details does not 
 exhaust the similarity of the two accounts. 
 In outline and to a large extent in phrase- 
 ology the narratives are identical, and they 
 were evidently drawn up on the same model. 
 A comparison of the two in parallel columns 
 is most illuminating. 
 
ST. LUKE’S ACCOUNT 
 
 MARY 
 St. Luke i. 26-88. 
 
 26-7 Now in the sixth 
 month the angel Gabriel 
 was sent from God unto 
 a city of Galilee, named 
 Nazareth, to [a virgin] 
 
 a virgin betrothed to a man 
 whose name was Joseph, 
 of the house of David ; 
 
 and the virgin’s name was 
 Mary. 
 
 28 And he came in unto 
 her, and said, Hail, thou 
 that art highly favoured, 
 the Lord is with thee. 
 
 29 But she was greatly 
 troubled at the saying, and 
 cast in her mind what 
 manner of salutation this 
 might be. 
 
 30 And the angel said 
 unto her, 
 
 Fear not, Mary: for thou 
 hast found favour with God. 
 
 81 And behold, thou shalt 
 conceive in thy womb, and 
 bring forth a son, 
 and shalt call his name 
 Jesus. 
 
 32 He shall be great, and 
 shall be called the Son of 
 the Most High : 
 
 YW § 
 ZACHARIAS 
 St. Luke i. 5-23. 
 [19 And the angel 
 
 answering said unto him, 
 I am Gabriel, that stand in 
 the presence of God; and I 
 was sent to speak unto thee.] 
 
 5 There was in the days 
 of Herod, king of Judea, 
 a certain priest named 
 Zacharias, of the course 
 of Abijah: and he had a 
 wife of the daughters of 
 Aaron, 
 and her name was 
 Pethin. 
 
 11 And there appeared 
 unto him an angel of the 
 Lord standing on the right 
 side of the altar of incense. 
 
 12 And Zacharias was 
 troubled when he saw him, 
 and fear fell upon him. 
 
 Elisa- 
 
 18 But the angel said 
 unto him, 
 Fear not, Zacharias: because 
 thy supplication is heard, 
 and thy wife Elisabeth shall 
 bear thee a son, 
 
 and thou shalt call his 
 name John... . 
 
 15-16 For he shall be 
 great in the sight of the 
 Lord, and he shall drink no 
 wine nor strong drink ; 
 
128 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 MARY 
 
 and the Lord God shall 
 give unto him the throne 
 of his father David : 
 
 33 And he shall reign 
 over the house of Jacob for 
 ever; and of his kingdom 
 there shall be no end. 
 
 34 And Mary said unto 
 the angel, 
 How shall this be, seeing I 
 know not a man? 
 
 35 And the angel 
 
 answered and said unto her, 
 The Holy Ghost shall come 
 upon thee, and the power 
 of the Most High shall over- 
 shadow thee: wherefore 
 also that which is to be 
 born shall be called holy, 
 the Son of God. 
 #36 And behold, Elisabeth 
 thy kinswoman, she also 
 hath conceived a son in 
 her old age: and this is 
 the, sixth month with her 
 that was called barren. 
 
 37-8 For no word from 
 God shall be void of power. 
 
 ZACHARIAS 
 
 and he shall be filled with 
 the Holy Ghost, even from 
 his mother’s womb. And 
 many of the children of 
 Israel shall he turn unto the 
 Lord their God. 
 
 17 And he shall go before 
 his face in the spirit and 
 power of Elijah, to turn 
 the hearts of the fathers 
 to the children, and the 
 disobedient to walk in the 
 wisdom of the just ; to make 
 ready for the Lord a people 
 prepared for him. 
 
 18 And Zacharias 
 unto the angel, 
 Whereby shall I know this ? 
 for I am an old man, and 
 my wife well stricken in 
 years. 
 
 19 And the 
 answering said unto 
 I am Gabriel, that 
 in the presence of 
 and I was sent to speak 
 unto thee, and to bring 
 thee these good tidings. 
 
 said 
 
 angel 
 him, 
 
 stand 
 God ; 
 
 20 And behold, thou shalt 
 be silent and not able to 
 speak, until the day that 
 these things shall come to 
 pass, 
 
 because thou believedst not 
 my words, which shall be 
 
ST. LUKE’S ACCOUNT 129 
 
 MARY ZACHARIAS 
 
 And Mary said, Behold, fulfilled in their season... . 
 the handmaid of the Lord ; 
 
 be it unto me according 
 
 to thy word. 
 
 And the angel departed 23 And .. . he departed 
 from her. unto his house. 
 
 The comparison shows that practically 
 every detail in the account of the vision 
 of Mary is paralleled in that of the vision 
 of Zacharias. Whether in word or general 
 outline the agreement between two different 
 narratives could scarcely be closer. The 
 primary authority for the virgin birth is to 
 be found in vv. 34-35, and very frequently 
 we are told, by a large number of writers, that 
 these words—or sometimes only the latter 
 part of v. 34, ‘seeing I know not a man’— 
 are interpolatedt The parallel columns 
 make it quite plain that neither suggestion 
 is possible. The statement with regard to 
 the virgin birth stands or falls with the rest 
 of the story, and it is clearly an essential 
 element of Luke’s narrative. It is as 
 necessary for the parallelism, which we can- 
 not suppose was left for an interpolator to 
 complete, as any other of the details of the 
 narrative, while the phraseology, we note, 
 
 1 For lists of authorities see Moffatt, Introduction to 
 
 the Literature of the New Testament, pp. 268-9. 
 K 
 
130 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 is quite Lucan. The authority for the 
 story as recorded in the third gospel ulti- 
 mately must have been the mother of our 
 Lord, for much of the information no one 
 else could possibly have supplied. Much 
 of Luke’s material, however, seems to have 
 been derived from the apostle St. John,! 
 and among passages traceable to this source 
 the birth narratives would seem to be in- 
 cluded. In view of the statement in the 
 fourth gospel— from that hour the disciple 
 took her unto his own home’ (xix. 27)—no 
 more likely authority could well be imagined. 
 
 1 See ‘ The Origin of the Gospels,’ C.Q.R., July, 1922. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 ST. MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT 
 
 THE virgin birth is also recorded in Matthew 
 in a passage peculiar to that gospel. In 
 phraseology, however, there is considerable 
 agreement with what we find in Luke. It 
 will be useful to set out the whole narrative 
 as given in the first gospel, putting into 
 parallel columns the phrases of Luke which 
 correspond. 
 
 MATTHEW 1. 
 
 18 Now the birth of 
 
 Jesus Christ was on this 
 wise : 
 When his mother Mary 
 had been’ betrothed to 
 Joseph, before they came 
 together she was found with 
 child of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 LUKE i. and ii. 
 
 li Lig i here. 19¢ DOTY ae 
 a Saviour, which is Christ 
 the Lord. 
 
 i.27 Toa virgin betrothed 
 to a man whose name was 
 Joseph. 
 
 ii. 4-5 Joseph... with 
 Mary, who was betrothed 
 to him, being great with 
 child. 
 
 i. 31, 85 Thou shalt con- 
 ceive in thy womb. . 
 The Holy Ghost shall come 
 upon thee. 
 
132 
 
 MATTHEW i. 
 
 19 And Joseph her hus- 
 band, being a_ righteous 
 man, 
 
 and not willing to make her 
 a public example, 
 was minded to put her 
 away privily. 
 
 20 But when he thought 
 on these things, 
 
 behold, an angel of the 
 Lord appeared unto him 
 in a dream, 
 
 saying, Joseph, thou son 
 of David, 
 
 fear not 
 
 to take unto thee Mary 
 thy wife : 
 
 for that which is conceived 
 in her is of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 21 And she shall bring 
 forth a son ; 
 and thou shalt call his 
 name Jesus ; 
 
 for it is he that shall save 
 his people from their sins. 
 
 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 LUEE i. and ii. 
 
 i. 6 They were both 
 righteous before God. 
 ii. 25 This man _ was 
 righteous and devout. 
 [DEUTS Xx1V.51) 
 [MaATT. v. 82; xix. 9.] 
 
 ii. 19 But Mary kept all 
 these sayings, pondering 
 them in her heart. 
 
 i. 11 There appeared unto 
 him an angel of the Lord. 
 [MatTr. i. 20; ii. 12, 13, 19, 
 
 22; xxvii. 19.] 
 
 i. 27 Joseph, of the house 
 of David. 
 
 ii. 4 Joseph ... of the 
 house and family of David. 
 
 i. 138 Fear not, Zacharias. 
 
 i. 80 Fear not, Mary. 
 
 ii. 4-5 Joseph also went 
 up ...to enrol himself 
 with Mary, who was _ be- 
 trothed to him. 
 
 i. 31, 85 Thou shalt con- 
 ceive in thy womb... 
 The Holy Ghost shall come 
 upon thee .. . wherefore 
 also that which is to be born 
 shall be called holy. 
 
 i. 81 And behold, thou 
 shalt . . . bring forth a son. 
 
 i. 81 And behold, thou 
 
 . Shalt call his name 
 Jesus. 
 fFACTSIIV. 12 sp vest he 
 23-24, 38.] 
 
 xiii. 
 
ST. MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT 
 
 MATTHEW i. 
 
 22 Now all this is come 
 to pass, that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken 
 by the Lord through the 
 prophet, saying, 
 
 23 Behold, the virgin 
 shall be with child, and 
 shall bring forth a son, and 
 they shall call his name 
 Immanuel ; which is, being 
 interpreted, God with us. 
 
 24 And Joseph arose 
 from his sleep, and did as 
 the angel of the Lord com- 
 manded him, 
 
 and took unto him his wife ; 
 
 25 And knew her not till 
 she had brought forth a 
 son: 
 and he called his name 
 Jesus. 
 
 133 
 
 LUKE i, and ii. 
 [Matr. 1.22; ii. 15, 17, 28; 
 
 TVA kde Vile 17. see 
 LT 3 Xue $5.3) xxieee : 
 XXVii. 9.] 
 
 [Is. vii. 14.] 
 
 ii. 9, 15 And an angel of 
 the Lord stood by them. 
 . . - And it came to pass, 
 
 when the angels went away 
 
 from them into heaven, the 
 shepherds said one to an- 
 other, Let us now go. 
 and’ see this thing 47,. 
 which the Lord hath made 
 known unto us. 
 
 ii, 4-5 And Joseph also 
 went up ... to enrol him- 
 self with Mary, who was 
 betrothed to him. 
 
 ii. 7 And she _ brought 
 forth her first-born son. 
 
 ii. 21 And... his name 
 was called Jesus. 
 
 A study of the parallel columns makes 
 it plain that in ideas and phraseology the 
 narratives of Matthew and Luke have much 
 in common, and can scarcely be independent. 
 If we examine the Greek we find an even more 
 
134 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 striking similarity, for in various places we 
 see the words and phrases of Luke repeated 
 in Matthew with no alteration. 
 
 Matthew’s narrative, whatever its source, 
 leads up to the first of the ten special 
 prophecies which the evangelist quotes as 
 being fulfilled in the life of our Lord. The 
 peculiarity of these ten prophecies often 
 pointed out, is that the translation frequently 
 disagrees with what we find in the Septua- 
 gint, and apparently they are taken, not 
 directly from the scriptures, but from a 
 collection of Old Testament testimonies in- 
 tended to illustrate the life of our Lord, 
 which, being drawn up in Hebrew, or more 
 probably in Aramaic, was translated into 
 Greek apparently by the evangelist himself, 
 so far as he used it. One of the passages, 
 ‘that he should be called a Nazarene,’ has 
 no counterpart in the Old Testament unless, 
 as the appeal is to ‘ prophets,’ not to a 
 prophet, the reference is to the various 
 prophecies of the Branch (Aram. ndasura ; 
 Heb. néser; Is. xi, 13 Jer. xxiil45; 3 
 15; Zech. ii. 8, vi. 12). Another prophecy 
 illustrating the triumphant entry, is really 
 a combination of words from Isaiah (Ixu. 11) 
 and Zechariah (ix. 9). Also the prophecy 
 with regard to the thirty pieces of silver, 
 
ST. MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT = 135 
 
 which we are told is taken from Jeremiah, as 
 a matter of fact appears to be based chiefly on 
 Zechariah (xi. 12-13), though perhaps also on 
 Jeremiah xxxii. 6-15, with reminiscences of 
 Jeremiah xviii. 1-6, xix. 11). The evangelist 
 seems to be using a set of Old Testament 
 oracles which had come to him orally, not 
 in writing, the inaccuracies and conflation of 
 different texts being exactly such as we 
 should expect in the course of oral trans- 
 mission. Of the apostle Matthew Papias 
 tells us, according to Eusebius, ‘So then 
 Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew 
 language, and each one interpreted them as 
 he was able.’1 It seems not unreasonable 
 to identify this collection of Logia compiled 
 by the apostle with that used by the evan- 
 gelist in the gospel which bears Matthew’s 
 name. The prophecy of Micah (v. 2), that 
 Christ should be born at Bethlehem, which is 
 quoted by the chief priests and scribes to 
 Herod, evidently belongs to the same set, 
 the Greek differing widely from that of the 
 Septuagint. As it appears without the 
 introductory formula which is found before 
 each of the ten prophecies, it suggests that, 
 as in so many other cases in the gospel, the 
 emphasis on the ten words is due to the 
 1 Hist. Eccl. iii. 89; P.G. xx. col. 800. 
 
136 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 evangelist, and is to be explained as part 
 of the numerical scheme according to which 
 the book was written, threes, fives, sevens, 
 tens, and fourteens abounding. There seems 
 to be no reason to suppose that the evangelist 
 utilised all the testimonies contained in the 
 collection, but only such as served his 
 purpose. If, as seems plain, the narrative 
 which leads up to the prophecy of Isaiah 
 with regard to the virgin who should con- 
 ceive, is dependent on Luke, the writer 
 is evidently to be distinguished from the 
 compiler of the prophecies, in Hebrew or 
 Aramaic, which is exactly in accord with 
 what Papias says, the former in all 
 probability being the evangelist himself. 
 Apart from a tradition of the virgin birth 
 we can hardly imagine that the words of 
 Isaiah vil. 14 would ever have been quoted 
 as illustrating the life of Jesus. At any rate 
 the fact that the Hebrew word would be 
 more correctly translated ‘ young woman,’ 
 or “maiden,’ may be regarded as evidence 
 that it cannot have been the prophecy which 
 suggested the doctrine and story, as is some- 
 times declared, particularly as the earlier nar- 
 rative in Luke says nothing of the prophecy. 
 
 If we consider the ten prophecies we find 
 that five of them are inserted as proofs from 
 
ST. MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT = 1387 
 
 scripture of details recorded in Mark, and 
 the prophecy is added to the narrative of 
 the source without any introductory matter, 
 again suggesting that the incidents which 
 the testimonies were intended to illustrate 
 were supposed to be well known, and that 
 there was no accompanying narrative in the 
 source from which they were taken. What 
 is true of these five prophecies is probably 
 true of all the ten, and, if so, presumably 
 of all the extracts from the Old Testament 
 assembled in the evangelist’s source. All 
 the evidence is thus against the idea that 
 it was from this source, which apparently 
 in itself was a bare collection of texts with 
 no explanatory matter, that the evangelist 
 gained his primary knowledge of the events 
 they were regarded as illustrating. To a 
 person with no previous information of these 
 incidents indeed they would be for the most 
 part quite unintelligible. Yet it can scarcely 
 be denied that in several cases the prophecy 
 has modified the story. We read, for ex- 
 ample, of two animals, an ass and a colt, 
 in the Palm Sunday procession, suggested 
 clearly by the words of Zechariah (ix. 9), 
 though by a misunderstanding of the poetic 
 form, in which the ass is the colt. Similarly 
 in the account of the treachery of Judas we 
 
1388 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 read of ‘thirty pieces of silver’ where the 
 other synoptic gospels speak simply of 
 ‘money,’ the change again being evidently 
 due to the prophecy of Zechariah (xi. 13). 
 In the story of Judas’ repentance we are told 
 that he brought back the thirty pieces of 
 silver, and the chief priests and elders took 
 them, that it was they who bought the 
 field, and that the field was the potter’s 
 field, whereas Luke says that Judas himself 
 bought the field (Acts i. 18), and makes no 
 mention of the potter, the modifications 
 almost certainly being traceable to the words 
 of the prophet (or prophets). It is not 
 improbable that the writer of the first gospel 
 was acquainted with the tradition with regard 
 to Judas incorporated in the first chapter of 
 the Acts, but even so he must have had 
 other information, for the statement that 
 the field was ‘to bury strangers in,’ which 
 can hardly have been invented, is suggested 
 by nothing in Acts or Zechariah. The 
 probability would seem to be that in every 
 instance the evangelist had other knowledge 
 of the incidents illustrated than any which 
 could be derived from the prophecies them- 
 selves, and that in no case is it likely that 
 the nucleus of the story, apart from details, 
 is an invention on the basis of the prophecy. 
 On such a hypothesis it would have to be 
 
ST. MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT 189 
 
 explained why such imaginary stories are 
 so few. Presumably with the Hebrew or 
 Aramaic Logia there was transmitted a 
 certain amount of oral information, so far 
 as literary form is concerned not yet fixed, 
 explaining the applicability of the testi- 
 monies, and giving the main outline of the 
 incident illustrated. The view that our Lord 
 was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver was 
 surely something more than a supposition of 
 the evangelist on the basis of the prophecy 
 when he wrote his account of Judas’ bargain 
 with the chief priests (Matt. xxvi. 14-15), 
 and must already have become part of the 
 tradition, or one line of it. Similarly the 
 belief that Joseph had thoughts of divorcing 
 Mary on the ground of fornication must 
 have become a well-established element in 
 the evangelical tradition as known to him, 
 or his circle, before our Lord’s own words 
 could be modified so as to allow divorce, not 
 for adultery, but for fornication, prenuptial 
 sin,! by the addition of the excepting clauses, 
 ‘Every one that putteth away his wife 
 
 1 The Greek word means strictly fornication, but it is 
 frequently used of unchastity in general. It cannot be 
 limited to adultery, as is commonly supposed. The words 
 of the gospel must mean either that divorce is allowable 
 for fornication in the strict sense of prenuptial sin, or that 
 it is allowable for fornication in the general sense, that is, 
 for any form of impurity. 
 
140 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 (saving for the cause of fornication) maketh 
 her an adulteress,’ ‘Whosoever shall put 
 away his wife (except for fornication) and 
 shall marry another, committeth adultery ’ 
 (Matt: iv. 32, xix. 93..¢cf. “Luke” xvii 
 Mark x. 11). We cannot imagine that the 
 evangelist made_so great an alteration en- 
 tirely on his own responsibility. If such a 
 tradition existed, it must have been part of 
 that body of information, orally transmitted, 
 by which alone the collection of prophecies 
 was intelligible. If comparatively unim- 
 portant details of the story had their place 
 in this line of tradition, it confirms the view 
 that the doctrine of the virgin birth was 
 already generally accepted. 
 
 The truth about the manner of the 
 virgin’s conception was made known to 
 Joseph by an angel of the Lord who appeared 
 to him ‘in a dream’ (i. 20). The phrase is 
 found six times in the first gospel, but 
 nowhere else in the New Testament. Five 
 times it occurs in the narratives concerned 
 with our Lord’s birth and infancy, and once 
 in the story of Pilate’s wife. It is not un- 
 common in the Old Testament (Gen. xx. 
 3,6; xxxi. 10, 11, 24; Num. xii. 6; 1 Kings 
 iil. 5), and probably its use in Matthew is 
 thence derived. What exactly the evangelist 
 
ST. MATTHEW’S ACCOUNT 141 
 
 meant by ‘in a dream’ is not very plain, 
 but it is evidently to be distinguished from 
 in an ecstasy ’ of Luke (Acts xi. 5, xxii. 17). 
 Properly perhaps the phrase denotes a night 
 vision, such as we hear of in connexion with 
 St. Paul (Acts xvi. 9, xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 
 23), distinct from an ecstasy, yet having much 
 in common. As used by the evangelist, 
 however, the words, sometimes at any rate, 
 seem little more than a formula, and are 
 probably not to be taken literally. Three 
 times a longer phrase is used (1. 20, 11. 13, 19; 
 cf. Gen. xxxi. 11). That there was a com- 
 munication from heaven is clearly intended 
 by the evangelist, but in two cases at least 
 (ii. 12, 22) it probably implies no more than 
 that those concerned were moved by God 
 to take a certain course of action, as perhaps 
 in the case of Philip (Acts vii. 26), and 
 according to the scribes of St. Paul (Acts 
 xxii. 9). On these two occasions no details 
 of the message are given. On two others 
 (ii. 13, 20) the words ascribed to the angel 
 of the Lord seem to follow a formula derived 
 apparently from the words of the angel of 
 God to Hagar (Gen. xxi. 18). On the 
 occasion when the message of the angel is 
 given at length (i. 20-21) the phraseology, 
 as we have noticed, is almost entirely Lucan. 
 
142 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 Though the substance of the birth stories 
 is apparently part of the evangelical tradition 
 as current in the evangelist’s circle, yet 
 much of the detail and the literary form 
 would appear to be his own. The incident 
 of the dream of Pilate’s wife, in which 
 likewise the phrase occurs, has apparently 
 the same literary origin, but, as this is quite 
 independent of any Old Testament prophecy, 
 we have further evidence that the narratives 
 introducing the prophecies do not belong to 
 the Logia source, but in their present form 
 are the work of the evangelist ; nor in this 
 case can it possibly be argued that the story 
 is an invention on the basis of an Old 
 Testament text. If our argument is correct, 
 the accounts of our Lord’s birth and infancy 
 given in the first gospel afford evidence of 
 several distinct, if not entirely independent, 
 traditions of the virgin birth—that recorded 
 by St. Luke, that to which the collection of 
 prophecies bears witness, and that which 
 made the prophecies intelligible as illus- 
 trating the life of Jesus. The very existence 
 of the stories in his gospel is evidence of the 
 currency of the doctrine in the circle in 
 which the evangelist moved, and he gives 
 it the seal of his own authority. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE FAMILY AT NAZARETH 
 
 THE stories of our Lord’s birth and infancy 
 given in the first gospel are written from 
 the point of view of Joseph, whereas those of 
 the third gospel are written from the point 
 of view of Mary. Any source then from 
 which the first evangelist could have gained 
 his information must have been somehow con- 
 nected with Joseph. Certainty may be im- 
 possible, but it will be useful to enquire 
 into the possible origin of the tradition which 
 forms the basis of his narrative, and so doing 
 we shall find still further evidence for the 
 truth of the virgin birth, or at any rate that 
 it was the ordinary Christian belief in quite 
 early days. According to Luke, in_ the 
 synagogue of Nazareth the question of the 
 people was, * Is not this Joseph’s son ?’ (iv. 22). 
 According to Mark it was, ‘Is not this the 
 carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of 
 James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon ? 
 
144 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 and are not his sisters here with us ?’ (vi. 8). 
 According to Matthew, it was, ‘Is not this 
 the carpenter’s son? is not his mother 
 called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and 
 Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And his 
 sisters, are they not all with us?’ (xii. 55- 
 56). According to John, a similar question 
 was asked in the synagogue at Capernaum, 
 ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose 
 father and mother we know?’ (vi. 42). 
 Mark, who gives no story of the virgin birth, 
 is the only evangelist who does not speak 
 of Jesus as the son of Joseph. ‘Son of 
 Joseph ’ would surely be much more natural 
 than ‘son of Mary’ on the lips of the people 
 of Nazareth, or indeed of anyone who knew 
 the family, for the mystery of His birth 
 would hardly be public knowledge. Nor is 
 it hkely that the question was intended to 
 give expression to a charge sometimes made 
 against Him in later days, and perhaps 
 alluded to in the statement of the Jews 
 according to John, ‘We were not born of 
 fornication ’ (vil. 41), that He was a bastard. 
 The whole form of the question, with its 
 reference to brothers and sisters, is against 
 this, as indeed the whole context, and had it 
 been intended it would surely not have 
 survived in Mark’s account only. The fact 
 
THE FAMILY AT NAZARETH 145 
 
 that Luke and Matthew agree against Mark 
 in describing Jesus as the son of Joseph 
 not only supports our contention that Mark 
 cannot be the primary record, but suggests 
 that the change in Mark has been made on 
 doctrinal grounds, and is intended to safe- 
 guard the truth about the virgin birth, to 
 which otherwise the second gospel makes 
 no reference. If so, Mark, as well as Luke 
 and Matthew, is a witness to the virgin 
 birth. Mark records a different tradition 
 from that in Luke with regard to the visit 
 to Nazareth, yet not improbably we may 
 rely on his version of the question of the 
 people of Nazareth as containing at any rate 
 the substance of what was said, ‘ Is not this 
 the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother 
 of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? 
 and are not his sisters here with us ?’ (vi. 3). 
 Mark evidently intended to augment the 
 narrative of Luke at this point, but even 
 if his addition in this connexion were merely 
 interpretative and corresponded to nothing 
 actually said on the occasion, his words 
 must surely be due to an authentic tradition 
 with regard to the household at Nazareth. 
 We seem thus to have good evidence that in 
 popular estimation Jesus was regarded as 
 the Son of Joseph and Mary, and Brother of 
 
 L 
 
146 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon, 
 and several sisters. Of one of the Lord’s 
 brethren we hear a great deal in the early 
 history of the church, because of the 
 prominent position he held among the 
 Christians at Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 18, 
 xxl. 18; Gal. 1. 19, ii. 9, 12), and in some 
 sense, which we must try to determine, he 
 was evidently regarded as an apostle (1 Cor. 
 XV ns Gralla LO) 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST 
 
 BEFORE we can come to any decision with 
 regard to the exact nature and significance 
 of the apostleship of James it will be 
 necessary to consider the exact meaning of 
 the word apostle. Its primary and etymo- 
 logical meaning is a messenger, or legate 
 PAOUnexI: 16s) 2aCory vill) 25-5, bolle i250. 
 Heb. iii. 1). ‘The very chiefest apostles,’ 
 as St. Paul calls them (2 Cor. x1. 5, xu. 11), 
 were evidently the twelve who had been 
 called (Mark 1. 16-20; Luke v. 27), and 
 appointed by Jesus (Luke vi. 13-16), and, 
 having seen Him after He had risen, were 
 able to be witnesses of His resurrection. 
 St. Paul’s call to be the ‘apostle of the 
 Gentiles’ (Rom. xi. 13) was at His con- 
 version (Acts ix. 6, 15; xxvi. 16-17), but his 
 commission, or separation, as an apostle 
 (Rom. i. 1) would appear to have been when 
 with Barnabas he was sent forth by the 
 
148 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 prophets from Antioch. For both him and 
 Barnabas this was a solemn commissioning 
 of those whom God had called (Acts xiii. 2), 
 and the beginning of their apostolate, which 
 later was ratified when James, Cephas, and 
 John gave them the right hand of fellowship 
 that they should: go to the Gentiles (Gal. 11. 9). 
 Before this commissioning at Antioch we 
 read of no other apostles but the twelve, 
 but immediately afterwards Paul and Barna- 
 bas are called apostles (Acts xiv. 4, 14). It 
 is perhaps of such apostleship, charismatic 
 in origin, that St. Paul speaks to the Corin- 
 thians (1 Cor. xii. 28-29; cf. Eph. i. 20, 
 ili. 5). St. Paul describes himself as ‘ called 
 to be an apostle’ (Rom. 1. 1; 1 Cor. 198R 
 but he does not claim for his commission 
 more than that it was ‘ through the will of 
 God” (1 Cor. 1.1; 2 Cor. 1. 1; Eph) aa 
 Col. 1. 1; 2 Tim. 1. 1), ° according to stim 
 commandment of God our Saviour’ (1 Tim. 
 1.1). Viewed in connexion with these other 
 statements even the stronger claim in the 
 epistle to the Galatians (1. 1), that he was an 
 apostle ‘not from men, neither through 
 man, but through Jesus Christ, and God 
 the Father,’ cannot be interpreted as meaning 
 more than his call did not have its origin 
 in man, and that his commission and 
 
THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST 149 
 
 separation for the work were not by the will 
 and commandment of men. In a common 
 apostleship with himself St. Paul seems to 
 include Silvanus (1 Thes. 1. 6) and perhaps 
 Apollos (1 Cor. iv. 9). Of the call of these 
 we are told nothing, but St. Paul would 
 probably have regarded Silvanus’ and 
 Apollos as apostles * from men,’ or ° through 
 man.’ Of a commission of Silvanus we read 
 in connexion with the council of Jerusalem 
 (Acts xv. 25, 27, 33), but not of Apollos on 
 any occasion. Andronicus and Junias, pre- 
 sumably Jews of Jerusalem or the neighbour- 
 hood, also seem to be accounted apostles 
 (Rom. xvi. 7), but of neither their call nor 
 commission are we told anything. We read 
 also of false apostles, * fashioning themselves 
 muo. apostles of) Christ * 4(2).Cor. )xi...13), 
 ‘which call themselves apostles, and they 
 are not’ (Rev. ii. 2). In his own case St. 
 Paul lays emphasis on the fact that he had 
 seen the risen Lord. He says, ‘Am I not 
 an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our 
 Lord ?’ (1 Cor. 1x. 1). ° Then he appeared 
 to James ; then to all the apostles ; and last 
 of all, as unto one born out of due time, 
 he appeared to me also. For I am the least 
 of the apostles, that am not meet to be 
 called an apostle, because I persecuted the 
 
150 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 church of God’ (1 Cor. xv. 7-9). But 
 though to have seen Jesus after He had risen 
 was necessary for one who like Matthias 
 was to be joined with the eleven as a witness 
 of the resurrection (Acts 1. 21-22), and was 
 therefore important for St. Paul who claimed 
 equality with °“the very chiefest apostles,’ 
 it was hardly necessary for ordinary apostle- 
 ship. Whatever their pretensions we have 
 no evidence that the false apostles at either 
 Corinth or Ephesus made this claim, and it is 
 improbable. The proof of his apostleship 
 St. Paul finds, not in the fact that he had 
 seen the Lord, though he counts this a 
 very high privilege, but in the manifest 
 effects of his work (1 Cor. 1x. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 
 5-6; xll. 12; Gal. 11. 8). We are not told 
 that our Lord Himself commissioned other 
 apostles beside the twelve, and certainly to 
 have seen the risen Lord apart from a com- 
 mission was not regarded as_ conferring 
 apostleship, or there would have been no 
 need to ordain Matthias, and there would 
 have been no point in the name ‘ apostle,’ 
 so that when St. Paul tells us that Jesus was 
 seen by ‘all the apostles’ (1 Cor. xv. 7) he 
 can hardly be referring to anyone not of the 
 twelve, or to those who at some later time 
 had been commissioned as apostles. When 
 
THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST 151 
 
 therefore we read ‘Then he appeared to 
 James; then to all the apostles’ (1 Cor. xv. 
 7), the presumption is that James was an 
 apostle in the same sense as the rest. Other 
 references to James seem to support this 
 conclusion. When the apostles and elders 
 came together at Jerusalem to consider the 
 question of the circumcision of the Gentiles, 
 James appears to have been president, and 
 to have made the decision, * My judgement 
 is’ (Acts xv. 19). It is difficult to suppose 
 that one who was an apostle in only a 
 secondary sense could have so acted in the 
 presence of Peter. Again, St. Paul says, 
 *I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, 
 and tarried with him fifteen days. But 
 other of the apostles saw I none, save James 
 the Lord’s brother’ (Gal. 1. 18-19; ef. 17). 
 The natural interpretation of this is not only 
 that James was an apostle, but that his 
 apostleship was of exactly the same type 
 as Peter’s. Once more St. Paul says, * James 
 and Cephas and John, they who were re- 
 puted to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas 
 the right hands of fellowship, that we should 
 go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the 
 circumcision ’ (Gal. 11. 9). It would be very 
 extraordinary if the first name were that 
 of the one who was only an apostle in a 
 
152 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 secondary sense, two of ‘the very chiefest 
 apostles ’ (2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11) giving place, 
 even though he held high position in the 
 church at Jerusalem (Acts xil. 17, xxi. 18), 
 particularly as it was not primarily a 
 Jerusalem question. It is much more natural 
 to suppose that he was one of the twelve. 
 It might perhaps be possible to explain 
 away any one of these four passages which 
 seem to reckon James among the twelve, if 
 it stood alone, but it is much more difficult 
 to resist their combined testimony, and to 
 attempt it is rather like special pleading. 
 
 Among the twelve according to each of 
 the four lists there were two bearing the 
 name of James, James who was ‘ the son of 
 Zebedee,’ though not so called in Luke’s 
 lists, and ‘James the son of Alpheus,’ so 
 called in each of the lists (Luke vi. 15, 
 Mark i. 18, Matt. x. 8, Acts i. 13). The 
 son of Zebedee was martyred by Herod at 
 an early date (Acts xii. 2), so that if James 
 the Lord’s brother was one of the twelve he 
 must be identified with James the son of 
 Alpheus. But how could a son of Alpheus 
 be regarded as a brother of Jesus ? 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 
 
 AccorpInG to Luke at the sepulchre on 
 Easter morning were ° Mary Magdalene, and 
 Joanna, and Mary the mother of James’ 
 (xxiv. 10). James, who was the son of this 
 Mary, was evidently a person presumed to 
 be well known to Luke’s readers, either as 
 holding some prominent position in the 
 church, or as having been already mentioned 
 in the gospel. In the former case we at 
 once think of James the Lord’s brother, 
 who at the period when Luke wrote would 
 be the one person naturally understood by 
 ‘James.’ In the latter the only possible 
 person would be James the son of Alpheeus 
 —the same person, if our contention be 
 correct— for James the son of Zebedee had 
 been martyred, and James the father of 
 Judas (vi. 16) is merely a name. According 
 to Mark among the women standing by the 
 cross of Jesus were “Mary Magdalene, and 
 
154 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN] BIRTH 
 
 Mary the mother of James the little and of 
 Joses ’ (xv. 40), at the tomb on Good Friday 
 evening ‘Mary Magdalene, and Mary the 
 mother of Joses’ (xv. 47), and on Easter 
 morning ‘Mary Magdalene, and Mary the 
 mother of James, and Salome’ (xvi. 1). The 
 second Mary is .clearly the same on each 
 occasion, and must be the same person as 
 ‘Mary the mother of James’ of Luke (xxiv. 
 10). Mark’s additions to the narrative are 
 plainly explanatory and somewhat artificial, 
 and would be pointless unless James and 
 Joses were well-known characters, for the 
 mother is to be distinguished by her sons. 
 The only two brethren James and _ Joses 
 otherwise known either in the gospel story, 
 or indeed in the New Testament, are those 
 called the brethren of Jesus. The natural 
 interpretation of Mark’s words is that he 
 is referring to these, whom he had already 
 mentioned, and not to two other brothers of 
 the same names otherwise unknown, and 
 that the three variants in the description 
 of Mary are due to the influence of the 
 tradition of Mark vi. 3 modifying the simpler 
 description of Luke (xxiv. 10). Though not 
 impossible the existence of two such pairs 
 of brothers, not only bearing the same names, 
 but with these names in exactly the same 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 155 
 
 sequence, would certainly be rather extra- 
 ordinary, while if they really existed, that 
 the evangelist should take no pains to dis- 
 tinguish them, though mentioning one or 
 other of the second pair on several occasions 
 seems wellnigh incredible. But if James and 
 Joses the sons of Mary are to be identified 
 with the Lord’s brethren, according to our 
 argument James would be James the son 
 of Alpheus, the apostle, the second James 
 of the apostolic band. Thus we see a 
 special reason why this James should be 
 called ‘the little,’ to distinguish him from 
 the other apostle of the same name, James 
 the son of Zebedee. 
 
 According to Luke then the second Mary 
 would seem to be the mother of James the 
 Lord’s brother, or of James the son of 
 Alpheus, if our argument is correct the 
 same person, and according to Mark the 
 mother of James and Joses the Lord’s 
 brethren. According to John, however, 
 there were standing by the cross of Jesus 
 ‘his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary 
 the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene ’ 
 (xix. 25). The most natural interpretation 
 of these words in accordance with gram- 
 matical principles is that three persons only 
 are intended, and that ‘ his mother’s sister ’ 
 
156 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 is ‘Mary the wife of Clopas.’ This would 
 agree with the way in which the conjunction 
 ‘and’ is used elsewhere in the gospel, as 
 for example ‘ Martha, and her sister, and 
 Lazarus ’ (xi. 5), and in the appendix ° Simon 
 Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and 
 Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the 
 sons of Zebedee, and two other of his 
 disciples’ (xxi. 2). It is true that in the 
 list of the apostles given in Matthew the 
 conjunction ‘and’ is used only in the 
 middle of each pair of names, and likewise 
 to some extent in the list given in Acts, 
 but in these cases there is no ambiguity, 
 each person being mentioned by his proper 
 name, and not merely by a description as 
 with the first pair of women in John, if four 
 were intended. That in a list of four 
 persons connected by ‘and’ in the middle 
 of each pair two should be referred to by 
 descriptions, and two by their names is in 
 itself improbable. It is much more likely 
 that only three women are mentioned. 
 Probably also the wife of Clopas is ‘the other 
 Mary,’ the mother of James. Otherwise of 
 the many women at the cross of Jesus four 
 of the six mentioned by name would be 
 named Mary, Mary our Lord’s mother, Mary 
 the wife of Clopas, Mary Magdalene and Mary 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 157 
 
 the mother of James and Joses, not of course 
 an impossibility, but certainly a very re- 
 markable coincidence. That three should 
 have been named Mary would be much less 
 extraordinary, and all three being mentioned 
 together by John there can be no possibility 
 of reducing the number by any other process 
 of identification. That there were only three 
 women named Mary at the cross is also 
 suggested by other considerations than those 
 of probability. Clopas and Alphzeus may 
 not unreasonably be regarded as two forms 
 of the same name, as in later days Clovis 
 and Aloysius, or at any rate as equivalent 
 names like Jesus and Jason (Col. iv. 11; 
 Rom. xvi. 21). The strongest and indeed 
 practically the only really cogent argument 
 against their identification is the fact that 
 in the Syriac versions of the gospels the 
 identity has not been recognised. It is true 
 that in some cases the Peshito restores the 
 original form of certain Aramaic names 
 which in the Greek of the gospels had been 
 grecised, as Zabdai for Zebedaios, but this 
 is not always the case, for not only do we 
 find Juchanon for Johannes but also Jochana 
 
 1 Mill, The Accounts of our Lord’s Brethren, p. 286 ; see 
 Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, i. 74-5; Encyclopedia 
 Biblica, col. 849. 
 
158 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 for Jochanan, where the influence of the 
 Greek is still apparent.t| Indeed, when we 
 remember the lapse of time and the change 
 of conditions between the writing of the 
 gospels and the date of the Syriac versions, 
 it would be very astonishing if the identity 
 of the original of Clopas and Alpheeus had 
 been recognised, and, even if recognised, 
 very improbable that the same form of the 
 name would be used to translate both. We 
 remember, too, how frequently when a 
 document is translated from one language 
 to another the equivalent proper name, 
 however well known, is not used, but a 
 transliteration of the name as it appears in 
 the document being translated, as we note 
 in the case of Old Testament names appearing 
 in the New Testament in the authorised 
 English version, where we find still the 
 Greek form of the name as Elias, Esaias, 
 Jeremias, Noe, Sodoma, etec., or in the case 
 of Greek names Timotheus, Marcus, Lucas, 
 etc., and in the Book of Common Prayer 
 in the kalendar on May 1 Jacob for James, 
 a literal translation from the Latin. In 
 view of the wide liberty to be found in the 
 New Testament in putting Aramaic names 
 into a Greek form, some appearing in more 
 
 1 Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 261. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 159 
 
 than one, and indeed the general freedom 
 in such matters in other languages, the 
 objections raised to the identity of Clopas 
 and Alphzeus seem largely to vanish. There 
 need be httle hesitation therefore in seeing 
 in Mary the wife of Clopas, who was the 
 sister of the mother of Jesus, the wife of 
 Alpheus who was the father of James, the 
 second apostle of the name, whom we have 
 identified with James the little and James 
 the Lord’s brother, the lLord’s brethren 
 being thus the sons of His mother’s sister. 
 That Mary the wife of Clopas was the 
 sister of the mother of Jesus in the sense 
 that both were children of the same parents, 
 or parent, seems very improbable, for two 
 sisters by blood would surely not both be 
 named Mary. By sister we should probably 
 understand sister-in-law, the sister of Joseph, 
 or the wife of her brother, who would thus 
 be Clopas or Alpheus. If we accept the 
 testimony of Hegesippus and combine it 
 with that of the fourth gospel, it would 
 appear to be the latter. Hegesippus clearly 
 knew nothing of the family of our Lord at 
 first hand, and some of his statements as, 
 for example, his description of the martyr- 
 dom of St. James, drawn perhaps from the 
 apocryphal ‘Ascents of James,’ are hardly 
 
160 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 trustworthy, but his very precise description 
 of the exact relationship of Simeon, the 
 successor of James at Jerusalem, to Jesus, 
 given in two places in almost identical 
 words, would appear to be drawn from a 
 more reliable source. We read according 
 to the most natural translation, ‘And after 
 James the Just had been martyred, as was 
 the Lord also for the same cause, again one 
 sprung from His uncle, Simeon the son of 
 ‘Clopas, was made bishop, whom all put 
 forward, being the second who was cousin 
 of the Lord.’+ In another place likewise 
 Hegesippus describes him as ‘one sprung 
 from the uncle of the Lord, the afore- 
 mentioned Simeon the son of Clopas’? so 
 that the reference is clearly to the uncle 
 of our Lord, not to the uncle of James. 
 Kusebius in accordance with current opinion 
 on the matter understands it as meaning 
 that Clopas was the brother of Joseph,’ 
 and Lightfoot and Mayor,  followmg 
 apparently Eusebius’s gloss, rather curiously 
 translate ‘ paternal uncle,’* but the Greek 
 word is used by quite good authorities, as 
 
 1 Kusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 22; P.G. xx. col. 880. 
 
 2 Ibid., iii. 82 ; P.G. xx. col. 284. 
 
 8 Ibid., ii. 1, iii. 11; P.G. xx. col. 188, 245-8. 
 
 4 Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 268; Mayor, St. James, 
 p. Viil. 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 161 
 
 the orator Iszus: for mother’s brother, as 
 well as for father’s brother. Hegesippus’ 
 statement may seem a circuitous way of 
 saying that Simeon was the brother of 
 James, but his whole point is to give not 
 Simeon’s relationship to James but to our 
 Lord, that for the second time a son of the 
 Lord’s uncle Clopas was chosen. That the 
 word we have translated ‘ again ’—the usual 
 translation—should be rendered ‘ next,’ and 
 that ‘the second,’ which would seem 
 naturally to carry on the idea of ‘ again,’ 
 should be understood as a reference to the 
 fact that Simeon was the second bishop in 
 the succession at Jerusalem is surely a very 
 forced rendering of the Greek, even though 
 Kusebius, who regarded James as the son 
 of Joseph, perhaps so understood it? If 
 Mary the wife of Clopas was the sister of 
 Mary the mother of Jesus, as John says, it 
 might well mean that ‘ the other Mary ’ was 
 the wife of the Virgin’s brother, but hardly 
 that they were the wives of two brothers. 
 We conclude then that in all probability 
 Clopas was the brother of Mary, not of 
 Joseph, and that Simeon our Lord’s cousin 
 
 1 De Pyrrhi Hereditate, 51; Mueller, Oratorum Atiicorum, 
 i. 256. 
 2 Hist. Eccl., iii. 22, 32; P.G. xx. col. 256, 281. 
 M 
 
162 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 was the son of Clopas and ‘ Mary the mother 
 of James the little and of Joses,’ as also 
 of Judas. On the death of Joseph, even 
 though after the birth of Jesus the ancient 
 rule that a childless widow should return 
 to her father’s house would no longer apply; 
 it would be very natural that Mary should 
 live with her brother Clopas or Alpheeus. 
 That cousins living together and brought 
 up as members of the same household should 
 in popular language be called brothers is 
 very natural, and as the Greek word for 
 cousin is comparatively rare, appearing only 
 once in the New Testament, it is not easy 
 to see what else they could be called. The 
 word brethren has a wide range of meaning 
 in the New Testament. It is used of those 
 who are literally brethren, as children of 
 the same parents, or parent, of fellow Jews, 
 fellow Christians, and fellow men, of relatives 
 and of those who are relatives only in a 
 spiritual sense. St. Paul calls both Titus 
 and Epaphroditus ‘my brother’ (2 Cor. ii. 
 13; Phil. i. 25), because of the specially 
 intimate relationship in which each stood 
 to him. In the genealogy found in the first 
 gospel we read, ‘And Josiah begat Jechoniah 
 and his brethren, at the time of the carrying 
 away to Babylon’ (i. 11). This is pre- 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 1638 
 
 sumably based on a passage in the first book 
 of the Chronicles. ‘ And the sons of Josiah ; 
 the first born Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, 
 the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. 
 And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his 
 son, Zedekiah his son. And the sons of 
 HeConinney the CApDUVes le .n i; (les) LO-17 5 
 Jeconiah is the grandson, not the son, of 
 Josiah, and Zedekiah is not the brother of 
 Jeconiah, but, like Johanan and Shallum, 
 his uncle. Matthew thus speaks of uncle 
 and nephew as brethren, following a not 
 uncommon usage of the Old Testament 
 berciiee Sian KEN > XXINae lo.) Cli LO 
 Judg. ix. 3, cf. 1), where indeed brethren 
 is used of relatives generally, or members of 
 the same household (Gen. xxxi. 23, 32, 37), 
 dwelling together or enjoying the same 
 inheritance (Ps. exxxiil. 1, Deut. xxv. 5-10, 
 cf. Ruth iv. 1-10), and, what is of special 
 importance for our argument, of cousins 
 (Bevan e dae 2 Sam exx, 9 chy XVil. 25) 
 1 Chron. xxii. 21-22). That Jesus dwelt 
 together with those called His brethren, as 
 a member of the same household, seems plain 
 from the fourth gospel. ‘He went down to 
 Capernaum, he, and his mother, and _ his 
 brethren, and his disciples: and there they 
 abode not many days’ (ii. 12). As the 
 
164 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 Old Testament usage with regard to the 
 word brethren is so wide, and this is found 
 also at any rate in the first gospel, where 
 uncle and nephew are called brethren, from 
 the point of view of the meaning of the word 
 there would seem to be no insuperable 
 difficulty in using it to describe cousins 
 living together, and in all probability brought 
 up together, as members of the same family, 
 which after the death of Joseph appears to 
 have been the case with Jesus and James, 
 Joses, Judas and Simon. 
 
 On each of the occasions on which it 
 is recorded in the gospels that His brethren 
 came to Jesus, both when they urged Him 
 to go and manifest Himself in Judea 
 (John vil. 8), and when they said He was 
 beside Himself, and wished to take hold 
 on Him (Mark i. 21, cf. 31), there seems 
 to be a certain assumption of authority 
 over Him, the explanation of which may 
 perhaps be that they, or some of them, 
 were older than Jesus, and had _ been 
 accustomed to expect a certain amount of 
 deference at home on that account. On the 
 assumption that the brethren were actually 
 the sons of Mary, or even as is sometimes 
 supposed, the sons of Joseph by a former 
 wife, as there were at least four of them 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 165 
 
 besides several sisters, it is inexplicable that 
 Jesus on the cross should have entrusted His 
 mother to the care of the beloved disciple, 
 unless we regard the incident, being recorded 
 only in the fourth gospel, as unhistorical, 
 which would be contrary to the estimate 
 we have formed of the value of this gospel 
 in the course of our argument. If, however, 
 the brethren and sisters were really His 
 cousins, even though older in years, we have 
 a quite adequate explanation, in view of the 
 intimate friendship which existed between 
 Jesus and the beloved disciple, even though 
 they were her nephews and nieces. 
 
 It is of course easy to urge, as is frequently 
 done, that words mean what they say, and 
 that the brethren must have been the sons 
 of Mary and Joseph. This hypothesis, how- 
 ever, only seems to create new difficulties, 
 of which the incident at the cross is only 
 one, even if we see nothing extraordinary 
 in the existence of two pairs of brothers, 
 James and Joses. The conclusion to which 
 we have been led by an unbiased examina- 
 tion of the facts has the advantage of fitting 
 them all into one consistent scheme. 
 
 It is also sometimes objected that the 
 brethren of the Lord are always mentioned 
 with His mother, and not with ‘the other 
 
166 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 Mary,’ as we should expect if the latter 
 were their mother. A little thought, how- 
 ever, suggests that it is by no means certain 
 that she was absent on these occasions, even 
 though, as she plays no distinctive part in 
 the gospel story, her name is not mentioned. 
 We read of her first in the accounts of the 
 crucifixion and resurrection, but we are told 
 that then she had already companied with 
 Jesus some time, having with other women 
 ministered to Him as He went from place 
 to place in Galilee (Mark xv. 40-41, cf. Luke 
 vill. 1-3), and followed Him thence to 
 Jerusalem (Luke xxii. 49, 55, xxiv. 6, 10; 
 Mark xv. 40-41). When Jesus, His mother, 
 His brethren, and His disciples went down 
 to Capernaum (John i. 12) it is very im- 
 probable that * the other Mary ’ was not one 
 of them, if we are right in her identity, 
 though there was no need to mention it. 
 Probably His sisters also were present. 
 ‘Mary the mother of James’ was already 
 with Jesus, it would seem according to Luke 
 (vill. 1-3, xxi. 55, xxiv. 10), when His 
 mother and brethren came unto Him (vill. 
 19), and so she would obviously not be 
 mentioned as with the brethren, though it 
 is possible that His sisters may have come 
 with them, as Mark speaks generally of 
 
THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD 167 
 
 ‘his friends’ (iii. 21), and Jesus mentions 
 His sister as well as His brother and mother 
 in His reply, ‘ Whosoever shall do the will 
 of God, the same is my brother, and sister, 
 and mother’ (Mark ii. 35). These words, 
 if said in her presence, give special point 
 to the injunction to this Mary with Mary 
 Magdalene on Easter morning. ‘Go tell 
 my brethren that they depart into Galilee ’ 
 (Matt. xxvill. 10). We may certainly con- 
 clude that ‘the other Mary’ was among 
 those in the upper room after the ascension, 
 when we are told the apostles continued 
 steadfastly in prayer * with the women, and 
 Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his 
 brethren’ (Acts 1. 14). The argument that 
 the Lord’s brethren are always mentioned with 
 His mother, and not with the other Mary, 
 seems thus entirely to fall to the ground, 
 and our contention remains untouched. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 BRETHREN WHO WERE APOSTLES 
 
 On each occasion when they are mentioned 
 the Lord’s brethren seem to be distinguished 
 from the apostles, yet this need not mean 
 that none of them was an apostle, but only 
 that as a body the brethren were distinct 
 from the apostolic band. What, however, 
 is regarded by some as an _ insuperable 
 objection to even one of them, as James, 
 being among the twelve is to be found in the 
 statement of the fourth gospel, ‘ Even his 
 brethren did not believe on him’ (vii. 5), 
 following immediately after our Lord’s ques- 
 tion, ‘Did not I choose you the twelve?’ 
 (vi. 70), which shows that the apostles were 
 already appointed. Not only are the brethen 
 distinct from the twelve, who still believed 
 in spite of Jesus’ hard sayings (vi. 67-68), 
 but the attitudes of the two groups to Him 
 seem quite contradictory. John’s testimony 
 also seems supported by that of Mark. 
 Immediately after appointing the twelve 
 
BRETHREN WHO WERE APOSTLES 169 
 
 apostles we are told Jesus went into a house, 
 the multitude coming together again, and 
 ‘when his friends heard it, they went out 
 to lay hold on him: for they said, He is 
 beside himself’ (Mark i. 21). Among those 
 called ‘ his friends? who thought Him mad 
 we need not include His mother, though she 
 came with them, but we must include His 
 brethren, whoever else there may have been, 
 sisters or others. Of this disbelief of His 
 own family Jesus Himself seems to have 
 spoken at Nazareth, ‘A prophet is not 
 without honour, save in his own country, 
 and among his own kin, and in his own house ’ 
 (Mark vi. 4), and as this, according to Luke, 
 the more authentic record, if our contention 
 be correct, was at the very beginning of His 
 ministry, their unbelief must have been 
 of some standing. Is it necessary, however, 
 to understand the words of either of the 
 evangelists as meaning that not one of the 
 four brethren mentioned, James, Joses, Judas, 
 and Simon, believed on Him? An investiga- 
 tion of the methods of conveying informa- 
 tion adopted by the writers of the gospels 
 will be useful. John says, ‘After these 
 things came Jesus and his disciples into the 
 land of Judza; and there he tarried with 
 them, and baptised’ (i. 22). This would 
 
170 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 appear to be a plain enough statement 
 that it was Jesus, not His disciples, Who 
 baptised, and it is confirmed by the words 
 recorded as spoken by the Baptist’s disciples 
 to their master, ‘ Rabbi, he that was with 
 thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou hast 
 borne witness, behold, the same baptiseth, 
 and all men come to him’ (ili. 26). The 
 statement is absolute, with no qualification. 
 A third time the evangelist says the same 
 thing, and then, as an afterthought, it seems 
 to have occurred to him that his thrice- 
 made statement was not literally true, ‘ When 
 therefore the Lord knew how that the 
 Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making 
 and baptising more disciples than John 
 (although Jesus himself baptised not, but 
 his disciples) he left Judea’ (iv. 1-3). It 
 is clear that however absolute a statement 
 of the evangelist may seem it is not 
 necessarily to be taken as unconditionally 
 true, so that when he says, ‘Even his brethren 
 did not believe on him’ (vii. 5) it need not 
 be understood as implying that not a single 
 one of them believed, though it was true 
 of the brethren as a body. So too Mark 
 says, “Now the chief priests and the whole 
 council sought witness against Jesus to put 
 him to death. . . . And they all condemned 
 him to be worthy of death’ (xiv. 55, 64). 
 
BRETHREN WHO WERE APOSTLES 171 
 
 If the evangelist had wished to imply that 
 there were no exceptions he could hardly 
 have used much more _ comprehensive 
 language, and he repeats the statement, 
 ‘ the chief priests with the elders and scribes, 
 and the whole council, held a consultation, 
 and bound Jesus, and carried him away, 
 and delivered him up to Pilate’ (xv. 1). 
 Yet a little later he makes it quite plain 
 that there must have been at least one who 
 *“had not consented to their counsel and 
 deed,’ when he says, ‘there came Joseph 
 of Arimathzea, a councillor of honourable 
 estate ...and he boldly went in unto 
 Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus’ 
 (xv. 43). Clearly, however absolute and 
 without qualification a statement of the 
 gospel may be, we need not necessarily 
 believe that there were no exceptions, so 
 that when we are told that our Lord said, 
 ‘A prophet is not without honour, save in 
 his own country, and among his own kin, 
 and in his own house’ (vi. 4), and that ‘when 
 his friends heard it, they went out to lay 
 hold on him: for they said, He is beside 
 himself’ (iii. 21), even if by ‘his friends’ 
 we are to understand * his mother and his 
 brethren ’ (ili. 31), it 1s clear that we have 
 no evidence that there was no one of His 
 brethren who believed in Him, though their 
 
172 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 attitude as a body was that described by 
 the evangelist. In 1 Cor. ix. 5 ° the brethren 
 of the Lord’ can hardly be intended to 
 include James. There need, therefore, be 
 no difficulty in supposing that one of the 
 Lord’s brethren, James, was a believer at 
 quite an early period of His ministry, though 
 not necessarily, even if very probably, at 
 the time of His visit to Nazareth, which 
 according to Luke, whose narrative, we have 
 decided, is as a rule more reliable than 
 Mark’s, took place before the appointment 
 of the twelve. The supposition that James 
 was an unbeliever until after the resurrection 
 of Jesus, and that, as St. Paul says, ‘he 
 appeared to James’ (1 Cor. xv. 7) in order 
 to convert him, seems contrary to our Lord’s 
 principles of action, according to which He 
 will not compel belief (Luke iv. 9-12), and, 
 in particular, contrary to the principles of 
 His manifestations after His resurrection, 
 as St. Peter says, ‘not to all the people, 
 but unto witnesses that were chosen before 
 of God, even to us’ (Acts x. 41). Jesus 
 might appear to those who did not believe 
 in the resurrection, but not to those who 
 would not believe in Himself. James, there- 
 fore, must have been a believer before the 
 resurrection, which is confirmed by the 
 so-called gospel of the Hebrews, whatever 
 
BRETHREN WHO WERE APOSTLES 173 
 
 its value. There seems, then, to be no 
 sufficient argument against the idea that 
 James was not only an apostle but one of 
 the twelve. After asserting his apostleship 
 to the Corinthians St. Paul says, ‘ Have we 
 no right to eat and to drink ? Have we no 
 right to lead about a wife that is a believer, 
 even as the rest of the apostles, and the 
 brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I 
 only and Barnabas, have we not a right to 
 forbear working?’ (1 Cor. ix. 4-6). The 
 word apostles here certainly includes others 
 besides the twelve, as Paul and Barnabas. 
 Cephas is the first of the twelve. The 
 brethren occupy an intermediate position, 
 which suggests that all may have been 
 apostles in some sense, and, though James 
 appears to be excluded on this occasion, 
 that one or more may have belonged to the 
 twelve. It is sometimes argued that * Judas 
 of James’ in Luke’s lists of the twelve 
 apostles (vi. 16, Acts i. 13) is Judas the 
 Lord’s brother (Mark vi. 3); but probably 
 the meaning is that Judas was the son, not 
 the brother of James, literary usage allowing 
 us to supply ‘son,’ but apparently not 
 ‘brother.’ We notice, too, that in the 
 epistle ascribed to Jude his chief claim to 
 distinction is said to be not that he was an 
 apostle, but that he was ‘ brother of James ’ 
 
174 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 (Jude1). That Simon the Cananaean (Mark 
 ill. 18) is to be identified with Simon the 
 Lord’s brother (Mark vi. 3) is even more 
 unlikely. Apart from the appearance of the 
 same three names, James, Simon and Judas, 
 in the two lists of the Lord’s brethren and 
 of the apostles, there seems to be no argu- 
 ment in its favour, the name Simon being 
 particularly common. MHegesippus in the 
 extracts quoted! gives no hint that the 
 Simeon, cousin of the Lord, who succeeded 
 James at Jerusalem was an apostle. There 
 is, however, something to be said in favour 
 of Matthew the apostle being a cousin 
 of the Lord, and so in a sense His brother. 
 ‘Matthew the publican,’ according to the 
 first gospel (ix. 9, x. 3), 1s certainly the person 
 described by Luke as ‘a publican, named 
 Levi’ (v. 27), and by Mark as * Levi the son 
 of Alpheus’ (ii. 14). Alphseus is by no 
 means a common name, and is used in the 
 New Testament only of the father of James, 
 and the father of Matthew. Mark alone 
 describes Levi as the son of Alpheeus, and 
 unless he is referring to the Alphzeus whom 
 we find mentioned in each of the four lists 
 of the apostles his addition is distinctly 
 misleading. No other Levi appearing in the 
 gospels, save in Luke’s genealogy, where the 
 1 See p. 160. 
 
BRETHREN WHO WERE APOSTLES 175 
 
 name is spelled differently, ‘of Alpheeus’ 
 cannot be explained, like ‘of James’ in 
 connexion with Judas, as necessary for 
 identification. There seems to be no sufficient 
 reason to suppose that, unless otherwise 
 stated, whenever a name appears in a gospel, 
 or even in the New Testament, it must refer 
 to a different person each time; it is more 
 natural, very frequently, to suppose that it 
 refers to one mentioned elsewhere. The 
 probability, therefore, would appear to be 
 that Levi or Matthew was another of the 
 cousins of Jesus, and brother of James, 
 Joses, Judas and Simon, the son of Alpheus 
 and Mary. He is not mentioned by the 
 people of Nazareth as a brother of the 
 Lord, because he no longer lived there, but 
 was established in business in Capernaum. 
 That they should say ‘ Are not his sisters 
 here with us?’ (Mark vi. 3), ‘all’ of them, 
 according to the first gospel (xii. 56), may 
 perhaps be taken to suggest that this was 
 not the case with all the brethren, but that 
 one or more dwelt elsewhere. On no other 
 occasion in the gospels are any of the Lord’s 
 brethren alluded to as such by name, and 
 even in the epistles James alone is so 
 described, so that we need not be surprised 
 that Matthew is nowhere called * the Lord’s 
 brother.’ That ‘ Mary the mother of James’ 
 
176 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 (Luke xxiv. 10; Mark xvi. 1) is never 
 called the mother of Levi, though she is 
 called ‘the mother of James the little and 
 of Joses’ (Mark xv. 40), and ‘the mother 
 of Joses’ (Mark xv. 47), may perhaps be 
 explained by the fact that the different 
 descriptions in Mark appear to be merely 
 interpretative variants of Luke’s * mother of 
 James’ on the basis of the tradition with 
 regard to the household at Nazareth, to 
 which James belonged, incorporated in the 
 account of Jesus’ visit to His own country 
 (vi. 3), while it 1s of course possible that 
 though Levi was the son of Alphzeus he was 
 not the son of Mary, in which case, as he 
 would necessarily be older than the rest, 
 we should have an explanation, not only 
 of his absence from Nazareth but of the fact 
 that he had been able to attain to a position 
 of such importance in Capernaum while his 
 brothers were still at home. The _ short 
 stay of our Lord with His relatives and 
 disciples at Capernaum, recorded in the 
 fourth gospel at the beginning of His 
 ministry, is more reasonably explained, like 
 His presence at the marriage feast at Cana, 
 which immediately precedes it, as a visit 
 primarily for family and social purposes, 
 and not for the work of His ministry: 
 
BRETHREN WHO WERE APOSTLES 177 
 
 * After this he went down to Capernaum, 
 he, and his mother, and his brethren, and 
 his disciples: and there they abode not 
 many days’ (11. 12). Apparently Jesus was 
 as well known at Capernaum as at Nazareth 
 (John vi. 42, cf. Luke iv. 22). If Matthew 
 were a member of the same family, we have 
 an explanation both natural and sufficient. 
 That he made Jesus a great feast in his 
 house (Luke v. 29) after his call may also 
 be taken as evidence of more than ordinary 
 familiarity, nothing of the sort being men- 
 tioned after the call of Peter and Andrew, 
 or of James and John, though Jesus was 
 already on intimate terms with those of 
 Simon’s house according to Luke (iv. 38, 
 v. 10-11), and Zebedee at any rate certainly 
 seems to have been in a financial position 
 such that the cost would have presented 
 no difficulty (Mark i. 20). All these con- 
 siderations, however, must necessarily be 
 to some extent speculative: yet, whatever 
 their value, the fact remains that there 
 seems to be no conclusive argument against 
 the hypothesis that Matthew, or Levi the 
 son of Alphzus, was a cousin of our Lord, 
 while as we have seen there is much to 
 commend it, and it gives fresh significance 
 
 to several incidents in the gospel narrative. 
 N 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE SOURCES OF THE BIRTH NARRATIVES 
 
 Eacu of the synoptic gospels appears to be 
 based on traditions derived ultimately from 
 Peter and John,! and where the narrative is 
 found in all three gospels the probability 
 is that the source is Petrine. The call of 
 only five of the apostles is recorded. Peter, 
 Andrew, James and John were partners in 
 a fishing business, and were called practically 
 together (Luke v. 10-11, Mark i. 16-20), so 
 that we can understand Peter’s interest in 
 the matter, and the place their call occupies 
 in a tradition derived from him. The 
 suggestion is that he had likewise a special 
 interest in Matthew, arising perhaps from 
 their common residence in Capernaum, and 
 their necessary dealings with one another 
 in connexion with the fisheries. The first 
 gospel is by far the most Petrine, much more 
 so even than Mark, and it is in this that 
 1 See ‘ The Origin of the Gospels,’ C.Q.R., July, 1922. 
 
SOURCES OF NARRATIVES 179 
 
 we find the collection of prophecies trans- 
 lated from the Aramaic or Hebrew which we 
 have seen reason to identify with the Logia, 
 compiled in Hebrew by Matthew, according 
 to Papias.t. If we think of Matthew as a 
 cousin of Jesus no one would be more likely 
 to have information about the birth of 
 Jesus than he, except His mother Mary 
 whose account is recorded by Luke. The 
 probability, then, would seem to be that 
 the evangelist derived his knowledge of the 
 birth narratives, as of the prophecies, from 
 Matthew through Peter, who appears to have 
 had a special connexion of some sort with 
 the publican and interest in him. 
 
 We cannot, however, ascribe all the details 
 of the birth stories of the first gospel to 
 Matthew, even if they are Petrine in some 
 degree. Joseph, according to each of the 
 four evangelists, would appear to have died 
 before our Lord’s ministry began, and so 
 before He came to realise at His baptism 
 the fullness of the work He came to do. It 
 is unlikely that Matthew—or any of the 
 sons of Alphzeus—was familiar with truths 
 about His office which were hidden from 
 Jesus Himself. Though His brethren may 
 have learned from Joseph the main features 
 
 1 See p. 185. 
 
180 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 of the wonderful story of His birth, they 
 can scarcely have so learned all the details 
 recorded in the first gospel, that, for example, 
 the angel said to him, ‘ Thou shalt call his 
 name Jesus; for it is he that shall save 
 his people from their sins’ (i. 21), for this 
 presupposes the revelation made to Jesus 
 in the vision at His baptism, that He was 
 the Servant of Jehovah, Who should bear 
 the sin of many (Is. liii. 12). Some of the 
 phraseology of the account of the announce- 
 ment to Joseph of the birth of Jesus we have 
 seen 1s Lucan, some we now see must be 
 interpretative, added perhaps unconsciously 
 to the nucleus of the story in the light of 
 later knowledge and experience. Yet the 
 mystery of His birth, and the main outline 
 of the wonderful events which accompanied 
 it, must have been a treasured secret of the 
 family. We note indeed that even when 
 we are told that ‘his brethren did not 
 believe on him’ (John vii. 5), they yet 
 expected great things of Him, and saw 
 in His works a sign of possible greatness : 
 ‘If thou doest these things, manifest thyself 
 to the world ’ (vii. 4) ; and even if as yet they 
 did not believe on Him, they do not appear 
 to have been unacquainted with His 
 Messianic claims, or to have regarded them 
 as entirely incredible. Their unhelief was 
 
SOURCES OF NARRATIVES 181 
 
 not inconsistent with some knowledge of 
 His mysterious birth and its wonderful 
 accompaniments, rousing in them greater 
 expectations than they could at this period 
 bring themselves to believe. The general 
 outline of the story of His birth, as told by 
 man to man, by Joseph to his brother-in-law 
 if not to his nephews, might well be known 
 by the Lord’s cousins and brethren, and by 
 them be told to Peter and perhaps others, 
 though all the details, as we have seen, can 
 hardly be regarded as equally authentic, 
 being traceable to some extent not to 
 Matthew but to Luke and his earlier record, 
 and in part to interpretative additions such 
 as are natural in the course of oral instruction. 
 We thus arrive at an explanation of the 
 birth stories of the first gospel which, 
 though of necessity hypothetical and in- 
 capable of proof, yet does appear to fit 
 all the facts. 
 
 Though in some of the details the account 
 given in the first gospel may not be in the 
 strict sense historical, yet our criticism, 
 whatever its value, has left absolutely un- 
 touched the basal fact of the virgin birth. 
 From a literary point of view indeed the 
 evidence is much stronger than before, for 
 we see that the evangelist unites in his 
 record the testimony of various authorities 
 
182 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 and various traditions. The doctrine comes 
 to us then with the authority of Luke and 
 his source, probably the apostle St. John, 
 and ultimately the virgin mother, with the 
 authority of Mark, who, though he con- 
 ceived it no part of his duty to narrate it, 
 yet altered his source, calling Jesus ‘ the 
 son of Mary,’ so as not even to seem to deny 
 it, and with the authority of Matthew and 
 the different lines of tradition combined in 
 the first gospel, that presumably derived 
 from our Lord’s relatives according to the 
 flesh, His brethren and ultimately Joseph, 
 through Matthew the apostle and probably 
 also Peter, and that which suggested the 
 prophecy of Isaiah vii. 14 as illustrating the 
 virgin birth, which, if it did not originate with 
 Matthew, was at any rate recorded by 
 him apparently in his Hebrew Logia, as 
 well as the tradition of Luke which the 
 first evangelist, we have decided, knew 
 and utilised for his own work. No literary 
 criticism can provide a proof of the super- 
 natural. If proof is conceivable it must be 
 sought in another sphere. Criticism can do 
 no more than sift the evidence, and show 
 to what extent particular elements may be 
 regarded as reliable from the point of view 
 not of science but of literature. 
 
SOURCES OF NARRATIVES — 183 
 
 The very possibility of the virgin birth is 
 frequently denied, but is it so unreasonable 
 as is sometimes supposed? Partheno- 
 genesis is common among certain of the 
 lower orders of creation, and may be induced 
 even by non-natural stimuli. In the higher 
 orders also, among animals and human 
 beings, there occur phenomena of a similar 
 type which are explained pathologically as 
 examples of virgin conception, though never 
 apparently resulting in a virgin birth. If 
 levitation may occur when a person is In an 
 ecstatic condition, and stigmatisation may 
 follow a vision of our Lord vouchsafed to 
 one yearning ardently for union with Him 
 in His passion—and of each there seems to 
 be ample evidence—it is not easy to see 
 why other occurrences, no more contrary 
 to the ordinary working of nature, should 
 be regarded as impossible. As the result 
 of an ecstasy Zacharias became dumb and 
 St. Paul blind, the physical consequence in 
 each case being suited to the occasion and 
 consonant with the object of the vision. 
 There would seem to be nothing unreasonable, 
 therefore, in supposing that with the right 
 dispositions the stimulus of an ecstasy might 
 result, not only in the reception of power 
 to be a father in one like Zacharias devoutly 
 
184 NARRATIVES OF VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 longing and praying for a son, but also in 
 the reception of power to be a mother, 
 though still a virgin, in one yearning like 
 all pious Jewish maidens that through her 
 might be born the expected Messiah. It 
 may be that the virgin birth ought to be 
 regarded as an event not so much miraculous 
 as unique. Only to a highly favoured few 
 is an ecstasy ever vouchsafed, and to what 
 other maiden in an ecstasy could it have been 
 revealed at any time that she should receive 
 power to become the mother of the Son of 
 God ? (Luke i. 35). 
 
 In these pages, however, we are concerned 
 not so much with scientific speculation as 
 with the sifting of evidence, however it may 
 be explained. After all, if we believe in 
 the stupendous fact of the Incarnation, belief 
 in the virgin birth is a very small thing. 
 To the childlike mind of the simple Christian 
 the latter has always seemed, if not an 
 absolutely necessary, at any rate the most 
 _ fitting method of compassing the former. 
 If this essay is successful in making the faith 
 of the Church in this particular in any degree 
 easier to believe, it will not have been in vain. 
 
 Per Mysterium sanctae Incarnationis tuae, 
 Per Nativitatem tuam, 
 Libera nos, Domine, 
 
 
 
 Printed in England by Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co. Ltd., Colchester, London & Eton 
 
mee} a 
 
 ee er ae. 
 ™ aa 
 
 a 
 yy 
 i‘ 4 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -+- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
t = 
 > | 
 aha 
 
 ‘ 
 j 
 
 ; PP 
 ‘Gan, FA 
 
 ay | ce / 
 ‘ f 
 
 ¥ oe ae 
 Pa st sy 
 
 : 4 4 
 + on a! ' 
 : f 
 b . ‘ 
 
 whe 
 a 
 
 ila i re hig oy) es a) " ay 
 Battin gina guns, hee PES wicca aha 
 th 7 = + U ¥ ¥ ; ‘7 é 
 
 tr hf ’ by Sif a Wi ty: 42 v 
 
 ' 
 wi ‘ Mw . "h 
 
 
 

 
 1 1012 il wh 
 
 ean