Neither the "_Matthew_" nor the "_Mark_" narrator says in what _way_ Jesus made his appearance--whether it was in the _body_ or only in the _spirit_. If in the latter, it would be fatal to the whole theory of the resurrection, as it is a _material_ resurrection that Christianity taught--just like their neighbors the Persians--and not a spiritual.[229:1] To put this disputed question in its true light, and to silence the objections which must naturally have arisen against it, was the object which the "_Luke_" narrator had in view. He says that when Jesus appeared and spoke to the disciples they were afraid: "But they were terrified and affrighted, and _supposed_ they had seen a _spirit_."[229:2] Jesus then--to show that he was _not_ a spirit--showed the wounds in his hands and feet. "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, _and did eat before them_."[229:3] After this, who is there that can doubt? but, if the _fish_ and _honeycomb_ story was true, why did the "_Matthew_" and "_Mark_" narrators fail to mention it? The "_Luke_" narrator, like his predecessors, had also overdone the matter, and instead of convincing the skeptical, he only excited their ridicule. The "_John_" narrator now comes, and endeavors to set matters right. He does not omit entirely the story of Jesus eating fish, _for that would not do, after there had been so much said about it_. He might leave it to be inferred that the "_Luke_" narrator made a mistake, so he modifies the story and omits the ridiculous part. The scene is laid on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias. Under the direction of Jesus, Peter drew his net to land, full of fish. "Jesus said unto them: Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh _bread_, and _giveth them_, and _fish_ likewise."[229:4] It does not appear from _this_ account that Jesus ate the fish at all. He took the fish and _gave to the disciples_; the inference is that _they_ were the ones that ate. In the "_Luke_" narrator's account _the statement is reversed_; the disciples gave the fish to Jesus, _and he ate_. The "_John_" narrator has taken out of the story that which was absurd, but he leaves us to infer that the "_Luke_" narrator was _careless_ in stating the account of what took place. If we leave out of the "_Luke_" narrator's account the part that relates to the fish and honeycomb, he fails to prove what it really was which appeared to the disciples, as it seems from this that the disciples could not be convinced that Jesus was not a spirit until he had actually eaten something. Now, if the _eating_ part is struck out--which the "_John_" narrator does, and which, no doubt, the ridicule cast upon it drove him to do--the "_Luke_" narrator leaves the question _just where he found it_. It was the business of the "_John_" narrator to attempt to leave it clean, and put an end to all cavil.