Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (865 page)

* Comp. Fritzsche, in loc., and Kern, Tüb. Zeitschr. 1834, 2, s. 102 f.informed by the women of the angelic appearance; but in the fourth gospel the two disciples go to the grave before Mary Magdalene can have told them of such an appearance; it was only when she had proceeded a second time to the grave with the two disciples, and when they had returned home again, that, stooping into the sepulchre, she saw, according to this gospel,
two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body ofJesus had lain,
by whom she was asked, why she wept? and on turning round she beheld Jesus himself; a particular of which there is a fragmentary notice in Mark v. 9, with the additional remark, that she communicated this news to his former companions.

It has been thought possible to reconcile the greater part of these divergencies by supposing, instead of one scene variously described, a multiplicity of different scenes; for which purpose the ordinary grammatical and other artifices of the harmonists were pressed into the service. That Mark might not contradict the
s
k
o
t
i
a
V
e
t
i
o
u
s
h
V
while it was yet dark
of John, the apologists did not scruple to translate the words
a
n
a
t
e
i
l
a
n
t
o
V
t
o
u
h
l
i
o
u
by
orituro sole;
the contradiction between Matthew and the rest, when the former appears to say that the women saw the stone rolled away by the angel, seemed to be more easy of solution, not indeed by supposing, with Michaelis,
^*
that ,
k
a
i
i
d
o
u
(and behold!)
denotes a recurrence to a previous event, and that
a
p
e
k
u
l
i
s
e
has the signification of a pluperfect (an expedient which has been justly combated by modern criticism in opposition to Lessing, who was inclined to admit it) ;
^†
but by understanding the
h
l
q
e
v. 1 to express a yet unfinished progress of the women towards the grave, in which case the
k
a
i
i
d
o
u
and what follows may, in accordance with its proper meaning, relate something that happened after the departure of the women from their home, but before their arrival at the grave.
^‡
In relation to the number and the visit of the women, it was in the first place urged that even according to John, although he mentions only Mary Magdalene by name, — several women must have accompanied her to the grave, since he makes her say after her return to the two disciples:
we know not where they have laid him ;
^§
a plural, which certainly intimates the presence of other but unspecified persons, with whom Mary Magdalene, whether at the grave itself or on her return, had conversed on the subject before she came to the Apostles. Thus, it is said, Mary Magdalene went to the grave with the other women, more or fewer of whom are mentioned by the other Evangelists. As however she returned without having, like the other women, seen an angel, it is supposed that she ran back alone as soon as she saw the stone rolled away: which is accounted for by her impetuous temperament, she having been formerly a demoniac.
^||
While she

* Michaelis, ut sup. s. 112.

† Schneckenburger, über den Urspr. des ersten kanon. Evang., s. 62 f. Comp. the Woblenbüttel Fragmentist in Lessing’s viertem Beitrag, s. 472 ff. On the other hand, Lessing’s Duplik, Werke, Donauösch. Ausg. 6. Thl. s. 394 f.

‡ De Wette, in loc.

§ Michaelis, s. 150 ff.

|| Paulus, exeg. Handb. 3, b, s. 825.hastened back to the city, the other women saw the appearances of which the synoptists speak. — To all it is maintained, the angels appeared within the grave; for the statement in Matthew that one sat outside on the stone, is only a pluperfect: when the women came he had already withdrawn into the sepulchre, and accordingly, after their conversation with him, the women are described as
departing from the sepulchre,
e
x
e
l
q
o
u
s
a
i
e
k
t
o
u
m
n
h
m
e
i
o
u
(v. 8):
^*
in which observation it is only overlooked that between the first address of the angel and the above expression, there stands his invitation to the women to come with him into the grave and see the place where Jesus had lain. In relation to the difference that according to the two first Evangelists the women see only one angel, according to the third, two, even Calvin resorts to the miserable expedient of supposing a synecdoche, namely that all the Evangelists certainly knew of two angels, but Matthew and Mark mention only the one who acted as speaker. Others make different women see different appearances: some, of whom Matthew and Mark speak, seeing only one angel; the others, to whom Luke refers, and who came earlier or perhaps later than the above, seeing two
^†
but Luke makes the same two Maries who, according to his predecessors, had seen only one angel, narrate to the Apostles an appearance of two angels. It is also said that the women returned in separate groups, so that Jesus might meet those of whom Matthew speaks without being seen by those of Luke; and though those of Mark at first tell no one from fear, the rest, and they themselves afterwards, might communicate what they had seen to the disciples.
^{‡ —}
On hearing the report brought by several women, Peter, according to Luke, straightway goes to the grave, finds it empty and turns away wondering. But according to the hypothesis which we are now detailing, Mary Magdalene had run back a considerable time before the other women, and had brought with her to the grave Peter and John. Thus Peter, first on hearing the imperfect intelligence of Mary Magdalene that the grave was empty, must have gone thither with John; and subsequently, on the account of the angelic appearance brought by the other women, he must have gone a second time alone: in which case it would be particularly surprising that while his companion arrived at a belief in the resurrection of Jesus on the very first visit, he himself had not attained further than wonder even on the second. Besides, as the Fragmentist has already ably shown, the narrative in the third gospel of the visit of Peter alone, and that in the fourth of the visit of Peter and John, are so strikingly similar even in words,
^§
that the majority of commentators regard them as referring

* Michaelis, s. 117.

† Michaelis, s. 146. — Celsus stumbled at this difference respecting the number of the angels, and Origen replied that the Evangelists mean different angels: Matthew and Mark the one who had rolled away the stone, Luke and John those who were commissioned to give information to the women, c. Cels. v. 56.

‡ Paulus, in loc. Matth.

§ I subjoin the table sketched by the Fragmentist (ut sup. s. 477 f.)

“ 1.   Luke xxiv. 12: Peter ran to the grave,
e
d
r
a
m
e
n
.

        John xx. 4: Peter and John ran,
e
t
r
e
c
o
n
.

  2.   Luke v. 12: Peter looked in,
p
a
r
a
k
u
y
a
V
.

        John v. 5: John looked in,
p
a
r
a
k
u
y
a
V
.

  3.   Luke v. 12: Peter saw the clothes lying alone,
b
l
e
p
e
i
t
a
o
q
o
n
i
a
k
e
i
m
e
n
a
m
o
n
a
.

John v. 6, 7: Peter saw the clothes lie, and the napkin not lying with the clothes:
q
e
w
r
e
i
t
a
o
q
o
n
i
a
k
e
i
m
e
n
a
,
k
a
i
t
o
s
o
u
d
a
r
i
o
n
o
u
m
e
t
a
t
w
n
o
q
o
n
i
w
n
k
e
i
m
e
n
o
n
.

4. Luke v. 12: Peter went home,
a
p
h
l
q
e
p
r
o
V
e
a
u
t
o
n
.