“It might have been expected, that, on our Saviour’s rising again from the dead, He would have shown Himself to very great numbers of people, and especially to those who crucified Him; whereas we know from the history, that, far from this being the case, He showed Himself only to chosen witnesses, chiefly His immediate followers; and St. Peter avows this in the text.”
When Paul says that he showed himself to over 500 hundred, I believe it is clear that Jesus showed himself to a large number of people, not his immediate followers. The writer’s assertion clearly implies that Jesus showed himself to very few people. Paul clearly states that he showed himself to many people. He didn’t even bother telling who they were and said many remained alive, even to that day.
Alright, you win. It was 500. So what? I am still at pains to understand why this distinction matters to you in the context of the article. What does Paul call these 500? 500 Jews? 500 Romans? No - 500 Fratribus, Adelphois. Brothers. People who knew Him well and loved Him. What does Newman say? “He showed Himself only to chosen witnesses, chiefly His immediate followers...” Apparently that means 500 people. Congrats.
I will re-post the Cardinal’s follow-up question, which it would appear you didn’t get to (having gotten yourself tied into knots over the difference-less distinction of the exact number of the witnesses):
“Why did not our Saviour show Himself after His resurrection to all the people? why only to witnesses chosen before of God?”
That is the key question of the article, which Cardinal Newman then offers his perspective on. Read it. Agree with it, disagree with it, I could care less. At least, however, consider IT, and not some idiotic polemic.