Freethought Archives > Walter R. Cassels > Supernatural Religion 


Part 6, Chapter 3 (pp. 851-873)

[851:1] Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, p. 12.

[853:1] The curious account in Matt. 28:1 f., of the earthquake and rolling away of the stone by an angel in the presence of the women, who nevertheless saw no Resurrection, will not be forgotten.

[854:3] P.622.

[854:4] Cf. Matt. 16:4; Mark 8:11.

[855:2] So Bisping, Maier, Meyer, Neander, Osiander, Rückert, Stanley, de Wette, etc.

[856:1] Gfrörer thinks the germ of Paul's incident to lie in the statement John 20:4 (Die heil. Sage, i., p. 376 f.). Dr. Farrar thinks the details "may have been of a nature too personal to have been revealed" (Life of Christ, ii., p. 437).

[856:2] So Bisping, Maier, Meyer, Neander, Osiander, Stanley, de Wette, etc.

[856:3] So Grotius, Maier, Osiander, Wordsworth, etc., ad l. Ebrard, Wiss. Kr. ev. Gesch., p. 591 f., 599; zu Olsh. Leidensgesch., p. 210; Farrar, Life of Christ, ii., p. 445; cf. Olshausen, Leidensgesch., p. 227; Stanley, Corinthians, p. 288.

[856:4] Beyschlag considers that, in these doubts, we have clearly an erroneous mixing up of the story of Thomas (John 20:24 f.), and he thinks that probably in the incident of Jesus eating fish, described by the third Synoptic (24:42), we have a reminiscence of John 21:13 (Stud. u. Kr., 1870, p. 218, anm).

[856:5] Alford, Bisping, Hofmann, Meyer, de Wette, etc.

[857:1] Hieron., De vir. ill., ii.

[860:1] We may merely in passing refer to the case of Mary Magdalene in the fourth Gospel. She sees a figure standing beside her, and infers that it is the gardener; presently something else occurs which leads her to infer that she was mistaken in her first inference, and to infer next that it is Jesus. It is a narrative upon which no serious argument can be based; but had she at first turned away, her first inference would have remained, and, according to the narrative, have been erroneous. We might also argue that, if further examination had taken place, her second inference might have proved as erroneous as the first is declared to have been.

[862:3] So Alford, Bisping, Ellicott, Ewald, Holtzmann, Jowett, Meyer, Olshausen, Schrader, Usteri, de Wette, Wieseler, Winer, Wordsworth, ad l.; Baur, Paulus, i. p. 75 f.; Holsten, Zum Ev. Paulus, u.s.w., p. 42 f., anm.; Meijboom, Jezus' Opstand., p. 105; Neander, Pflanzung, p. 117.

[862:4] Grotius, Annot. in N. T., vi., p. 553; Baumgarten-Crusius, Br. an die Gal., p. 26; Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 82.

[862:5] Der Galaterbr., p. 121.

[862:6] Baur, Paulus, i. p. 75 f.; Meijboom, Jezus' Opstand., p. 105 f.; Jowett, Eps. of St. Paul, i. p. 216 f., 230 f.; Ewald, Holtzmann, Schrader, Usteri, Wieseler, etc., in l.

[862:7] Holsten, Zum ev. Paul. u.s.w., p. 42, anm.; Neander, Pflanzung, p. 117; Alford, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Lightfoot, Meyer, de Wette, Wordsworth, etc., in 1.

[863:1] Dr. Jowett thinks this not improbable (The Epistles of St.Paul, i., p. 229).

[869:1] It will be remembered that this epithet occurs in Acts 3:14, 7:52, and nowhere else in the New Testament.

[869:4] Acts 26:14. This phrase was introduced into Acts 9:5 of the Authorised Version by Erasmus from the Vulgate; but it is not found there in any Greek MS. of the slightest authority.

[869:5] Cf. Aesch., Prom., 323; Agamem., 1633; Eurip. , Bacch., 791; Pindar., Pyth., ii. 173; Terent., Phorm., i. 2, 27; Plaut., Truc., iv. 2, 59. Baumgarten, Beelen, Grotius, Hackett, Humphrey, Kuinoel, Meyer, Olshausen, Overbeck, Wetstein, De Wette, Wordsworth, etc., in l. Zeller, Apg., p. 193, anm. 1.

[870:7] Acts 22:11 does not refute this.

Return to Pt 6, Ch 3      Return to Contents
HTML © 2002 -