There is however a fairly good explanation. The appearances it will be remembered form _three groups_. Now St. Paul mentions two appearances to individual Apostles--St. Peter and St. James; and this was doubtless because he had had such vivid accounts of them from the men themselves, when he met them at Jerusalem. For we may be sure that if they had not told him, he would not have accepted it from anyone else. But he seems to refer to the others _in these groups_, first to the Twelve (at Jerusalem), then to the five hundred (in Galilee), and then to all the Apostles, evidently meaning more than the Twelve (back again at Jerusalem). But by so doing, he does not limit it to only one appearance in each group. In the same way a man might say that on returning to England he saw first his parents, then his brothers, then his cousins; though he had seen his parents on two days a week apart, his brothers for only a few hours, and his cousins for several successive days. And the fact that St. Paul, in one of his speeches in the Acts,[299] expressly says that Christ was seen for _many days_ at Jerusalem, strongly confirms this view. We conclude, then, that in his Epistle he is mentioning the appearances by groups, rather than every single one; wishing to emphasise the number of men who had seen Christ, rather than the number of times they had seen Him; and if so it does away with the difficulty. None of these objections, then, are of much importance. [Footnote 299: Acts 13. 31.] (_D._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS. Turning now to the other side, the narratives bear abundant marks of truthfulness. These we will consider under the three heads of _agreements_, _mutual explanations_, and _signs of early date_. (1.) _Agreements._ In the first place it is important to notice that in spite of the discrepancies and omissions just alluded to, there is an extraordinary amount of _agreement_ in the narratives. For all the more important points--the third day, the empty tomb, the visit of the women, the angelic message, the first appearance being in Jerusalem, the incredulity of some of the disciples, and Christ's not only appearing, but speaking as well, and this in the presence of all the Apostles--are _all_ vouched for by _every_ Evangelist. They also agree in saying that the Apostles _remained in Jerusalem_ after Christ's arrest, and did not as we might have expected return at once to Galilee? For the last two Gospels expressly state that they were in Jerusalem on Easter Day; and the first two imply it, or how could the women have been told to take them a message to _go_ to Galilee? Further they all agree in _not_ giving (what imaginary accounts might well have contained) any description of the Resurrection itself, any appearance of Christ to His enemies; or any information as to the other world, though this last would have been so eagerly welcomed, and could have been so easily invented.