Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1845.]

Number of Women at the Sepulchre.

169

Matthew mentions Mary Mag-
Mark enumerates Mary Mag-

II. The Number of the Women. dalene and the other Mary; v. 1. dalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome; v. 1. Luke has Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others with them; v. 10. John speaks of Mary Magdalene alone, and says nothing of any other. The first three Evangelists accord then in respect to the two Marys, but no further; while John differs from them all. Is there here a real discrepancy?

We may at once answer, No; because according to the sound canon of Le Clerc : "Qui plura narrat, pauciora complectitur; qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat." Because John, in narrating circumstances with which he was personally connected, sees fit to mention only Mary Magdalene, it does not at all follow that others were not present. Because Matthew, perhaps for like reasons, speaks only of the two Marys, he by no means excludes the presence of others. Indeed, the very words which John puts into the mouth of Mary Magdalene (oux ofdauer v. 2), presuppose the fact, that others had gone with her to the sepulchre. That there was something in respect to Mary Magdalene, which gave her a peculiar prominence in these transactions, may be inferred from the fact, that not only John mentions her alone, but likewise all the other Evangelists name her first, as if holding the most conspicuous place.

The instance here under consideration is parallel to that of the demoniacs of Gadara, and the blind men at Jericho; where, in both cases, Matthew speaks of two persons, while Mark and Luke mention only one.2 Something peculiar in the station or character of one of the persons, rendered him in each case more prominent, and led the two latter Evangelists to speak of him particularly. But there, as here, their language is not exclusive; nor is there in it anything that contradicts the statements of Matthew.

In

A familiar illustration will place this matter in a clear light. the year 1824, Lafayette, the early friend of Washington, revisited the United States. He was everywhere received with joyous welcome; and his progress through the country resembled a public triumph. Cities and States and the Congress of the nation vied with each other in the honors and pageants showered upon the nation's guest. Historians will record these events as a noble 1 Harm. p. 525. Can. XII. fin.

2 Matt. 8: 28. Mark 5: 2. Luke 8: 27.- Matt. 20: 30. Mark 10: 46. Luke 18:35.

[blocks in formation]

incident in the life of a public man. But should other writers, entering more fully into detail, narrate this visit as made not by Lafayette alone, but by Lafayette and his son; and that both shared in the honors and hospitalities so lavishly proffered; would there be here any contradiction between the statements of the two classes of writers? Or should still another class relate the same general facts as having occurred in respect to three persons, Lafayette, his son, and his secretary: would there even then arise any contradiction? Most assuredly no one would ever think of bringing such a charge. So true it is: "Qui plura narrat, pauciora complectitur; qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat."

III. The arrival at the Sepulchre. According to Mark, Luke, and John, the women on reaching the sepulchre find the great stone, with which it had been closed, already rolled away. Matthew, on the other hand, after narrating that the women went out to see the sepulchre, proceeds to mention the earthquake, the descent of the angel, his rolling away the stone and sitting upon it, and the terror of the watch, as if all these things took place in the presence of the women. Such at least is the usual force of "dov. The angel too (in v. 5) addresses the women, as if still sitting upon the stone he had rolled away.

The apparent discrepancy, if any, here arises simply from Matthew's brevity in omitting to state in full what his own narrative presupposes. According to v. 6, Christ was already risen; and therefore the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place at an earlier point of time, to which the sacred writer returns back in his narration. And although Matthew does not represent the women as entering the sepulchre, yet in v. 8, he speaks of them as going out of it, ɛovoά; so that of course their interview with the angel took place, not outside of the sepulchre, but in it, as narrated by the other evangelists. When therefore the angel says to them in v. 6, " Come, see the place where the Lord lay," this is not said without the tomb to induce them to enter, as Strauss avers; but within the sepulchre, just as in Mark v. 6.

IV. The Vision of Angels in the Sepulchre. Of this John says nothing. Matthew and Mark speak of one angel; Luke of two. Mark says he was sitting; Luke speaks of them as standing (inέornoar). This difference in respect to numbers is parallel to the case of the women, which we have just considered; and requires therefore no further illustration. The other alleged difficulty as to the position of the angels, also vanishes, when we take

1845.]

Return of the Women to the City.

171

the intornoar of Luke in its appropriate and acknowledged usage: they suddenly appeared, were suddenly present, without reference to its etymology. So well established is this usage, that Passow gives as one definition of giorni, hervorkommen, herbeykommen, plotzlich erscheinen, i. e. to come forth, to come near, to appear suddenly.

There is likewise some diversity in the language addressed to the women by the angels. In Matthew and Mark, the prominent object is the charge to the disciples to depart into Galilee. In Luke this is not referred to; but the women are reminded of our Lord's own previous declaration, that he would rise again on the third day. Neither of the evangelists here professes to report all that was said by the angels; and of course there is no room for contradiction.

3. The return of the Women to the city, and the first appearance of our Lord.

Matt. 28: 7-10. Mark 16: 8. Luke 24: 9-11. John 20: 1, 2.

John, speaking of Mary Magdalene alone, says that having seen that the stone was taken away from the sepulchre, she went in haste (ran) to tell Peter and John. He says nothing of her having seen the angels, nor of her having entered the sepulchre

The other Evangelists, speaking of the women generally, relate that they entered the tomb, saw the angels, and then returned into the city. On their way Jesus meets them. They recognize him; fall at and embrace his feet; and receive his charge to the disciples.-Was Mary Magdalene now with the other women? Or did she enter the city by another way? Or had she left the sepulchre before the rest?

It is evident that Mary Magdalene was not with the other women when Jesus thus met them. Her language to Peter and John forbids the supposition, that she had already seen the Lord : "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." She therefore must have entered the city by another path and gate; or else have left the sepulchre before the rest; or possibly both these positions may be true. She bore her tidings expressly to Peter and John, who would seem to have lodged by themselves in a different quar

ib.

See also Reiske Indic. Opp. Demosth, art. ¿quorával. Sturz Lex. Xenoph.

ter of the city; while the other women went apparently to the rest of the disciples. But this supposition of a different route is essential, only in connection with the view, that she left the tomb with the other women. That, however, she actually departed from the sepulchre before her companions, would seem most probable; inasmuch as she speaks to Peter and John only of the absence of the Lord's body; says nothing in this connection of a vision of angels; and when, after returning again to the tomb she sees the angels, it is evidently for the first time; and she repeats to them as the cause of her grief her complaint as to the disappearance of the body; John 20: 12, 13. She may have turned back from the tomb without entering it at all, so soon as she saw that it was open; inferring from the removal of the stone, that the sepulchre had been rifled. Or, she may first have entered with the rest, when, according to Luke," they found not the body of the Lord Jesus," and "were much perplexed thereabout," before the angels became visible to them. The latter supposition seems best to meet the exigencies of the case.

As the other women went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came, and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then Jesus said unto them, Be not afraid; go, tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me." The women had left the sepulchre "with fear and great joy" after the declaration of the angels that Christ was risen; or, as Mark has it, "they trembled and were amazed." Jesus meets them with words of gentleness to quiet their terrors: "Be not afraid." He permits them to approach, and embrace his feet, and testify their joy and homage. He reiterates to them the message of the angels to his "brethren," the eleven disciples; see v. 16.

This appearance and interview is narrated only by Matthew; none of the other evangelists give any hint of it. Matthew here stops short. Mark simply relates that the women fled from the tomb; "neither said they anything to any one, for they were afraid." This of course can only mean, that they spoke of what they had thus seen to no one while on their way to the city; for the very charge of the angels, which they went to fulfil, was, that

"Neque apostoli summo mane ejus die quo Christus e sepulcro vivus prodiit, uno eodemque loco congregati, sed per dissitas urbis Hierosolymae regiones dispersi et in plurium amicorum hospitia divisi erant. Hinc Maria Magdalena solis Joanni atque Petro narrabat, quae apud sepulcrum ipsa observaverat, etc." Griesbach de Fontibus etc. Opuscc. Academ. 2. p. 243 sq.

1845.]

Visit of Peter and John.

173

they should "go their way and tell his disciples;" v. 7. Luke narrates more fully, that "they returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things (ravra návra) unto the eleven, and to all the rest. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." We may perhaps see in this language one reason why the other evangelists have omitted to mention this appearance of our Lord. The disciples disbelieved the report of the women, that they had seen Jesus. In like manner they afterwards disbelieved the report of Mary Magdalene to the same effect; Mark 16: 11. They were ready, it would seem, to admit the testimony of the women to the absence of the body, and to the vision of angels; but not to the resurrection of Jesus and his appearance to them; Luke 24: 21-24. And afterwards, when the eleven had become convinced by the testimony of their own senses, those first two appearances to the women became of less importance and were less regarded. Hence the silence of three evangelists as to the one; of two as to the other; and of Paul as to both; 1 Cor. 15: 5, 5.

4. Peter and John visit the Sepulchre. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene.

John 20: 3-18. Luke 24: 12. Mark 16: 9-11.

The full account of these two events is given solely by John. Matthew has not a word of either; Luke merely mentions, in general, that Peter, on the report of the women, went to the sepulchre; while Mark speaks only of our Lord's appearance to Mary Magdalene, which he seems to represent as his first appear

ance.

According to John's account, Peter and the beloved disciple, excited by the tidings of Mary Magdalene that the Lord's body had been taken away, hasten to the sepulchre. They run; John outruns Peter, comes first to the tomb, and stooping down, sees the grave-clothes lying, but he does not enter. The other women are no longer at the tomb; nor have the disciples met them on the way. Peter now comes up; he enters the tomb, and sees the grave-clothes lying, and the napkin that was about his head not lying with the rest, but wrapped together in a place by itself. John too now enters the sepulchre; "and he saw, and believed." What was it that John thus believed? The mere report of Mary Magdalene, that the body had been removed? So much he must have believed when he stooped down and looked into the

« AnteriorContinuar »