APPENDIX. PAGE 48. JAHN'S Biblical Antiquities, translated by Upham, sec. 261, describes the process of death under crucifixion, as extracted from a dissertation by Geo. Gottlieb Richter, a German physician. In addition to the unnatural position of the body, the loss of blood, and inflammation of the parts wounded, he says: "On those parts which are distended or pressed, more blood flows through the arteries than can be carried back into the veins. The consequence is, that a greater quantity of blood finds its way from the aorta into the head and stomach, than would be carried there by an undisturbed circulation. The blood-vessels of the head become pressed and swollen. The impulsion of the blood in more than ordinary quantities into the stomach is also unfavourable to life, because it is that part of the system which not only admits of the blood being stationary, but is peculiarly exposed to mortification. The aorta not being at liberty to empty in the usual free and undisturbed way the blood which it receives from the left ventricle of the heart, is unable to receive its usual quantity. The blood of the lungs, therefore, is unable to find a free circulation. This general obstruction extends its effect also to the right ventricle, and the consequence is an internal excitement, exertion, and anxiety, which are more intolerable than the anguish of death itself. All the large vessels about the heart, and all the veins and arteries in that part of the system, on account of the accumulation and pressure of blood, are the source of inexpressible misery. The degree of anguish is gradual in its increase, and the person crucified is able to live under it, commonly till the third, and sometimes till the seventh day." C. F. F. Gruner, "de Jesu C. morte verâ non Syncopticâ, Jena 1800," argues that Jesus possessed probably a healthy constitution of body, from his habit of living in the open air and of frequent travelling; but that the presentiment of his fate, and the harassing scenes attending his apprehension, would have had a depressing effect on his physical strength. "Sequuntur alia graviora vim vitæ deprimentia. Addictus cruci, pugnis ac palmis contusus, coronâ spineâ cinctus miseréque laceratus, nudus et ad columnam adstrictus, cæditur ante loris et flagris, ut moris Romani erat. Quæ cum essent aculeata, taxillata, et ossiculis catenata, et miseri ad necem usque flagellati ministrorum immanitate haud rarò perierunt, quin sub ipsâ deductione stimulis + crudeliter atque petulanter adigerentur, consequens est, ut Christum fame ac vigiliis lassum, ex vulneribus crebris ægrum, et a sanguine vacuum, summa teneret debilitas. Auxit sine dubio legalis crucis gestatio crudos cutis laceræ dolores, attrivitque ulterius vires, denique perfecit malum crux ipsa erecta, cui crudeliter adstrictus et adfixus erat, clavis per manus et pedes actis. Hinc vehementissime exacerbati sunt dolores et ad omne corpus diffusi, hinc post hæmorrhagiam largam loca sugillata, inflammata et in gangrænam prona, hinc magna circuitus sanguinei turbatio, hinc immensa sanguinis ad pulmones et cor congestio facta, eaque, ni omnis fallor, summæ anxietatis auctor et effectrix fuit, quam clamore magno prodidisse videtur, illico mortuus.' He continues to this effect, "The things hitherto related, however, do not occasion speedy death, for some lived several days; another cause for the unexpected dissolution must be sought, viz.: Syncope, by which the vital power was paralyzed, and all life appeared to be extinguished. Syncope not unfrequently precedes or brings on real death, unless proper means of recovery are adopted. Christ being placed in a cold and rocky tomb, tending to congeal the blood, would probably have expired rather than revived." But the thrust of the spear, if historical, is a more evident and sufficient cause of death. "In some parts, and especially if not forcible, it might not wound fatally. The soldier, holding his lance in his right hand, would probably pierce the left side of Jesus, where the weapon might meet the lungs, the pericardium, the heart, and the great artery. On the right side the lance might meet the lungs, the vena cava, and the azygoi; behind, the thoracic duct. In any case the blow, if forcible, would in all probability inflict death, either immediate or inevitable within a short time.” "The lungs, if pierced, might have given forth some blood, but not water. Most probably the blood came from one of the ventricles of the heart; the water from the pericardium." Gruner offers no explanation of the difficulty that the blood and water should flow out separately so as to be distinguished by a bystander; a difficulty which others could explain only by resorting to a miracle. Strauss has remarked that the quantity of liquid from the pericardium, except in dropsical cases, is so small that its flow would not strike the eye; besides, that there is only one small space in the forepart of the chest where the pericardium could be struck so that its liquid contents should flow outwards; in all other cases it would spread into the interior of the cavity of the chest. He adds, that as the blood does not separate into the serum and clot in the body itself, but only some time Ulpiau de Pœnis, 1. iii. Euseb. H. E. iv. 15. Philo in Flaccum. + Plaut. Mostellar. Act i. Sc. i., v. 52—54. Eschenbach says that in syncope the blood is still flowing, but more slowly; that true stories of revivals from this state usually place them within one or two days; and that cases of three days or a week rest on no good authority. after being drawn from it, the writer may have added this incident of the issue of blood and water with a view to prove that Jesus was really dead, a proof however resting only on his own misconception of the medical fact. The vehement asseveration which follows, (" And he that saw it, bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe," ver. 35) Strauss considers to apply to this issue of blood and water, which was indeed the last circumstance mentioned. Yet it is possible that this solemn testimony was intended to apply to the whole scene just related, viz.: that the legs of the thieves were broken, but Jesus himself pierced with a spear; for these two are evidently the points which conduce to the writer's object, to make his readers "believe," being, as he pretends to discover, the fulfilment of the Scriptures. The flow of blood and water is not necessary for this purpose, and therefore would not require so much stress to be laid upon it; although it is true that he might have introduced this embellishment from the erroneous idea alluded to. I hesitate to admit that the whole scene was invented in order to fulfil these two texts, because-1stly; They are unconnected sentences from remote parts of Scripture, and, although there is some evidence that the latter had been applied by the Rabbins to the Messiah, it was unnatural to think of framing a story so as to bring together the fulfilment of both; whereas the incidents being historical, it was natural to collect applicable texts wherever they could be found. 2ndly; The circumstances have strong inherent probability; for it being necessary to remove the bodies, the soldiers must be sent to despatch the criminals; and if the lifeless appearance of Jesus caused them to pause for a moment, nothing could be more natural than for one of these Roman soldiers speedily to make the case sure by means of the spear which he held. Supposing for a moment that, after all, life was not extinct in Jesus, it is reasonable to believe that he would have required at least equal medical care with the friend of Josephus, whose recovery was by no means easy. He would not have been able to walk about the country after two days, as the subsequent legends represent. Consequently none of these legends coincide in any manner with the hypothesis that he still lived. None of them represent him as giving his parting directions in a posture or situation which we can reconcile with the idea of an extremely debilitated frame. PAGE 114. A passage in Macrobius has been sometimes cited in support of Matthew's story of the children. Among the jests of Augustus, is the following: "When he heard that among the children within two years of age which Herod king of the Jews commanded to be slain in Syria, his own son had been killed, he said, 'It is better to be Herod's hog than his son."" Macrobius wrote about A. D. 400, when the Gospel of Matthew was generally known throughout the empire; and if he did write these words, from what other source is it likely that he could have borrowed them? But the passage bears the strongest marks of forgery. Macrobius was in all probability a Heathen; and why should he go out of his way to give such a careful confirmation to one of Matthew's most questionable passages? No Heathen or Christian writer has stated that Herod killed a son under two years of age. Alexander, Aristobulus, and Antipater, whom he caused to be put to death, were all young men. The saying of Augustus would therefore be equally witty, and more true, without any allusion to the infants of Bethlehem. As the transcribers of the empire became Christian, we can imagine the temptation they must have felt to render such an easy but essential service to their new faith, as the manufacturing of Heathen and Jewish testimonies. Macrobius was likely to receive the same treatment as Josephus. Voltaire says (Philos. tom. iv.), but without naming his authority, that the ancient copies of Macrobius had not the clause in question. PAGE 146. The length to which this volume has extended prevents the insertion of the whole of the notes on which the assertions respecting the Gospels of Mark and Luke are grounded; but the following will explain the method of examination adopted. Notes on the comparison of Matthew with Mark. No. 1. That one borrowed from the other. 2. That Mark borrowed from Matthew, rather than the converse. 4. Apparent arbitrary alterations by Mark. 5. Amplifications, or exaggerations, upon Matthew's text. 6. Independent information of Mark. 7. Passages which appear to be omitted by Mark, rather than added by 8. That Mark used a Hebrew copy of Matthew. In the accounts of John the Baptist, Mark's appears to be that of one who had read or heard Matthew's often enough to be well acquainted with it, although he could not repeat the whole verbatim. Hence most of the verses in Mark agree with separate ones in Matthew, although in a different order. No. 2. The only thing additional in Mark is a quotation from Malachi, "Behold, I send my messenger," &c. It is very likely that Mark having heard this prophecy applied to John elsewhere, should think it worth while to add it to the one from Isaiah quoted by Matthew. But it is unlikely that Matthew, who was so intent upon the prophecies, should omit this, if he found it ready prepared for him. |