Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in Luke the disciples announce to those who had returned from Emmaus, "The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared unto Simon." If the contradiction were real, it would still be insignificant, nor would it be necessary to torture it in so ungracious a manner as many have done; it would be only necessary to say, that the unknown writer of the last eight verses of Mark had erred. But I cannot see the contradiction. Ten apostles, and some other disciples besides them, are together. When, therefore, Luke says, they had informed the disciples returning from Emmaus, that the Lord was risen and had appeared unto Peter, the meaning would not be that they had all given this information successively, but that one amongst them had done it. Some, therefore, (and certainly Peter and John,) believed, but did all those who were present believe? We must be little acquainted with the great difference of opinion prevailing in human minds, if we can, without witnesses, receive that as certain, and even make it out as a contradiction against Mark, that in a case so incredible as the resurrection of a dead man, all, or at all events more than ten, should have believed, and not one have any doubt upon the fact. Besides Peter, no one had seen Jesus

himself; and is it then certain, that they would all rely upon the testimony of Peter, when we afterwards find one of them, Thomas, who did not believe their combined evidence? It was not necessary for them to consider Peter as speaking a wilful falsehood. They might fancy his imagination had been heated, or rather, according to their mode of thinking amongst the Jews, that the shade or spirit of Jesus, an apparition after death, had appeared unto him. (Acts xii. 15.) We see even from Luke himself that many thought so, and still doubted, for when Jesus afterwards appeared amongst them, and showed himself to them, some of them conceived they saw a spirit. Verse 37, Jesus says, "Why do thoughts arise in your hearts?" and he commands them to feel his hands and feet, in order to convince them, that he was not a spirit; v. 38, 39, 40. But they still remained, to a certain degree, unbelieving, v. 41. Luke here uses the same word as Mark. How, therefore, could there be a contradiction between men, who both use the same word in their narration? And then Jesus requires them to give him food, that they may be more fully convinced he was no spirit, no departed shade. To give a specimen of the far-fetched illustration by which many

have endeavoured to reconcile this gratuitous contradiction. They assume that Simon was one of the disciples that went to Emmaus, and they then turn into a matter of doubt what the assembled disciples say: "Is the Lord risen indeed, and has he been seen of Simon ?" It has already been shown that Peter could not have been one of the disciples that went to Emmaus, but, independent of this, it is still uncertain whether by Simon is meant Simon Peter, or whether, as some have supposed, he was not another Simon? Luke would be, indeed, a wonderful writer, if, without informing his readers that the name of one of the disciples of Emmaus was Simon, and before the disciples from Emmaus had communicated their report (for they only began at v. 35,) he should make the apostles say," Has Simon seen the Lord ?" He tells us, what nobody particularly wants to know, that Cleopas was one of the disciples, but he does not say one word of what was more important, namely, that the other disciple was named Simon. Luke is certainly not well defended by these advocates. The charge is, that he relates a circumstance erroneously; but this is the liability of every human historian. defence makes him out a very inefficient writer.

The

According to these advocates, the eleven should have asked, "Is the Lord really risen, and have you seen him?" And, in fact, if the words are to be converted, ad libitum, into doubt, it would be one of astonishment, "Then the Lord is really risen, and Simon has seen him." But admitting that Simon was one of those who came from Emmaus, the Cambridge manuscript, relates it in a much more accommodating manner, and refers the word "saying" in the beginning of the 34th verse, to the two disciples from Emmaus, and not to the eleven apostles, and the disciples who were with them. But in this case it would have been " that the Lord is indeed risen, and hath appeared to us," and Luke, if he wished to be intelligible, would have mentioned Cleopas in conjunction with Simon. But the Cambridge mannscript is, after all, not a perfectly safe guide for a various reading.

"Has been seen by Simon."] I prefer this to the common translation" has appeared unto Simon." My learned readers know this would require another Greek word,* and "appeared" in this sense would tend to justify the notion of apparitions, but which it is the writer's ob

* In the original woen ; "appeared," would be “epavn.”

ject to avoid; and the word in the original being rendered, "being seen by him" leads to the conclusion of his being actually risen, and does away the supposition of a departed spirit re-appearing after death.

X. JESUS SHOWS HIMSELF ALIVE TO THE
TEN APOSTLES, AND TO SOME OTHER
DISCIPLES, WHO WERE WITH THEM.
(JOHN XX. 24. LUKE XXIV. 33.)

LUKE XXIV. 36-49. JOHN XX. 19-23.
MARK XVI. 14-18.

Luke xxiv. 36.

"And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37. "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38." And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39. "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40. "And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.

« AnteriorContinuar »