(1) In the first book we have completed a lengthy but entirely necessary discussion, in which we have refuted the foolishness of those who hold in contempt the disciples who wrote Christ's Gospel. [They despise them] because we do not claim to have anything written by Christ himself, whom they do not believe to be god, but nevertheless do not hesitate to honor as a person far surpassing others in wisdom. Further, they want it to seem that [Christ] left writings that are amenable to their twisted ideas, rather than writings that could - through study and belief - correct such twisted ideas. Let us now look at what the four Evangelists have written of Christ, in order to see if they agree amongst themselves. [Let us do] this in such a way that not the least offence will be felt in the Christian faith by those who have more curiosity than understanding; [these people] have given not just a glance, but rather a careful examination to the books of the Evangelists, and they believe they have found there inconsistencies and contradictions, which they judge to be part of contentious objections, rather than objects of informed consideration.

(2) The Evangelist Matthew begins this way: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham."⁽¹⁾ By his beginning he shows clearly that he is trying to give an account of Christ's generation according to the flesh. For according to this, Christ is the Son of man, which he very frequently calls himself,⁽²⁾ thereby calling our attention to what he in his glory has mercifully become for us. For that heavenly and eternal generation, according to which he is the only begotten Son of God, who was before every creature, and by whom all things were made,⁽³⁾ is so ineffable, that we must understand the prophet [as speaking] of it when he says, "Who will explain his generation?"⁽⁴⁾ Matthew therefore follows Christ's human generation, listing his ancestors from Abraham on, continuing them down to Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. For it was not appropriate to consider him apart from his marriage to Mary, even though she gave birth to Christ as a virgin, and not as the result of sexual intercourse.⁽⁵⁾ This example wonderfully shows faithful married people that even if they mutually consent to remain continent, they can still remain and be called a married couple, for although there is no bodily association between the sexes, they keep their mental affections. [Their example is] especially [compelling], since they were able to have a son without that fleshly union that is only to be performed in order to conceive children. Just because Joseph had not begotten him through intercourse was no reason not to call him Christ's father, since one can rightly be the father of [a child] he had not begotten with his wife, but had adopted from someone else.

(3) It was also supposed that Christ was Joseph's son in the sense that he was really begotten by him in the flesh; but only those who were ignorant of Mary's virginity supposed this. For Luke says, "Then Jesus himself began to be about thirty years old, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph."⁽⁶⁾ But Mary was not his only parent, and Luke did not hesitate at all to name both of them as his parents, when he said, "And the boy grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was on him. And his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover."⁽⁷⁾ But if one were to suppose that "parents" here refers to Mary's relatives together with the mother herself, how would one explain what the same Luke said earlier: "And his father and mother marveled at those things that were said about him"?⁽⁸⁾ He therefore says that Christ was born of Mary the virgin, but not through intercourse with Joseph: how then can he call him his father, unless we rightly understand that he was the husband of Mary, without fleshly intercourse, but with marital union? And by this he was more intimately the father of Christ, since he was born of his wife, than if he had been adopted from someone else. From this it is clear, that he said, "(as was supposed) the son of Joseph,"⁽⁹⁾ for the sake of those who say that he was begotten by Joseph in the same way as other people are begotten.

(4) Therefore, even if one could show that there was no blood tie between Mary and David, one could still consider Christ the son of David,⁽¹⁰⁾ by the same reasoning that Joseph is rightly called his father. But since the apostle Paul clearly states that "Christ was descended from David according to the flesh,"⁽¹¹⁾ we ought not to doubt that Mary had some sort of blood tie with the line of David. Further, Luke is not silent about this woman being from the priestly family, since he says that her relative Elizabeth was one of the daughters of Aaron;⁽¹²⁾ therefore we should most firmly maintain that Christ's flesh descends from both lines. These are [the lines of] the kings and priests, in which persons a mystical anointing among the Hebrew people acted as a symbolic figure; this was the "chrisma," which explained Christ's name so long ago by the pronouncement of this most clear symbolism.⁽¹³⁾

(5) As for those who are disturbed by the fact that Matthew and Luke list different ancestors [for Christ], Matthew listing them from David down to Joseph, Luke listing them from Joseph up to David, it is easy enough if they consider the fact that Joseph might have had two fathers, one by whom he was begotten, another by whom he might have been adopted. For it was an ancient custom among that people of God that they would by adoption make sons for themselves from [children] they had not begotten. Setting aside [the example of] Pharaoh's daughter adopting Moses (for she was a foreigner),⁽¹⁴⁾ Jacob himself adopted his grandsons, the sons of Joseph, saying in these most clear words, "Now your two sons, who were born to you before I came to you, are mine. Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are. As for those of your line born afterwards, they will be yours."⁽¹⁵⁾ In the same way, there were twelve tribes of Israel, leaving out the tribe of Levi, which served in the temple; because including that one there thirteen, even though there were twelve sons of Jacob. Thus it can be understood why in his Gospel Luke [lists] as the father of Joseph,⁽¹⁶⁾ not the man by whom he was begotten, but the one by whom he was adopted, listing the ancestors upwards to David. For since both evangelists - Matthew and Luke - have given a true story, it is necessary that one of them give the lineage of the father who begat Joseph, and the other [give the lineage of] the one who adopted him. And who should we think would be more likely to give the lineage of the father who adopted him, than the [evangelist] who has refused to say that Joseph was begotten by that man whose son [that evangelist] says he is? For it is more appropriate to say that he was the son of the man who adopted him, than to say that he was begotten by a man from whose flesh he had not descended. So when Matthew said, "Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob,"⁽¹⁷⁾ and so on, keeping the term "begat" throughout, until finally he said, "Jacob begat Joseph," he showed sufficiently that he had given the order of the ancestors not up to the father who adopted Joseph, but the one who begat him.⁽¹⁸⁾

(6) But even though Luke said that Joseph was begotten by Heli, this phrase should not disturb us or make us believe anything other than the fact that the one evangelist mentioned the father who begat him, and the other [mentioned] the one who adopted him. For it is not absurd to say that one who has adopted a son has begotten him in love, although not in the flesh. Indeed, we have been given the power to become children of God,⁽¹⁹⁾ although [God] did not begat us from his own nature and substance as he did his only Son, but he did indeed adopt us in love. The apostle often uses this phrase to distinguish us from the only-begotten Son,⁽²⁰⁾ who is before all creatures, through whom all things were made, who alone is born of the Father's substance, and who in divine equality is in every way what the Father is. [This Son] is said to have been sent to take on the flesh of that race which is ours by our nature; out of love he participated in our mortality, so that by adoption he could make us participants in his divinity. For he says, "When the fulness of time had come, God sent his Son, made from a woman, made under the law, so that he might redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive the adoption of sons."⁽²¹⁾ But we are also said to be born of God, for we have received the power, already being human beings, to be made into children [of God];⁽²²⁾ we are made such by grace, not by nature, for if we were children by nature, we never could have been anything else. When John said, "To those who believe in his name, he gave the power to become children of God," he followed it with, "who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."⁽²³⁾ Thus he said that having received power they became children of God (which refers to the adoption that Paul mentions), and that they were born of God. And in order to show more clearly the grace that accomplished this, he continued, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,"⁽²⁴⁾ as if to say, "Why is it incredible that they are made children of God, even though they are flesh, when the only [Son] is made flesh, even though he is the Word?" The two cases differ greatly, however, in that when we are made children of God we are changed for the better, but when the Son of God was made the son of man, he was not changed into something worse, although he did lower himself. James also says this, "Of his own will he begat us by the word of truth, so that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures."⁽²⁵⁾ So that we would not think that "begat" means that we are made into what [God] himself is, [James] shows us clearly enough that we receive by this adoption a kind of preeminence among his creatures.

(7) It would not be untrue even if Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by the man who adopted him. For he did beget him, not as a person, but as a son, just as God begets us as sons, after having made us as human beings. But he begat one, who is not only the Son, which the Father is not, but is also God, which the Father is. But clearly, if Luke had used this phrase, it would have been altogether unclear which of [the evangelists] had recorded the adoptive father, and which had recorded the father who had begotten him from his own flesh. Likewise, if neither of them said "begat," but the one said he was the son of one man while the other said he was the son of another, it would then be unclear who had recorded his biological father and who had recorded his adoptive father. But in fact, the one says, "Jacob begat Joseph,"⁽²⁶⁾ while the other says, "Joseph, who was the son of Heli."⁽²⁷⁾ By the difference in phrasing, they both have elegantly indicated what they each intended. But, as I said, this [idea] would occur easily enough to a religious person, [a person] who thought it right to seek some [explanation], rather than believe that the evangelist had lied. It would occur easily, I say, to one who inquired as to how one man could have two fathers. This might have occurred to those critics, but they prefer contention to reflection.

(8) The next matter to be introduced is one that requires a most attentive and careful reader in order for it to be rightly perceived and understood. For it has been keenly observed that Matthew, who had undertaken to show the royal character of Christ, named forty men besides Christ himself in the series of generations.⁽²⁸⁾ This number signifies that time during which, in this age and on this earth we must be ruled by Christ according to that painful discipline, of which it is written, "God scourges every son whom he receives,"⁽²⁹⁾ and of which the apostle says, "Through tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God."⁽³⁰⁾ This [discipline] is also signified by that iron rod, which one can read of in a psalm, "You will rule them with an iron rod,"⁽³¹⁾ above which it is said, "I am set as king by him on his holy mount of Zion."⁽³²⁾ For even the good are ruled by an iron rod, as it is said of them, "It is time for judgment to begin with the Lord's household; and if it begins with us, what will be the end for those who do not believe in God's Gospel? And if the just one is barely saved, where will the sinner and impious appear?"⁽³³⁾ To these the following applies: "You will smash them like a potter's vessel."⁽³⁴⁾ For the good are ruled by this discipline, while the evil are destroyed by it. They are mentioned together because the same signs⁽³⁵⁾ apply to both the evil and the good.

(9) The following also shows that this number is a sign of that painful time when we will be under the discipline of Christ [and] fight the devil. Both Moses and Elijah fasted for forty days, [thereby showing that] both the law and the prophets prescribe a forty day fast, that is, a humbling of the soul. The Gospel's account of the Lord's fasting also prefigures this. For he was tempted by the devil for forty days,⁽³⁶⁾ having deigned to take upon himself the flesh of our mortality, just as we are tempted throughout the time of this age. And after the resurrection, he wished to stay with the disciples not longer than forty days,⁽³⁷⁾ mingling in their lives in human conversation and sharing with them the food of mortals, even though he would never die again. By these forty days he showed them that, although his presence would be hidden, he would fulfill what he promised when he said, "Behold, I am with you, even until the end of the age."⁽³⁸⁾ Why this number signifies this temporal and earthly life is suggested most readily by the following (although there may be other, more secret reasons). The seasons of the year pass in four changes, and the world itself has four boundaries, which Scripture sometimes records by the names of the winds - east and west, north and south.⁽³⁹⁾ Further, forty is four times ten, and ten is made by adding together the numbers between one and four.⁽⁴⁰⁾

(10) Therefore, since Matthew presented Christ as a ruler who came into this world, into this earthly and mortal human life, in order to rule us as we struggle in temptation, he started with Abraham and listed forty men. For Christ came in the flesh from that very nation of Hebrews, whom God set apart from other nations by separating Abraham from his own land and family:⁽⁴¹⁾ this promise was especially made so that the prophecy and prediction of the nation from which he was to come would be more clear. For [Matthew] set out fourteen generations in three parts, saying that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, another fourteen from David to the deportation to Babylon, and another fourteen from then until Christ's birth,⁽⁴²⁾ but he did not add them together and say that there were forty-two all together. For of these ancestors, one is counted twice, that is Jechonias, by whom there is a certain turning aside towards foreign nations at the time of the Babylonian deportation. Moreover, when a series is turned from its straightforward order towards something else, it forms a kind of angle in which the member forming the angle is listed twice, once as the end of the preceding series and once as the beginning of the new order. This also prefigured Christ, who in a way passed from the circumcision to the un-circumcision,⁽⁴³⁾ or from Jerusalem to Babylon, and became the cornerstone to all who believe in him,⁽⁴⁴⁾ whether on one side or the other. This was God presenting in figures things that were to come in truth. For this Jechonias himself, who prefigured this angle, is interpreted as "God's preparation."⁽⁴⁵⁾ Therefore, there are not forty-two [generations], which is the [correct] result of three times fourteen: because one is counted twice, there are forty-one generations, counting Christ himself, who rules our temporal and earthly life just as he regally presides over this number forty.

(11) Since Matthew wished to show [Christ's] descent into participation in mortality with us, he has recorded at the beginning of his Gospel in descending order those generations from Abraham to Joseph, and even up to Christ's own birth.⁽⁴⁶⁾ But Luke gives [Christ's] generations not at the beginning [of the Gospel], but at Christ's baptism, and not in descending order,⁽⁴⁷⁾ but ascending, thus showing him rather as a priest for the expiation of sins, as the voice from heaven declares him, and the testimony of John himself asserts: "Behold the one who takes away the sin of the world."⁽⁴⁸⁾ And ascending, he passes by Abraham and goes back to God, to whom we are reconciled in purity and expiation.⁽⁴⁹⁾ By his merit he has laid the foundation of our adoption, for we become sons of God through adoption by believing in the Son of God. Indeed, it was for us that the Son of God became the son of man according to fleshly generation. It is shown clearly enough that Joseph is not called the son of Heli because he was begotten by him, but because he was adopted by him: in the same way Adam was called the son of God, and he was made by God, but he was established as his son in paradise by the grace which he afterwards lost through his sin.

(12) Thus. Matthew's genealogy shows how the Lord Christ took on our sins, while Luke's genealogy shows how the Lord Christ took away our sins. This is why the one is in descending order, the other in ascending order. For when the apostle says, "God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh," this [refers] to his taking on of [our] sins; but when he adds, "for sin, in order to condemn sin in the flesh,"⁽⁵⁰⁾ this [refers] to the removal of sins. Thus Matthew traces his descent from David through Solomon, with whose mother [David] sinned,⁽⁵¹⁾ while Luke traces the line up to David through Nathan, the prophet by whom God removed [David's] sin.⁽⁵²⁾ Also, Luke gives a number that most certainly and clearly indicates the removal of sins. For although he bore in his flesh the iniquities of humanity, there were no related iniquities in Christ: therefore Matthew excludes Christ from the number forty. But on the other hand, by removing all sin from us and purging us, he unites us to the righteousness of himself and his father,⁽⁵³⁾ as the apostle says, "He who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit."⁽⁵⁴⁾ Therefore Luke's number includes Christ, who begins the list, and God, who ends it, thereby adding up to seventy-seven, which signifies the complete remission and removal of all sins.⁽⁵⁵⁾ The Lord himself expressed this idea through the mystery of this number, when he said that a sinner was to be forgiven "not only seven times, but seventy-seven times."⁽⁵⁶⁾

(13) If one inquires carefully, [one can see] how this number relates to the cleansing of all sins. For the ten precepts of the law show that the number ten is the number of righteousness.⁽⁵⁷⁾ And sin is going beyond the law,⁽⁵⁸⁾ which is analogous to eleven going beyond the number ten: this is why it was commanded that there be eleven goats-hair curtains in the tabernacle.⁽⁵⁹⁾ For who can doubt that goats-hair is a reference to sin? And since all time revolves in cycles of seven days, seven times eleven, or seventy-seven, would aptly show the fulness of all sin. In this number then is the complete remission of sin, as we are atoned for by the flesh of our priest,⁽⁶⁰⁾ from whom [the discussion] of this number began. We are also reconciled to God, by whom this number is completed through the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the form of a dove at the baptism which is related to this number.⁽⁶¹⁾

(14) After listing the generations, Matthew continues thus: "Christ's birth was thus. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit."⁽⁶²⁾ [Matthew] does not say how this happened, but Luke explains it after his account of John's conception: "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from the Lord to a city of Galilee named Nazareth,⁽⁶³⁾ to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came to her and said, 'Hail, you who are full of grace, the Lord is with you, you are blessed among women.' When she saw this, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, 'Fear not, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and his name will be Jesus: he will be great and will be called the son of the most high, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign in the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end.' And Mary said to the angel, 'How shall this be, since I do not know a man?' And the angel answered, saying to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you. Therefore he who is to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.'"⁽⁶⁴⁾ (There are then other things that do not relate to what we are now discussing.) All of this Matthew refers to when he says of Mary, "she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit." There is no contradiction if Luke explains something that Matthew omits, for they both testify that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. Nor is there any contradiction when Matthew includes something that Luke omits. For Matthew says the following: "Then her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, decided to divorce her privately. And while he was considering this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son and you will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this happened in order to fulfill what was said by the Lord through his prophet, saying: 'Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel, which is, interpreted, God with us.'⁽⁶⁵⁾ When Joseph woke up from sleep he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and he took his wife, and he did not know her until she had borne her first-born son, and he called his name Jesus. When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,"⁽⁶⁶⁾ and so on.

(15) As to the city of Bethlehem, Matthew and Luke agree, but Luke explains how and why they came there,⁽⁶⁷⁾ while Matthew omits this. But as to the journey of the magi from the east, Luke is silent, while Matthew tells us of it immediately after [what was discussed before]: "Behold, magi from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who is born king of the Jews? We have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him.' And when Herod the king heard this he was troubled,"⁽⁶⁸⁾ and so on. The account continues down to the place where it is written of these magi that "being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their country by a different way."⁽⁶⁹⁾ Luke omits this, just as Matthew does not narrate some things that Luke does: the Lord was laid in a manger;⁽⁷⁰⁾ an angel announced his birth to the shepherds;⁽⁷¹⁾ a great multitude of the host of heaven was with the angel praising God;⁽⁷²⁾ the shepherds came and saw that what the angel had announced to them was true;⁽⁷³⁾ on the day of his circumcision he received his name.⁽⁷⁴⁾ Luke also narrates the events that occurred after Mary's days of purification were completed:⁽⁷⁵⁾ they took him to Jerusalem and Simeon and Anna spoke of him in the temple, when, filled with the Holy Spirit, they recognized him.⁽⁷⁶⁾ Matthew is silent concerning all these things.

(16) Therefore we ought to inquire as to when those events occurred that Matthew omits but Luke includes, and those events that Luke omits and Matthew includes. For after Matthew tells that the magi who had come from the east returned to their own country, he goes on to tell that Joseph was warned by an angel to flee into Egypt with the child, so that he would not be killed by Herod;⁽⁷⁷⁾ that Herod could not find him, but killed the children two years old and under;⁽⁷⁸⁾ that upon Herod's death, [Joseph] returned from Egypt, and when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea instead of his father Herod, he went to live with the boy in the region of Galilee in the city of Nazareth.⁽⁷⁹⁾ Luke is silent concerning all these things. But it cannot be seen as a disagreement, if the one includes what the other omits, and the other records what the one does not. But we must inquire as to when these things that Matthew includes in his story could have happened: their flight into Egypt, their return after Herod's death, and their living in the city of Nazareth, the place that Luke says they returned to after they had completed in the temple all the things of the Lord's law that pertained to the boy. In this and other similar cases, we should be aware of the following, so that it will not affect or disturb our spirit again. Each evangelist constructs his narrative so that it appears an orderly account without omissions. He is silent concerning those things that he does not wish to narrate, and he connects the things that he does wish to narrate to what has just been said, so that it appears as an uninterrupted sequence. But if we carefully consider the order of the narrative at the point where one narrates something that the other omits, we can find the place where the one who omitted something made a leap and connected what he wished to narrate to what came before, as though it followed without interruption. By this we can understand that when Matthew tells of the dream warning the magi not to go back to Herod, and how they returned to their own country a different way,⁽⁸⁰⁾ he omits the things that Luke narrates concerning the Lord in the temple and what was said by Simeon and Anna.⁽⁸¹⁾ On the other hand, Luke omits their flight into Egypt, which Matthew narrates, and thereby [makes it seem] that their return to the city of Nazareth followed immediately.

(17) But if someone wishes to take all that is said or omitted in these two narratives, and make it into one narrative of Christ's nativity and infancy (or childhood), it would be in this order: Now Christ's birth was this way.⁽⁸²⁾ In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they did not have a child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years. And it happened that as he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot was to burn incense when he entered the Lord's temple. And the whole multitude of the people was outside praying at the hour of incense. And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing at the right side of the altar of incense. And Zacharias was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth; for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the unbelieving to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a perfect people." And Zacharias said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And answering the angel said to him, "I am Gabriel, who stands before God, and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring this good news to you. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day these things happen, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time." And the people were waiting for Zacharias, and they wondered at his delay in the temple. And when he came out he could not speak to them and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple; and he made signs to them and remained mute. And it happened that when the days of his service were finished, he went to his home. After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived and hid herself for five months, saying, "Thus has the Lord done to me in the days when he looked upon me, to take away my reproach among people." In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in to her and said, "Hail, o favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women." But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying and considered what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the son of the most high; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David. And he will reign in the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end." And Mary said to the angel, ''How shall this be, since I do not know a man?" And the angel answered, saying to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you. Therefore he who is to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.⁽⁸³⁾ For with God nothing will be impossible." And Mary said, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her. In those days Mary got up and went with haste into the hill country to a city of Judah, and entered into Zacharias' house and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. How can this be, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord." And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior, for he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed, for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation. He has made power with his arm,⁽⁸⁴⁾ he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their throne and exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things and sent away the rich empty. He has raised up his servant Israel, in memory of his mercy, as he said to our fathers, to Abraham and his descendants forever." And Mary stayed with her about three months and returned to her home.⁽⁸⁵⁾ And she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Then her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, decided to divorce her privately. And while he was considering this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son and you will call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this happened in order to fulfill what was said by the Lord through his prophet, saying: "Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel, which is, interpreted, God with us."⁽⁸⁶⁾ When Joseph woke up from sleep he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and he took his wife, and he did not know her.⁽⁸⁷⁾ Elizabeth's time to give birth had come, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had magnified his mercy towards her, and they congratulated her. And it happened that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child and they would have called him Zacharias after the name of his father. But answering his mother said, "No, he shall be called John." And they said to her, "None of your relatives is called by this name." They made signs to his father, [asking] what he wanted to call him. And asking for a writing tablet, he wrote, saying, "His name is John." And they all marveled. Immediately his mouth and tongue were loosed and he spoke, blessing God. And fear came upon all their neighbors, and all these things were spread through all the hill country of Judea. And all who heard them kept them in their hearts, saying, "What do you think this child will be?" For the hand of the Lord was with him. And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, as he said by the mouth of his holy, everlasting prophets, [that we would be] saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us, that he might have mercy on our fathers, and remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham and gave to us, in order that we, having been delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all of our days. And you, child, will be called the prophet of the most high; for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation to his people for the remission of their sins, through the deepest mercy of our God, whereby the dawn has come upon us from on high, to give light to those who sit in darkness in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day he was revealed to Israel. And it happened in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to make their declaration, each in his own city. And Joseph went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to make his declaration with Mary, who was betrothed to be his wife, and who was pregnant. And it happened that while they were there, the time for her to give birth had come, and she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room at the inn. And there were shepherds in that area, watching and keeping nighttime guard over their flock. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of God shone about them, and they were very afraid. And the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. For behold, I bring you good news of great joy, which will be to all the people. For to you is born this day in the city of David a savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign to you: you will find the baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger." And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will." And it happened that as the angels were going away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has shown us." And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they remembered what had been said to them about this child. And all who heard of these things also marveled at what was said to them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, as it had been told to them. And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, his name was called Jesus, as he had been called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.⁽⁸⁸⁾ Behold, magi from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he who is born the king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him." When Herod the kind heard this he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea. For thus it is written by the prophet, 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, are not the least among the rulers of Judea; for from you will come a leader who will rule my people Israel.'⁽⁸⁹⁾ Then Herod secretly called the magi and diligently inquired of them what time the star had appeared to them. And sending them to Bethlehem he said, "Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, report back to me, so that I may come and worship him too." When they had heard the king they left. And behold, the star that they had seen in the east went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with an exceedingly great joy. And going into the house they found the child with Mary his mother, and falling down they worshiped him. And opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they departed to their country by a different way.⁽⁹⁰⁾ And after their departure, it was time for her purification according to the law of Moses. They brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord"),⁽⁹¹⁾ and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."⁽⁹²⁾ And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, hoping for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was in him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came in the spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said, "Lord, now let your servant depart in peace, according to your word. For mine eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared before the face of all people, a light for revelation to the gentiles, and glory to your people Israel." And his father and mother marveled at what was said about him. And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this one is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against; and a sword will pierce your own soul too, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was very old, having lived with her husband for seven years from her virginity, and as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping night and day with fastings and prayers. And coming in at that very moment, she testified to God,⁽⁹³⁾ and spoke of him to all who hoped for the redemption of Jerusalem. And when they had finished everything according to the Lord's law,⁽⁹⁴⁾ behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Rise, and take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt and stay there until I tell you; for Herod will seek the child to destroy him." Rising, he took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt. And he was there until the death of Herod, in order to fulfill what was said by the Lord through his prophet, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."⁽⁹⁵⁾ Then Herod, seeing that he had been tricked by the magi, was extremely enraged, and sent [instructions] to kill all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs who were two years old and under, according to the time he had determined from the magi. Then was fulfilled what was said by the prophet Jeremiah, "A voice was heard in Rama, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children, and she refused to be consoled, for they were no more."⁽⁹⁶⁾ But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Rise, and take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead." Rising, he took the child and his mother and came to the land of Israel. But hearing that Archelaus reigned in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned in a dream, he turned aside to the region of Galilee. And he came and lived in a city called Nazareth, in order to fulfill what was said by the prophets, "He will be called a Nazarene."⁽⁹⁷⁾ And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was on him. And his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. And when the days were finished, they returned, but the boy Jesus remained in Jerusalem, and his parents did not know it. But supposing him to be in the crowd they went a day's journey, and then looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances. And when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him. And it happened that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and questioning them. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him they were astonished. And his mother said to him, "Son, why have you acted this way towards us? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you sorrowfully." And he said to them, "Why have you been looking for me? Did you not know that I must be about my father's business?" And they did not understand what he had said to them. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. And his mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom, age, and in favor with God and people.⁽⁹⁸⁾

(18) Now begins the narration of John's preaching, which is recorded by all four. For after the last of his words that I have placed above, where he records the testimony of the prophet, "He will be called a Nazarene,"⁽⁹⁹⁾ Matthew continues with the following, "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea,"⁽¹⁰⁰⁾ etc. And Mark, who has said nothing of the Lord's nativity or infancy or childhood, begins his Gospel with this event, John's preaching. For he begins thus: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way.⁽¹⁰¹⁾ The voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."⁽¹⁰²⁾ John was in the wilderness, baptizing and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,⁽¹⁰³⁾ etc. And after Luke says, "And Jesus increased in wisdom, age, and in favor with God and people,"⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ he continues by speaking of John's preaching: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, a word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness,"⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ etc. The apostle John, most eminent of the four evangelists, after he speaks of the word of God, who is also the Son who was before all the ages of creation, through whom all things were made,⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ also introduces John's preaching and testimony in this context, saying, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ Now it is clear that the four evangelists' narratives of John are not in disagreement with one another, so that it can neither be required nor demanded that we go through everything the way we did with the origins of Christ, who was born of Mary. For in that case, [we showed] how Matthew and Luke agreed, and how we might make one narrative out of the two, showing to the obtuse that although one might include what the other omits, or one might omit what the other includes, this does not hinder one from seeing the truthfulness of the other's account. By one such example, whether in the way I did it or in another more appropriate way, one can see that what one has seen done in this case could be done in any similar case.

(19) Therefore, let us now examine the agreement of the four evangelists regarding John the baptist. Matthew continues thus, "In those days came John the baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea."⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ Mark does not say, "In those days," because he tells of no events preceding it, to which events it would make sense to say, "In those days." But Luke's mentioning of the earthly powers specifies more precisely the time of John's preaching or baptism: "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, a word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness."⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ However, when Matthew says, "In those days," we must understand that he does not mean only the period of these powers, but that he wished to express a much longer time period when he said, "In those days." For he first narrates the return of Christ from Egypt after the death of Herod,⁽¹¹⁰⁾ which happened during his infancy or childhood, and which is therefore consistent with Luke's account of what happened in the temple when he was twelve years old.⁽¹¹¹⁾ And after he records the recall of the infant or child from Egypt, Matthew continues, "In those days came John the baptist."⁽¹¹²⁾ He thereby indicates not only the days of his childhood, but all the days from his nativity up until the time when John began preaching and baptizing, at which time Christ was a young man, for he and John were the same age, and it is said that he was about thirty years old when he was baptized by the latter.⁽¹¹³⁾

(20) But clearly it is to be expected that some will be bothered by the fact that Herod, who Luke says was tetrarch of Galilee during the days of John's baptizing, when the Lord was baptized as a young man,⁽¹¹⁴⁾ while Matthew says that the boy Jesus returned from Egypt after Herod's death.⁽¹¹⁵⁾ Both cannot be true, unless we are to understand that there were two Herods. But who cannot know that this is possible? They are blindly raving, those who are eager to make false charges against the truth of the Gospels, but whose consideration is so meager that they cannot understand how two men might have had the same name! This is a thing of which there are plenty of examples all around. For this latter Herod is understood to have been the son of the former Herod. [He had other sons], such as Archelaus, who Matthew says succeeded to the rule of Judea after his father's death;⁽¹¹⁶⁾ and Philip, whom Luke introduces as the brother of Herod the tetrarch and as himself the tetrarch of Ituraea.⁽¹¹⁷⁾ For it was Herod the king who sought the life of Christ as a child, but the other Herod, his son, was not called a king, but tetrarch, which is a Greek word that indicates one who rules the fourth part of a kingdom.

(21) Once again, the following may be troubling to some. Matthew says that upon his return, Joseph was afraid to go into Judea, because the son of Herod, Archelaus, reigned there in his father's place. But why would he go into Galilee, where there was another of his sons, Herod the tetrarch, as Luke declares? But this is only [a problem], if [Joseph] feared for the child's safety at the same time as the events Luke records. But this is clearly not the case, [for Luke says] not that Archelaus was king in Judea, but Pontius Pilate was their governor, who was not the king of the Jews. During his time, the sons of Herod the Great, acting under Tiberius Caesar, held not the kingdom, but the tetrarchy. These things had not happened when Joseph, fearing Archelaus who was ruling in Judea, went with the child into Galilee, where also was his city Nazareth.

(22) Or perhaps this is a problem. Matthew says that his parents went with the boy Jesus into Galilee, because they did not want to go into Judea on account of their fear of Archelaus, whereas Luke's account would make it seem rather that they went into Galilee because their city was Nazareth of Galilee. But it must be understood that when the angel said in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, "Rise, and take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel,"⁽¹¹⁸⁾ Joseph first understood this to mean that he was commanded to go into Judea, for that was the first interpretation one could have given to "land of Israel." But when he realized that Archelaus, the son of Herod, reigned there, he did not want to expose himself to such danger; then [he saw] that "land of Israel" could be interpreted to include Galilee, because the people of Israel lived there as well. There is also another way of solving this question. It might have seemed to Christ's parents that, since they had received such messages from angels concerning the boy, they were supposed to live with him only in Jerusalem, where the temple of the Lord was. And upon returning from Egypt, they might have gone there and lived there, had it not been for their terror of Archelaus' presence. But since they had not had any divine command to live there, it was not necessary for them to ignore their fear of Archelaus.

(23) Or does anyone ask this: how can it be that, as Luke reports, every year during Christ's childhood his parents went to Jerusalem,⁽¹¹⁹⁾ if the fear of Archelaus kept them from going there? It does not seem difficult to me to solve this, even though none of the evangelists have said how long Archelaus reigned there. For it might be that on the feast day, hidden by the huge crowds, they went up to and returned from a place they would have been afraid to live in on other days; they would thus be neither impious for neglecting the festival, nor conspicuous for living there continuously. And although all [the evangelists] fail to mention what was the length of Archelaus' reign, this interpretation is still open: that when Luke says that their custom was to go up to Jerusalem every year, we are to understand this as having happened when Archelaus was no longer feared. But if some non-Gospel history that appears trustworthy should show that Archelaus' reign lasted somewhat longer, then what I have said above should still suffice. Namely, that although the boy's parents feared to live in Jerusalem, their fear of God did not let them neglect the yearly festival, to which they could easily go in secret. For it is not incredible that, by seizing opportune times, either days or hours, people may go places in which they would fear to remain.

(24) Hereby also another question is solved, if it troubled anyone. If Herod the Great was already troubled, disturbed by what the magi had told him about the birth of the king of the Jews, then how could [Christ's] mother safely take him up to the temple when the days of her purification were complete, in order to do for him according to the law of the Lord, as Luke records.⁽¹²⁰⁾ But who cannot see that this one day might have gone unnoticed by a king who is occupied with many concerns? It does not seem unlikely that by the time Herod, extremely troubled and waiting for the magi's report on the child, realized he had been tricked, the mother's purification was already completed, and the religious rites of the first-born child were already finished in the Jerusalem temple, and even their departure into Egypt was accomplished; only then did it occur to him to seek the child's life, and to kill so many little ones. But if this troubles anyone, I will not neglect to state the many and important matters that could have drawn away the king's interest, so that for many days his attention was either completely diverted or hindered. Although no one could enumerate the causes that could have brought this about, no one is so ignorant of human affairs as to deny or doubt that there could have been many such important matters. For anyone could imagine that the king might have received announcements (whether true or false) of many other terrible things, so that rather than fearing some royal child who might after some years prove to be a threat to himself or his sons, he might instead be agitated by more immediate dangers, his mind drawn from that other worry, and he would instead occupy himself with other, more immediate precautions. But leaving all this aside, I venture to say that, when the magi did not report back to Herod, he could have believed they were misled by a false vision of a star, and when they did not find the one they thought had been born, they were too embarrassed to return to him. In this way he dispelled his fears and left off seeking or persecuting the child. But when they had gone with him to Jerusalem after his mother's purification, and those things that Luke reports had been [done] in the temple,⁽¹²¹⁾ then the prophetic words of Simeon and Anna about him began to be proclaimed by those who heard them, and these called the king's soul back to its original intention. Then Joseph was warned in a dream to flee into Egypt with the child and his mother.⁽¹²²⁾ Then when the things that had been said in the temple were made public, Herod realized he had been tricked by the magi, and desiring to bring about Christ's death, he killed many children, as Matthew records.⁽¹²³⁾

(25) Now Matthew says this about John: In those days came John the baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." For this is he who is spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."⁽¹²⁴⁾ Mark and Luke agree that this testimony of Isaiah refers to John.⁽¹²⁵⁾ Luke has recorded more words of the same prophet following these in his narrative of John the baptist. ⁽¹²⁶⁾ John the evangelist also records that John the baptist himself applied this same testimony of Isaiah to himself.⁽¹²⁷⁾ And also, Matthew gives some words of John that the others do not. He says he was "preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" These words of John the others have omitted. But what Matthew puts next, "For this is he who is spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,'" is in an ambiguous place. For it is not clear whether Matthew himself is saying this, or whether it is a continuation of John's words, so that we are to understand the whole thing as spoken by John, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he who is spoken of by the prophet Isaiah," etc. And it should not bother anyone that he does not say, "For I am he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah," but says, "For this is he who is spoken of [by the prophet Isaiah]." This manner of speech is usual for the evangelists Matthew and John to use in reference to themselves. For Matthew says, "He found a man sitting at the tax office,"⁽¹²⁸⁾ rather than saying, "He found me." And John also says, "This is the disciple who gives testimony of these things, and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true,"⁽¹²⁹⁾ rather than saying, "I am," etc., or "my testimony is true." The Lord himself very frequently says, "The son of man,"⁽¹³⁰⁾ or, "the Son of God,"⁽¹³¹⁾ instead of saying, "I." Or when he says, "It was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise on the third day,"⁽¹³²⁾ rather than saying, "It was necessary for me to suffer." Therefore it is possible that after saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," John the baptist could have continued and said of himself, "For this is he who is spoken of by the prophet Isaiah," etc. Only after his words does Matthew resume his naarative, "Now this John had a garment of camel's hair,"⁽¹³³⁾ etc. If this is so, then it is not remarkable that when asked he would say of himself, as John the evangelist reports he said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness,"⁽¹³⁴⁾ as he had already spoken in these terms when warning them to repent. Matthew then goes on to tell us of his clothing and his way of life: "Now this John had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist. And his food was locusts and wild honey."⁽¹³⁵⁾ Mark says this in almost the same words,⁽¹³⁶⁾ but the other two omit it.

(26) Matthew continues by saying the following: Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who told you to flee the wrath to come? Bear fruit worthy of repentance and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water for repentance; but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and with fire, whose winnowing fork is in his hand; and he will clear his threshing floor, and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."⁽¹³⁷⁾ Luke also says all this, ascribing almost the same words to John.⁽¹³⁸⁾ And where there is any variation in the words, there is no difference in the meaning. For example, Matthew says that John said, "...and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,'"⁽¹³⁹⁾ while Luke says, "...and do not begin to say, 'We have Abraham as our father.'"⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ Again, the former has, "I indeed baptize you with water for repentance,"⁽¹⁴¹⁾ while the latter adds in the questions of the crowds, as to what they should do, and gives John's response on the good works that are the fruits of repentance,⁽¹⁴²⁾ which Matthew omits. And when they were thinking in their hearts about [John], as to whether he were the Christ, [Luke] has him respond, "I indeed baptize you with water,"⁽¹⁴³⁾ but does not say "for repentance." And in Matthew, [John] says, "but he who is coming after me is mightier than I,"⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ while [Luke] has him say, "but one mightier than I is coming."⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ Likewise, in Matthew he says, "whose shoes I am not worthy to carry,"⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ but in [Luke], "the string of whose shoes I am not worthy to untie,"⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ which Mark also says, although he omits other matters. For after noting his clothing and food, he goes on to say the following: And he preached, saying, "After me comes one mightier than I, the string of whose shoes I am not worthy to bend down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ Therefore, as for the shoes, he differs from Luke only by his addition of "bend down"; as for the baptism, [he differs] from both by his not saying "and with fire," but only, "with the Holy Spirit." For both Matthew and Luke say the same thing in the same order: He will baptize you with the Spirit and with fire, except Luke does not add "Holy,"⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ while Matthew says "with the Holy Spirit and with fire." John the evangelist confirms the other three in the following: John bears witness to him and cries, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is above me, for he was before me.'"⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ Thus he shows that this was said at the same time as John's speech recorded by the others. Also, [John the baptist] was repeating and reiterating something he had already said, when he said, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me.'"

(27) What if one were to ask what were the exact words that John the baptist said, whether those recorded as spoken by him in Matthew or Luke, or those few included as spoken by him in Mark (who omits the rest)? In no way would this be considered a difficulty by anyone who wisely understands that what is necessary in order to know the truth, is the meaning, and not the exact words used. If there is a difference in the order of words between two of them, that is not really a contradiction. Nor is there a contradiction if the one includes what the other omits. It is clear that they have set down these things as they remembered them, and as they were moved to be either brief or expansive, while nonetheless expressing one meaning.

(28) Thus it is clear enough in what is most related to the present point, that the truth of the Gospel is from the word of God, which remains eternal and unchangeable above all that is created. [But although it] is spread abroad through the creation of temporal signs and through human language, it has the highest level of authority. Therefore one should not suppose that one of them is deceitful, if in their account of something they saw or heard, several people remember it in not exactly the same way or in not exactly the same words, but nonetheless describe the same thing; nor if the order of the words is different; nor if some words are in place of others that nonetheless indicate the same thing; nor if something is not said, either because it did not occur to the writer, or because it could be inferred from other things that were said; nor if one decides to mention something for the sake of the narrative, and in order to keep the temporal order in place, one only touches on part of something, rather than explaining it entirely; nor if the person who has the authority to write the narrative should add - not something to the subject - but some words in order to illuminate and explain his meaning; nor if, although he presents the subject well, he tries but does not succeed in remembering and expressing the exact words he heard with complete accuracy. And if someone says that the evangelists certainly ought to have been given this [ability] by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that their words would differ in neither kind, order, nor number, then this person does not understand that just as the evangelists' authority is heightened, so too is the safety of other people who speak the truth made secure through them. For if several people narrate the same thing, in no way can one of them be rightly accused of falsehood if he differs from the other, because the evangelists give a precedent example in his defense.⁽¹⁵¹⁾ For just as it is impossible to consider or say that with the evangelists there is anything false, so too it appears there is nothing false about a writer who has done his work in the same way as we have shown they have done theirs. And just as it belongs to the highest morality to guard against falsehood, so too we ought to be ruled by so eminent an authority, so that we do not suppose that any narratives which we discover contain variations are therefore false, for there are variations among the evangelists.⁽¹⁵²⁾ At the same time, we ought to understand that in matters most closely related to the faithfulness of doctrine, the truth is not to be sought and embraced in mere words, but in the things themselves. For with writers who use different words, but who do not differ in their subjects and ideas, we accept them as established in the same truth.

(29) Now what is there in the comparisons I have proposed between the narratives of the evangelists that must be considered contradictory? Is it that one says, "whose shoes I am not worthy to carry,"⁽¹⁵³⁾ while the others say, "the string of whose shoes... to untie"?⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ For this seems not to be a matter of words, or order of words, or mode of speech, but to be about the subject itself, for the one is about "carrying shoes," and the others are about "untying the string of the shoes." Therefore it may be rightly asked: what did John say he was unworthy to do - carry the shoes, or untie the string of the shoes? For if he only said one of these things, then the narrative that said what he really said would seem to be the true one; and the other, while not a lie, would nonetheless be a mistake, and would be supposed to have said one thing instead of another. But one ought to keep away from the evangelists all charges of falsehood, not only that which comes from lying, but also that which comes from forgetfulness. Therefore, if it is relevant to the subject to understand "carrying shoes" to mean one thing, and "untying the string of the shoes" to mean another, then how should one rightly understand it, except that John said both things, either on separate occasions, or on the same occasion? For he might have said, "the string of whose shoes I am not worthy to untie, and whose shoes I am not worthy to carry." Thereby the one evangelist gave part of it, and the others the rest, and nonetheless all have given truthful accounts. Furthermore, if, by mentioning the Lord's shoes, John intended to show [the Lord's] magnificence and his own lowliness, then whatever he said, whether it was about untying the string of the shoes or carrying the shoes, the sense is preserved by any writer who mentions the shoes in his own words, thereby expressing the same idea of lowliness and not altering his subject's thought. Therefore, this is a useful method, and one especially worthy to be remembered, that when we speak of the agreement of the evangelists, that there is no falsehood, not even if they say the subject of a narrative said something that that person did not say, as long as they express the same thought as the one of them who does record the actual words [spoken]. From this we learn the sound lesson, that we ought to seek nothing other than what the person speaking meant.

(30) Matthew continues and says the following: Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. But John forbade him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" But answering, Jesus said to him, "Let it be so, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he let him.⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ The others also attest that Jesus came to John.⁽¹⁵⁶⁾ The three also record that he was baptized. But they omit one thing that Matthew includes, that John spoke to the Lord, and that the Lord answered John.

(31) Then Matthews continues: When Jesus was baptized, he immediately went up out of the water. And behold, the heavens were opened to him and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And behold, a voice from heaven saying, "This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased."⁽¹⁵⁷⁾ Two of the others, Mark and Luke, tell a similar story.⁽¹⁵⁸⁾ But for the words of the voice that came from heaven they give various expressions, even though they keep the sense intact. For although Matthew says, "This is my beloved son," and the other two say, "You are my beloved son," it serves to express the same sense, as discussed above. For although the heavenly voice only said one of these things, the evangelist wished to show by this saying, "This is my son," that it was for the benefit of those listening, to show them that he was the son of God. Thus he turned, "You are my son," into, "This is my son," as though it was said to them. For it could not be to show Christ something he already knew, but so that those present could hear it, for whose sakes the indeed the voice itself was there. But the one says, "with whom I am well pleased,"⁽¹⁵⁹⁾ while the other says, "with you I am well pleased,"⁽¹⁶⁰⁾ while the other says, "with you it has well pleased me."⁽¹⁶¹⁾ If you ask which of these reproduce what was said by that voice, any one of them may be accepted, as long as you understand that although they do not give the exact same phrasing, they give they same sense. This diversity in speech is also useful for this, that with only one version of the saying, it might be harder to understand it, or it might be interpreted in a way other than the sense of the thing itself. For in the saying, "with whom I am well pleased," anyone who wanted to understand it to mean that God is pleased with himself in the Son would be warned away from this by the saying, "with you I am well pleased."⁽¹⁶²⁾ On the other hand, if one understands this latter saying to mean that the Father is made pleasing to people by the Son, then one is warned away from this by the saying, "with you it has well pleased me." From this it is clear enough that whichever of the evangelists has preserved the actual words of the heavenly voice, the others have varied the words only in order to explain the sense of it more familiarly, so that what is said by all of them might be understood as saying, "in you I have placed my good pleasure," that is to say, "through you, to do what is pleasing to me." But again, some of the versions of the Gospel according to Luke say that what was heard in that voice was what was written in the Psalm, "You are my son, today I have begotten you."⁽¹⁶³⁾ Although it is said not to be found in the more ancient Greek versions, but if it can be confirmed by any trustworthy ones, how else could it be understood, than that both were heard from heaven, in whichever word order?

(32) In [the Gospel] according to John, what time the dove came down is not told, but the words of John the baptist reporting what he saw are recorded. In this it must be asked, how the following can be said: And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "The one on whom you will see the descend and remain, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit."⁽¹⁶⁴⁾ But if he came to know him only when he saw the dove descending upon him, there is a question as to how he could have said to him when he came to be baptized, "I need rather to be baptized by you,"⁽¹⁶⁵⁾ since he said this to him before the dove descended. From this it is clear, that although he already knew him (after all, he leaped in his mother's womb, when Mary came to Elizabeth),⁽¹⁶⁶⁾ there was something he did not know, and which he learned by the Spirit's descent: that only [Christ] baptized with the Holy Spirit by his own divine power, so that no one who received baptism from God, even though [John] baptized some, could say that that which he handed on was his own, nor that the Holy Spirit was given by him.

(33) Matthew continues and says the following: Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was hungry afterwards. And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, speak, so that these stones will be made into bread." But answering, he said, "It is written, 'Humanity shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God,'"⁽¹⁶⁷⁾ etc., up until it says, "Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him."⁽¹⁶⁸⁾ Luke tells the whole story similarly, but in a different order.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾ This makes it uncertain whether the kingdoms of the earth were shown to him, and then he was taken up to the pinnacle of the temple, or whether the latter occurred before the former. But it is not really important, as long as it is clear that all these things really happened. Although Luke expresses the same ideas in different words, it need not be noted again that there is no loss of truth thereby. For Mark confirms that he was tempted in the wilderness by the devil for forty days and nights, but he does not mention what was said to him or how he replied.⁽¹⁷⁰⁾ But the angels ministering to him he does not omit, even though Luke does. And John has omitted this whole passage.

(34) Matthew continues with the following: Now when he heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee.⁽¹⁷¹⁾ Mark says the same, as does Luke,⁽¹⁷²⁾ but Luke says nothing in this section about John being handed over. And the evangelist John says that before Jesus went into Galilee, Peter and Andrew were with him one day, and that at that time Peter was given the name Peter, having been called Simon before.⁽¹⁷³⁾ Likewise the following day, desiring to go into Galilee, he found Philip and told him to follow him.⁽¹⁷⁴⁾ So too he tells the story of Nathanael.⁽¹⁷⁵⁾ On the third day, when he was in Galilee, he performed the miracle at Cana of turning the water into wine.⁽¹⁷⁶⁾ All the other evangelists omit all these things, and continue their narratives with Jesus' return into Galilee. It should be understood that some days intervened; John placed [in the narrative here] those things related to the disciples that took place at this time. And there is nothing here that contradicts that other passage, where Matthew reports that the Lord said to Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."⁽¹⁷⁷⁾ It is not to be understood that this is when he received that name; this [happened] rather when it was said to him, as John records, "You will be called Cephas, which means, Peter (or Rock)."⁽¹⁷⁸⁾ Thus the Lord could call him by that name later, saying, "You are Peter," for he does not say [later], "You will be called Peter," but, "You are Peter," because he had already said to him before, "You will be called."

(35) Matthew's narrative continues: And leaving the city of Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, on the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali,"⁽¹⁷⁹⁾ etc., up until the end of the sermon that he gave on a mountain.⁽¹⁸⁰⁾ In this section of the narrative he is confirmed by Mark as to the calling of the disciples Peter and Andrew, and a little later, James and John.⁽¹⁸¹⁾ But when Matthew continues his narrative with that long sermon that he gave on a mountain, after he cured a multitude and many crowds followed him,⁽¹⁸²⁾ Mark instead inserts other things, such as his teaching in the synagogues and the amazement at his teaching.⁽¹⁸³⁾ He also says what Matthew says after that long sermon, that "he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes."⁽¹⁸⁴⁾ He has also told of the man out of whom the unclean spirit was cast, and then the story of Peter's mother-in-law.⁽¹⁸⁵⁾ Luke too agrees with these things.⁽¹⁸⁶⁾ Matthew, however, gives no story of this demon; he does not omit the story of Peter's mother-in-law, though [he includes it] later.⁽¹⁸⁷⁾

(36) After this passage which we are now considering of the calling of the disciples, who were fishing and whom [Jesus] commanded to follow him, Matthew says he went around Galilee teaching in the synagogues and preaching the Gospel and healing all sicknesses, and when the crowds had gathered around him, he went up on a mountain and gave that long sermon.⁽¹⁸⁸⁾ This passage leads us to conclude that those things that Mark narrates after the choosing of those disciples must have happened when he was going around Galilee and teaching in their synagogues.⁽¹⁸⁹⁾ So too the story of Peter's mother-in-law [must have happened at this point]; [Matthew] has recorded later what he has omitted here, though he has not included everything he omitted here in his latter narrative.

(37) But this may be a problem. John says that [the following happened] not in Galilee, but near the Jordan: first, Andrew followed the Lord, together with another, whose name is not stated; second, Peter received his name from him; third, Philip was called to follow him.⁽¹⁹⁰⁾ But the other three evangelists agree among themselves (especially Matthew and Mark), that they were called while fishing.⁽¹⁹¹⁾ Although Luke does not mention Andrew by name, one can gather that he was in the boat, based on the account of Matthew and Mark, which briefly summarizes what happened, while Luke gives a clearer account, recording also the miraculous catch of fish, and also that the Lord first spoke to the crowds from that boat.⁽¹⁹²⁾ But this would also seem to be a difference, that [Luke] writes, "From now on you will catch men,"⁽¹⁹³⁾ as though the Lord said it to Peter alone, while the others record it as though it was said to both brothers.⁽¹⁹⁴⁾ But it may be that this was said first to Peter, when he was marveling at the huge multitude of fish caught, as Luke indicates, and later to both, as the other two record. Therefore what we have said of John should be considered carefully, for it may raise an issue of no small incompatibility, as there is disagreement as to location, time, and the calling itself. For if it is the case that near the Jordan, before Jesus went into Galilee, based on the testimony of John [the baptist], two men followed [Jesus] - Andrew, who immediately brought to Jesus his brother Simon, who then received the name Peter, by which he was subsequently called - how can the other evangelists say that he found them fishing in Galilee and called them to be his disciples? How can this be understood, unless when the Lord was near the Jordan, they did not perceive him to be someone they would inseparably attach themselves to, but they only learned who he was, and after marveling at him, they returned to their usual lives.

(38) Again, in Cana of Galilee, after he had turned the water into wine, John says how his disciples believed in him. He writes the following: And on the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and Jesus' mother was there. And Jesus was invited to the marriage, along with his disciples.⁽¹⁹⁵⁾ Now if this was the time when they believed in him, as he says a little later, then they were not his disciples when they were invited to the marriage. But this is a way of speaking, and means the same as when we say that the apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia,⁽¹⁹⁶⁾ even though he was not an apostle then. So when we hear that Christ's disciples were invited to the marriage, we ought to understand, not that they were then disciples, but that they were to become his disciples. For when this narrative was written down, they were indeed Christ's disciples, and that is why [the evangelist], as the narrator of past times, has spoken of them this way.

(39) And when John says, "After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there not many days,"⁽¹⁹⁷⁾ it is unclear whether they were then attached to him, especially Peter, Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee. For Matthew says first that he came and dwelt in Capernaum, and later that he called them from their boats as they were fishing.⁽¹⁹⁸⁾ But [John] says that his disciples came with him to Capernaum. It may be that Matthew here goes over what he had omitted elsewhere. For he does not say, "After this, while walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers," but without any indication of the temporal sequence, he says only, "walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers,"⁽¹⁹⁹⁾ etc. Therefore it may be that [Matthew] records later not what happened later, but something that he had omitted before, so that it may be understood that they came with him to Capernaum, as John says he came with his mother and disciples. Or perhaps these were other disciples, such as Philip, who followed him, and who had been called when he said, "Follow me."⁽²⁰⁰⁾ For it is not clear from the evangelists' accounts, in what order all twelve apostles were called. Not only is the order of their callings not recorded, but even the event of the calling of every one of them is not recorded, but only those of Philip and Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee and Matthew the tax-collector, who was also called Levi.⁽²⁰¹⁾ Peter was the first and only one, however, separately to receive a name from him.⁽²⁰²⁾ For he called the sons of Zebedee both together - and not separately - the sons of thunder.⁽²⁰³⁾

(40) Certainly it should be noted, that the scriptures, both Gospel and apostolic, do not use the name "disciples" only for those twelve, but for all who believed in him and were educated by his teaching for the kingdom of heaven. For out of many such [disciples] he called twelve, whom he also called apostles, as Luke records.⁽²⁰⁴⁾ For a little further on he says, "And he came down with them and stood on a level place with a crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people."⁽²⁰⁵⁾ He surely would not have said "crowd" of disciples, if there were only twelve men. In other passages of scripture it is also clearly apparent that "disciples" refers to anyone who learned from him about eternal life.

(41) But one may ask how he called the fishermen from their boats by twos, first Peter and Andrew, then going a little forward, another two, the sons of Zebedee, as Matthew and Mark say, while Luke says that both their boats were filled with the great catch of fish. He also says that Peter's partners, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were called upon to help, when they could not drag up their full nets, and they marveled at the huge number of fish that had been caught, and [Christ] said to Peter, "Do not be afraid, from now on you will be catching people."⁽²⁰⁶⁾ As soon as they drew their boats up to shore, they followed him. This is to be understood as Luke showing what happened first, that they were not then called by the Lord, but only that it was predicted that Peter would be a catcher of people. Nor was it said that from then on they would not be catchers of fish, for we read that even after the Lord's resurrection they were fishing.⁽²⁰⁷⁾ Therefore, it means that henceforth he would catch people; it does not mean that henceforth he would not catch fish. From this passage one could assume that they returned to their habit of catching fish. Therefore, what Matthew and Mark narrate could have happened later, that he called them by twos and commanded them to follow him, first the pair of Peter and Andrew, and then the other two, the sons of Zebedee. For at that time they did not take care to draw up their boats, as though they would return to them, but they followed him immediately, as one who had called and commanded them to follow him.

(42) Further, we must ask how John the evangelist, before John the baptist is put in prison, says that Jesus went into Galilee. For after recording that he turned the water into wine in Cana of Galilee, and went down to Capernaum with his mother and disciples, and remained there not many days,⁽²⁰⁸⁾ he then says that he went up to Jerusalem for the Passover,⁽²⁰⁹⁾ and after this he came into the land of Judea with his disciples and stayed there with them and baptized.⁽²¹⁰⁾ He then says that "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized. For John had not yet been put in prison."⁽²¹¹⁾ But Matthew says, "Now when he heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee."⁽²¹²⁾ Similarly, Mark has, "Now after John had been handed over, Jesus came into Galilee."⁽²¹³⁾ Now Luke says nothing of John's being handed over; but nonetheless, after Christ's baptism and temptation, he, like the other two, says he went into Galilee. For thus his narrative continues: And when every temptation was finished, the devil departed from him for a time. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report of him went out through all that area.⁽²¹⁴⁾ From this it should be understood that these three evangelists do not record anything contrary to John the evangelist, but only that they have omitted the Lord's first arrival into Galilee after his baptism, which was when he turned the water into wine, and at which time John had not yet been handed over. Into their narratives they have inserted another arrival of his into Galilee, which occurred after John was handed over. John the evangelist himself also speaks of this return into Galilee: Now when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples), he left Judea and departed again into Galilee."⁽²¹⁵⁾ So we learn that by that time John had already been handed over, and that the Jews had heard that [Jesus] was making and baptizing more disciples than John had made and baptized.

(43) Now as for that long sermon that Matthew says the Lord gave on a mountain, let us see whether or not the other evangelists seem to be in disagreement with it. Mark has recorded none of it, nor even anything similar to it, except some disconnected, scattered sentences, that the Lord repeated in other places. But he has left a space in the text of his narrative, where we may understand that this sermon was said, even though it has been omitted. That is where he says, "And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons."⁽²¹⁶⁾ This preaching, which he says took place in all of Galilee, is to be understood as including that sermon which he gave on a mountain, and which is recorded by Matthew. For Mark continues: And a leper came to him, beseeching him, and kneeling said, "If you will, you can make me clean,"⁽²¹⁷⁾ etc. He goes on to tell of the leper's cleansing, so that it is to be understood that it is the same cleansing that Matthew records after the Lord came down from his sermon on the mountain. For Matthew says this: When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came and worshiped him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean,"⁽²¹⁸⁾ etc.

(44) Luke also mentions this leper,⁽²¹⁹⁾ not in this order, but in the manner in which they usually worked, remembering things they had omitted previously, or anticipating things that happened later; they knew these things before, but as they remembered them later, they were divinely prompted to write them down. Indeed, Luke has also given us his version of the Lord's long sermon, which begins the same as Matthew's [version]. For the latter says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"⁽²²⁰⁾ while the former [says], "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."⁽²²¹⁾ And much of what following in Luke's narrative is similar [to Matthew's]. And the conclusion of the sermon is the same in both: [the story] of the wise one who built on rock, and the foolish one who built on sand, except that [Luke] speaks of the stream beating against the house, but not the rain and wind, as Matthew does.⁽²²²⁾ Therefore, it is easy enough to believe that [Luke] has introduced the same sermon of the Lord, but has omitted some sentences that Matthew has included, included others that [Matthew] has not, and expressed others in such a way that they preserve the integrity of the truth, though not in the same exact words.

(45) This could easily be believed, as I have said, except for the problem that Matthew says the Lord gave this sermon while sitting on a mountain, and Luke [says] the Lord was standing on a level place.⁽²²³⁾ This difference makes it seem that the one [refers] to one [speech], and the other to another. But what would keep Christ from repeating something he had said before, or from doing something he had done before? But one should probably conclude that these two sermons inserted by Matthew and Luke are not separated by a long period of time, because before and after both [sermons] similar or identical events are narrated. Therefore it is not absurd to feel that these narratives inserted here took place in the same places and times. For Matthew says the following: And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan. Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And opening his mouth, he taught them, saying, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"⁽²²⁴⁾ etc. This makes it seem that he wished to avoid the great crowds, so he went up the mountain to withdraw from the crowds, so that he could speak to his disciples alone. This seems to be confirmed by Luke's narrative: It happened in those days, that he went out to a mountain to pray, and all night he was praying to God. And when it was day, he called his disciples and chose twelve from them, whom he named apostles; Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the betrayer. And going down with them, he stood on a level place, with a crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. And those who were troubled by unclean spirits were cured. And all the crowd sought to touch him, for power went out from him and healed them all. And he lifted up his eyes to his disciples, and said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,"⁽²²⁵⁾ etc. This makes the following seem probable. On the mountain he chose twelve disciples from many [other disciples], whom he named apostles, [an incident] that Matthew omits. Then he gave the sermon on the mount, which Matthew includes and Luke omits. Then he came down the mountain and gave another similar [sermon] on a level place, which Matthew omits and Luke does not omit. And both these sermons ended in the same way.

(46) At the end of that sermon, Matthew says the following: And it happened that, when Jesus had finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching.⁽²²⁶⁾ This might make it seem that the crowds of disciples, from whom he chose the twelve, were speaking. And immediately he goes on to say the following: When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came and worshiped him."⁽²²⁷⁾ From this one should understand that this took place after both sermons, not just Matthew's, but also the one Luke inserts. For it is not clear how much time passed after [his] descent from the mountain: Matthew did not wish to show how much time had intervened, but only that after [his] descent from the mountain, there were great crowds with the Lord when he cleansed the leper. This is also shown by the fact that Luke says this same leper was cleansed when the Lord was in a city,⁽²²⁸⁾ which Matthew has not bothered to tell us.

(47) The following might also have occurred. Perhaps the Lord was on some higher part of the mountain, only with his disciples, when he chose twelve of them. Then he came down with them from that higher part of the mountain (and not down from the mountain itself), on to a level place, that is, a level place that was on the mountain and which could hold great crowds, and he stood there and the crowds gathered around him.⁽²²⁹⁾ After this he sat down, and his disciples came near him,⁽²³⁰⁾ and he gave one sermon to them and to the other crowds that were present. Matthew and Luke narrate this according to their different narrative styles, but they both speak the truth regarding the [sermon's] subjects and ideas. For we have already noted something that did not need to be noted and should have been immediately evident to anyone: that there is no contradiction if one omits what the other includes, nor if one expresses it one way and the other another way, as long as they both express the truth regarding the subjects and ideas.⁽²³¹⁾ In this way, when Matthew says, "When he came down from the mountain,"⁽²³²⁾ it can be understood as a level place, which could have been on the mountain. Then Matthew tells of the cleansing of the leper, which Mark and Luke [tell] similarly.⁽²³³⁾

(48) After this Matthew continues in the following manner: And when he entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him, begging him and saying, "Lord, my servant lies at home, paralyzed and terribly tormented,"⁽²³⁴⁾ etc., up to the place where it says, "And the servant was healed at that very moment."⁽²³⁵⁾ Luke also records this story of the centurion's servant, though not immediately after the cleansing of the leper, which he has already recorded even though it [happened] later.⁽²³⁶⁾ Luke connects it after the end of that long sermon: When he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. And a centurion's slave, who was dear to him, was sick to the point of death,"⁽²³⁷⁾ etc., down to the place where it says he was healed.⁽²³⁸⁾ Thus it is to be understood that Christ entered Capernaum after he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people. This only means that he did not enter there before he had finished these words, but it does not imply anything as to the length of the time interval between the end of the sermon and [his] entrance into Capernaum. During this interval that leper was cleansed, which Matthew puts in this place, thus recording later.⁽²³⁹⁾

(49) Now let us see whether Matthew and Luke agree with one another concerning the centurion's servant. Matthew says this: a centurion approached him, begging him and saying, "My servant lies at home, paralyzed."⁽²⁴⁰⁾ This seems to be incompatible with what Luke says: When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, begging him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they begged him anxiously, saying, "He is worthy for you to do this for him, for he loves our nation and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. And when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof, nor did I consider myself worthy to come to you; but say the word, and my servant will be healed."⁽²⁴¹⁾ If this is how it happened, how can it be true, as Matthew says, that "a certain centurion approached him," when he himself did not approach him, but sent friends?⁽²⁴²⁾ But if we examine it carefully, we may understand that Matthew has only used a common way of speaking. For we are used to saying that someone is approaching, before they have reached the place that they are said to be approaching; we even speak of "approaching a little," or "approaching more," towards something one wishes to reach. We even frequently say that one has reached the thing which was the reason for the approach, even though the one who reaches may not see the one whom he reaches, using friends to reach the one whose favor is necessary for him. This is so customary, that one even commonly gives the name "reachers" to those who in campaigning [use] the intervention of suitable people to get at those powerful people who are inaccessible. If then one may say that one reaches someone through others, how much more would it be possible [to say] that one approaches someone through others, since [approaching] is less than reaching. For one could do a lot of approaching, and still not be able to reach something! The following, therefore, is not at all unreasonable (indeed, anyone could understand it). The centurion approached the Lord through others, and Matthew chose to express this concisely by saying, "A centurion approached him."

(50) However, we should not carelessly overlook the mystical height of the holy evangelist's language, as it resembles what is written in the Psalm, "Approach him and be radiant."⁽²⁴³⁾ For the centurion approached Jesus with such faith, that Jesus himself praised it, saying, "I have not found such faith in Israel."⁽²⁴⁴⁾ The evangelist wisely chose to say that he approached Christ himself, rather than those through whom he sent his words. Furthermore, Luke has presented the event in such a way that it leads us to understand how someone else who was incapable of falsehood might tell of his approach. In the same way, the woman who suffered from the flow of blood, although she only touched the fringe of his garment, she touched him more deeply than did the crowds that pressed upon him.⁽²⁴⁵⁾ For she touched the Lord more deeply, because she believed more deeply; and in the same way, the centurion approached the Lord more deeply, because he believed more deeply. As for the rest of this section, it would be superfluous to go over the things that are said by one and omitted by the other, since by that rule noted earlier, no contradiction is to be found.

(51) Matthew continues in the following manner: And when Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law was lying sick and with a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she got up and served them.⁽²⁴⁶⁾ Matthew does not say what events this occurred before or after. For just because it is placed after an event in the narrative, it is not necessary to assume that it occurred after that. Undoubtedly we are to understand that he has here mentioned something that he omitted before. For Mark places this story before he records the cleansing of the leper, which it would appear should be placed after the sermon on the mount, but he has omitted that [sermon]. Luke as well as Mark place the story of Peter's mother-in-law after the same event,⁽²⁴⁷⁾ but [Luke] has it before that long sermon that appears to be the same as the one that Matthew says was given on a mountain. But what difference does it make where something is placed, whether it is in order, or whether it is mentioned after it was omitted before, or whether it is anticipated before it happened, as long as it does not contradict anything elsewhere in the same [Gospel] or in the others, whether they are narratives of the same event or of others? For no one has the power, no matter how great and trustworthy his knowledge of events is, to determine the order in which he will remember them. For whether something comes into a person's mind earlier or later is not a matter of our will, but of how it is given to us. It is probable enough that each of the evangelists believed it was his duty to narrate events in the order in which God saw fit to suggest to his recollection the things he was narrating. This would be the case at least with those things where one order or another would in no way diminish the truth and authority of the Gospel.

(52) The Holy Spirit, who "apportions to each as he wishes,"⁽²⁴⁸⁾ undoubtedly has governed and ruled the minds of the holy ones by reminding them what to write, so as to place their books at such a height of authority. But he lets one [author] arrange his narrative one way, and the other another way: with pious care, one may investigate why this is so, and may even find an answer with divine help. However, that is not the purpose we have set for the present work. We only seek to show that none of the evangelists is inconsistent with either himself or the others, whatever the order he was willing or able to narrate Christ's deeds and words, and whether in reference to the same or different [events]. Therefore, when the temporal order is not clear, it ought to make no difference to us, what narrative order any of them chose; but if it is clear, and seems to be inconsistent with its own [narrative] or the others, then it should be an object of our concern, so that we may consider it and explicate it.

(53) Matthew continues in the following manner: Now when it was evening, they brought to him many who had demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, "He himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses."⁽²⁴⁹⁾ It is shown clearly enough that this was on the same day, because he says, "When it was evening." Similarly, at the end of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, Mark says, "And she served them," and he then continues thus: That evening, when the sun went down, they brought to him all who were sick, and those who had demons. And the whole city was gathered at the door. And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons, and he did not let them speak, because they knew him. And rising a great while before dawn, he departed and went out to a lonely place.⁽²⁵⁰⁾ It appears that Mark has preserved the order here, for after saying, "It was evening," he then says, "And rising up a great while before dawn." But although it is not necessary to suppose that "evening" refers to the evening of that same day, nor that "dawn" refers to the dawn following that same night, it nonetheless seems that the order of these events preserves the proper temporal order. For Luke, after telling of Peter's mother-in-law, although he does not say "It was evening," does continue by saying something that means the same thing: Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and laying his hands on every one of them, he healed them. And demons came out of many, crying out and saying, "You are the Son of God!" But rebuking them, he would not let them speak, because they knew that he was the Christ. And when it was day, he departed and went to a lonely place.⁽²⁵¹⁾ Here we see the same temporal order preserved as we found in Mark. But Matthew does not seem to record the story of Peter's mother-in-law in the order in which it happened, but just as it occurred to him after omitting it before. For afterwards he continues his narrative with what happened on that same day at evening, but then instead of continuing with [the next] morning, he says this: Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side of the lake.⁽²⁵²⁾ This is different from what Mark and Luke say, who go from "evening" to "morning." Therefore, when it says, "Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side of the lake," we ought to understand that [Matthew] has placed here something he recalled: that on a certain day, when Jesus saw great crowds around himself, he gave orders to go over to the other side of the lake.

(54) He then adds the following: And a scribe came and said to him, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go," on down to where it says, "Let the dead bury their own dead."⁽²⁵³⁾ Although this story is told similarly in Luke,⁽²⁵⁴⁾ it comes after many other things, and without any real reference to the temporal order, as though he just remembered it. It is also uncertain whether it was omitted earlier, or whether it anticipates something that happened after events that now follow it in the narrative. For [Luke] says this: And it happened that as they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."⁽²⁵⁵⁾ And he answers him in just the same way as Matthew reports. But although Matthew says this happened when [Jesus] gave orders for them to go over to the other side of the lake, while Luke [says it happened] while they were going along the road, there is no contradiction, for they may have been going along the road in order to get to the lake. Matthew and Luke also agree completely as to the man who asked to bury his father first.⁽²⁵⁶⁾ For the fact that Matthew has the man ask about his father first, and then has the Lord say, "Follow me," while Luke has the Lord say, "Follow me," and then has the man [speak], makes no difference to the meaning [of the story]. Luke also writes of another man who said, "I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say farewell to those who are at my home,"⁽²⁵⁷⁾ while Matthew says nothing of him. Luke then continues to another [story], and not the one that followed in the temporal order: And after these things, the Lord appointed seventy-two others."⁽²⁵⁸⁾ Although it is clear that this happened "after these things," it is not apparent how long an interval of time [passed] until the Lord did this. What Matthew next relates took place in that interval. For Matthew continues his narrative in the temporal order.

(55) "And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea,"⁽²⁵⁹⁾ down to where it says, "And he came into his own city."⁽²⁶⁰⁾ Matthew tells these two stories as though they happened in immediate succession, the [story] of the calming of the sea, after Jesus was awakened from his sleep and commanded the winds, and the [story] of those who had savage demons and who had broken their chains and been led into the wilderness; [these stories] are told similarly by Mark and Luke.⁽²⁶¹⁾ Although they use different words from one another, their sense is not different. For example, Matthew says that [the Lord] said, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?"⁽²⁶²⁾ while Mark says, "Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?"⁽²⁶³⁾ By this [Mark] means that perfect [faith] that is like a grain of mustard seed, thereby meaning the same as "little faith." And Luke's [version] is, "Where is your faith?"⁽²⁶⁴⁾ Therefore, [the Lord's] whole statement might have been, "Why are you afraid? Where is your faith, O you of little faith?" of which each of them has recorded a part. The same sort of thing [happened] with what they said to him when they woke him up. For Matthew [says], "Lord, save us, we are perishing."⁽²⁶⁵⁾ Mark [says], "Teacher, does it not matter to you that we are perishing?"⁽²⁶⁶⁾ And Luke [says], "Master, we are perishing."⁽²⁶⁷⁾ But they all have the same meaning: that they were waking the Lord and they wished to be saved. Nor is it necessary to inquire which of these was actually said to Christ. For what difference would it make, if one of these three was what was said, or even if it was different words not recorded by any of the evangelists, but which had the same true sense? It is also possible that when several people were trying at the same time to awaken him, all these things were said, some by one, some by another. Thus also at the calming of the storm. According to Matthew they said, "What sort of man is this, that even the winds and sea obey him?"⁽²⁶⁸⁾ According to Mark [they said], "Who do you think this is, that the wind and sea obey him?"⁽²⁶⁹⁾ And according to Luke [they said], "Who do you think this is, that he commands the winds and the sea, and they obey him?"⁽²⁷⁰⁾ Who could not see that there is one meaning here? For "Who do you think this is?" is equivalent to "What sort of man is this?" And where it does not say, "he commands," it should be understood that one who is obeyed is one who commands.

(56) As for the fact that Matthew says there were two people who suffered from the legion of demons that he let go into the swine, while Mark and Luke both record only one,⁽²⁷¹⁾ it may be supposed that one of them was a kind of distinguished and famous person, who was especially lamented in that area, and whose health was of special concern. Wishing to indicate this, two of the evangelists have decided to record only that one, whose case made the fame of this act spread more widely and remarkably. Neither should any doubts be raised by the evangelists having different words spoken by the demons, for they may be reduced to the same meaning, or they may be supposed to have all been spoken. Nor is there anything inconsistent in Matthew having them speak in the plural, while the others have it in the singular, for they also say that when he was asked what he was called, he answered "Legion," because the demons were many. Nor [is there anything inconsistent] in Mark [saying] that the herd of swine was around the mountain, while Luke [says] they were on the mountain, for the herd of swine was so large that part could have been on the mountain, and another part around the mountain, for as Mark has said, there were about two thousand swine.

(57) Then Matthew, still keeping the temporal order, goes on to the following in his narrative: And getting into a boat, he crossed over and came into his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed,⁽²⁷²⁾ etc., on down to where it says, "And when the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such power to men."⁽²⁷³⁾ Mark and Luke have also told the story of this paralytic.⁽²⁷⁴⁾ But while Matthew says that the Lord said, "Take heart, my son, your sins are forgiven you," according to Luke he did not say "son," but "man." But this only makes the Lord's meaning more explicit: the sins of a "man" were forgiven, because as a man it was not possible for him to say, "I have not sinned," and at the same time, this made it known that the one who forgave the man was himself God. Mark has the same words as Matthew, except he has not said, "Take heart." It is also possible that the whole saying was this: "Take heart, man; your sins are forgiven you, son," or, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven you, man," or the order of the words may have been something similar.

(58) But there may be a problem with Matthew telling the story of the paralytic this way: And getting into a boat, he crossed over and came into his own city. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed.⁽²⁷⁵⁾ For Mark does not say this happened in his own city, which is called Nazareth, but in Capernaum: And he entered into Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that he was in the house. And many were gathered, so that there was no room for them, not even by the door, and he was speaking the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not bring him to him because of the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was; and when they had made an opening, they let down the cot on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith,⁽²⁷⁶⁾ etc. And Luke does not record where it happened, but tells it this way: And it happened that on one of those days, he was sitting and teaching, and there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was there to heal them. And behold, men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they sought to bring him in and lay him before him. But not finding a way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, "Man your sins are forgiven you,"⁽²⁷⁷⁾ etc. The question is therefore between Matthew and Mark, for Matthew writes that it happened in the Lord's city, but [according to] Mark, it was in Capernaum. This would be more difficult to solve, if Matthew mentioned Nazareth by name. But it is possible to call Galilee Christ's city, since Nazareth was in Galilee, just as the whole empire is made up of so many cities, but is called the city of Rome.⁽²⁷⁸⁾ Similarly, so many nations go to make up that city, of which it is written, "Glorious things are said of you, O city of God."⁽²⁷⁹⁾ And also, God's ancient people, although living in so many cities, were said to be one house, the house of Israel.⁽²⁸⁰⁾ [Given all this], who can doubt that Jesus did this "in his city," if he did it in the city of Capernaum, which is a city of Galilee, to which he returned when he crossed over from the region of the Gerasenes? Therefore, it is correct to say that when he came into Galilee, he came into his own city, wherever he might be in Galilee. This is especially so, since Capernaum stood out in Galilee, so that it was considered a metropolis. But even if it was not correct to take Christ's city as [meaning] Galilee, where Nazareth was, nor as Capernaum, which was held up among the cities of Galilee like its capital, we still might say that Matthew has omitted everything that happened from the tim Jesus came into his own city, until he came to Capernaum, and he has added the healing of the paralytic here. This is often done by those who omit intervening material, and without any indication of the omission, add material as though it followed without interruption.

(59) Matthew continues with the following: And as Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.⁽²⁸¹⁾ Mark also tells this story in the same order, placing it after the healing of the paralytic: And he went out by the sea, and all the crowd came to him and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him.⁽²⁸²⁾ There is nothing inconsistent here, since Matthew and Levi are the same. Luke also adds this story after the healing of the paralytic: And after these things he went out, and saw a tax-collector named Levi, sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he left everything, and rose and followed him.⁽²⁸³⁾ This [shows] that Matthew is here recording things that he has now remembered after omitting them [previously]. For we ought to believe that Matthew was called before the sermon on the mount, for Luke reports that on that mountain, [Jesus] chose from out of many disciples all those twelve, whom he named apostles.⁽²⁸⁴⁾

(60) Matthew goes on to say the following: And it happened that, as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples,⁽²⁸⁵⁾ down to where it says, "But they put new wine into new wineskins, so that both are preserved."⁽²⁸⁶⁾ Here Matthew does not say in whose house Jesus was sitting at the table with tax collectors and sinners. Thus it might seem that he has placed it here not according to its [temporal] order, but that it happened at another time, and he added it here as it occurred to him. But Mark and Luke give an altogether similar account, and show that it was in the house of Levi, who is Matthew, that Jesus sat at table and said those things that follow. For Mark says this, preserving the same order: And it happened that, as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners sat with Jesus."⁽²⁸⁷⁾ When he says, "in his house," he must be referring to the one whom he just mentioned, and that is Levi. Similarly, after Luke says, "And he said to him, 'Follow me.' And he left everything, and rose and followed him," he immediately continues, "And Levi made him a great feast in his own house, and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at table with them."⁽²⁸⁸⁾ Thus it is clear in whose house these things happened.

(61) Now let us look at those words which all three evangelists agree were spoken to the Lord, and his responses to them. Matthew says the following: And seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"⁽²⁸⁹⁾ Mark has nearly the same words: "Why does your teacher eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?"⁽²⁹⁰⁾ Matthew has omitted one thing that he has included, the words "and drink," but what difference does that make, since the same sense is conveyed, that they were feasting together? But Luke seems to have given a somewhat different account: But the Pharisees and scribes murmured against them, and said to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?"⁽²⁹¹⁾ This is not to be taken as excluding their teacher, but means their objection was against all of them together, his disciples and himself; it was just said to them and not to him, even though it was to be taken as referring to him and them. And Luke himself also says that the Lord responded with, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."⁽²⁹²⁾ He would not have responded this way, unless their question, "Why do you eat and drink?" had been directed especially against him. Similarly, Matthew and Mark say that the objection made against him was directed to his disciples, because, when it was said to them, it was an even greater reproach against the teacher whom they were following and imitating. There is therefore only one sense, and the abiding truth is expressed better through these various words. As for the Lord's reply, in Matthew it is the following: "Those who are well do not need a doctor, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.'⁽²⁹³⁾ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."⁽²⁹⁴⁾ Mark and Luke have the same meaning in almost the same words, except that neither of them adds the testimony of the prophet, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." After he says, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners," Luke adds, "to repentance," in order to explain the meaning more fully, so that no one would suppose that Christ loves sinners, simply because they are sinners. The comparison with sickness shows this well: God's calling of sinners seeks the same thing as a doctor does with a sick person, their salvation from iniquity as from sickness, and this comes about through repentance.

(62) Matthew continues thus: Then John's disciples came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often?"⁽²⁹⁵⁾ Mark says something similar: Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came to him and said, "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast?"⁽²⁹⁶⁾ The only thing that can be seen as an addition, is that here the Pharisees speak together with John's disciples, while Matthew says it was only John's disciples who spoke. But the words they spoke according to Mark, show rather that there were two different groups. It was the dinner guests who came to Jesus, because the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, and [the dinner guests] spoke concerning them. So "they came" does not refer to "the disciples of John and of the Pharisees were fasting." But as they were fasting, others were bothered by this and came to him and said, "Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but yours do not fast?" Luke expresses this more clearly. He is thinking of this when he continues this way, after the Lord responds about his calling of sinners by comparing them to those who are sick: And they said to him, "Why do John's disciples fast often and make prayers, and so do those of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?"⁽²⁹⁷⁾ As in Mark, he says that one group of people were speaking about others. So how can Matthew say, "Then John's disciples came to him, saying, 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast?'"⁽²⁹⁸⁾ Perhaps they were all there and were all eager to reproach him in this way as much as possible. The three evangelists expressed these sentiments in different ways, but without deviating from the truth of the matter.

(63) Matthew and Mark tell similar stories about the children of the bridegroom who do not fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them, except that Mark says they were the children of the marriage, and Matthew [says] they were the children of the bridegroom.⁽²⁹⁹⁾ But this makes no difference. For children of the marriage means to us those of the bridegroom and the bride. Therefore the sense is the same and consistent, and not different or incompatible. But Luke does not say, "Can the children of the bridegroom fast?" but instead, "Can you make the children of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them?"⁽³⁰⁰⁾ In this way he has expressed the same sense, while implying something further. For this makes it understood that those who were speaking would make the children of the bridegroom mourn and fast, by killing the bridegroom. Also, Matthew first says, "mourn," while Mark and Luke [say], "fast"; but later on, Matthew says, "They will fast," instead of, "They will mourn." But with this word he showed that when the Lord spoke of this fasting, it was the kind that is related to the lowliness of tribulation. But [he then moves on to a fasting] that is related to the joy of the mind, aloft in spiritual things, and therefore alienated in a certain way from bodily food. The Lord's parables of the new cloth and the new wine show that this kind of fasting is unacceptable to those who are primitive and carnal, occupied with the body, and thereby trapped in the old senses.⁽³⁰¹⁾ The other two [evangelists] tell these parables similarly.⁽³⁰²⁾ For it is clear enough that there is no disagreement, if one omits what the other includes, either in phrasing or subject, as long as there is no deviation from the same sense, and there is no opposition between them.

(64) Still keeping the temporal order, Matthew continues with the following: While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler approached and worshiped him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come, lay your hand on her, and she will live," etc., down to where it says, "and the girl arose. And the fame of this went through all that land."⁽³⁰³⁾ The other two, Mark and Luke, also say this, though not in the same order. For they record and insert it at the point where he crosses over and returns from the region of the Gerasenes after casting the demons out and letting them go into the swine.⁽³⁰⁴⁾ Mark connects it after what happened among the Gerasenes: And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered around him; and he was by the sea. Then came one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, and seeing him, fell at his feet,"⁽³⁰⁵⁾ etc. From this we are to understand that the incident involving the synagogue leader's daughter happened after Jesus had crossed over the lake again in the boat, but it is unclear how long after. But there must have been some interval, or there would not have been time for that feast in his house which Matthew records. Though he tells it in the third person (as is the style of the evangelists), it took place in his own house. And the story of the synagogue leader's daughter follows immediately on that. He has connected it in such a way that the transition itself shows clearly that what is narrated as immediately following is what happened immediately following. For immediately after Jesus' previous words on the new cloth and new wine, he continues without interruption: While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler approached. If he approached him while he was saying these things, then [Jesus] could not have done or said anything else in between. But in Mark's account, it is clear where other things might have intervened, as we have shown. Similarly, when Luke moves from the story of miracle among the Gerasenes to the story of the synagogue leader's daughter, he does so in a way that does not contradict Matthew, who shows that this happened after the parables of the cloth and wine by saying, "while he was saying these things." For when he has finished his story of what happened among the Gerasenes, Luke continues in the following way: And it happened that, when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him. And behold, a man, whose name was Jairus, and who was a ruler of the synagogue, fell at Jesus' feet,"⁽³⁰⁶⁾ etc. Thus it is to be understood that the crowd welcomed the Lord at that same time, for they were waiting for his return. But when he goes on to say, "And behold, a man, whose name was Jairus," this does not mean that it happened at that same time, for the feast with the tax collectors happened before that, and Matthew has connected these stories in such a way that it is impossible to think that they could have happened in any other order.

(65) In this narrative which we have begun to consider now, all three of these evangelists unquestionably agree as to the woman who suffered from the flow of blood. Nor does it make any difference that one omits what another mentions, or that Mark says, "Who touched my clothes" while Luke says, "Who touched me?"⁽³⁰⁷⁾ For the one has used a typical expression, and the other has been more precise, but they both have the same meaning. For it is more common for us to say, "You are tearing me," than to say, "You are tearing my clothes," but what we wish to be understood is still clear enough.

(66) But Matthew writes that the ruler of the synagogue did not say to the Lord that his daughter was going to die, nor that she was dying, nor even that she was on the brink of death, but that she was in fact dead. But the other two [evangelists] say that she was near death, but not yet dead; they are clear on this, for they say that people came later who announced her death and who said the teacher need not bother to come and lay his hands on her to prevent her death (for [they did] not [suppose] that he could raise the dead). So we must consider whether there seems to be a contradiction here. We may understand it thus: Matthew, for the sake of brevity, preferred to have them ask the Lord to do what he in fact did, and that is to raise the dead. For our attention is drawn not to the father's words about his daughter, but to what is more important, to what he wants, and therefore he has given such words that they show his real desire. He had left her dying, and he was in such despair that he could not believe that she would be found still alive, so he asked instead that she be brought back to life. So the other two have given the actual words spoken by Jairus, but Matthew [has given] what he wished and thought. Thus both requests were made to the Lord, either that he should save the dying girl, or raise the dead girl. But since Matthew wished to tell the story briefly, he has made the father request what he himself wished, and what Christ in fact did. Indeed, if one or both of the other two [evangelists] had recorded that the father himself said what those coming from his house said - that Jesus should not be bothered, since the girl had died - then there would be some inconsistency between his thoughts and the words given by Matthew. But it is not written that he agreed with those who reported this and who tried to stop the teacher from coming. And moreover, when the Lord said to him, "Do not be afraid; only believe, and she will he saved,"⁽³⁰⁸⁾ he was not reprimanding him for disbelief, but really confirming him in an even stronger belief. For he had faith like the one who said, "I believe, Lord; help my unbelief."⁽³⁰⁹⁾

(67) Thus, from the evangelists making these different but not contradictory statements, we learn a most useful and necessary lesson. We ought to inspect not the words themselves, but nothing other than the intent to which the words ought to be subject. Nor is it misleading if someone conveys the intent of someone else in words other than what they spoke. Nor should we let those miserable pedants suppose that the truth is somehow tied to the accent marks over letters, when, both with words and with all other mental signs, we ought to inquire into nothing other than the mind.⁽³¹⁰⁾

(68) But some versions of Matthew have, "For the woman is not dead, but sleeping,"⁽³¹¹⁾ while Mark and Luke testify that she was a girl of twelve.⁽³¹²⁾ We should understand that Matthew is following the Hebrew way of speaking. For in other places in scripture we find that not only those who had been with a man, but all females, even untouched virgins, are called women. It is written of Eve, "He made it into a woman."⁽³¹³⁾ And in the book of Numbers, they are commanded to spare from death the women who have not known the bed of a man, that is to say, virgins.⁽³¹⁴⁾ Paul too speaks this way, when he says that Christ was made of a woman.⁽³¹⁵⁾ It is better to understand it this way, than to believe that a twelve year old was married or had been with a man.

(69) Matthew then says the following: And passing on from there, two blind men followed him, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on us, Son of David," etc., down to where it says, "But the Pharisees said, 'He casts out demons by the prince of demons.'"⁽³¹⁶⁾ Matthew is the only one who gives this story of the two blind men and the mute demoniac. For these two blind men are not the same as those of whom the others write,⁽³¹⁷⁾ although their stories are so similar, that if Matthew had not recorded both,⁽³¹⁸⁾ it might be supposed that this story is the same as that given by the other two [evangelists]. So we should carefully bear in mind that [different] events may be similar. This is proved here by the same evangelist recording both. So if we ever find some one event in several of the Gospels, and we are unable to solve some contradiction between them, it should occur to us that this is not the same event, but only something similar, or something done similarly.

(70) The order of the following events is not clear. After the two stories of the blind men and the mute demoniac, he continues thus: And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity. And seeing the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were troubled and cast down, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is great, but the workers are few; pray therefore that the Lord of the harvest will send out workers into his harvest." And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them power over unclean spirits," etc., down to where it says, "Truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."⁽³¹⁹⁾ In this entire passage that we are now considering, he gives much advice to his disciples. But as we said, it is unclear whether Matthew placed these things here in their [temporal] order, or whether they are just in the order in which they occurred to him. For Mark seems to have treated this passage more briefly, as he continues: And he went about the villages, teaching around there. And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out by twos, and he gave them power over the unclean spirits, etc., down to where it says, "Shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony against them."⁽³²⁰⁾ But between this and the story of the raising of the daughter of the synagogue ruler, Mark has told the story of how they marveled at him in his own country, at the source of his wisdom and power, since they knew his family.⁽³²¹⁾ Matthew records that story after the advice to the disciples and many other things.⁽³²²⁾ Therefore it is uncertain whether Matthew has recorded this here after omitting it previously, or whether Mark records it in anticipation [of something that happened later], or which of them keeps to the [temporal] order of events, and which to the order of his recollection. Luke also [takes] this passage about the power and advice [given to] the disciples and adds it immediately after the story of the raising of Jairus' daughter, and with the same brevity as Mark,⁽³²³⁾ but also does not make it clear whether this is the [temporal] order of events. As for the names of the disciples, whom he named earlier when they were chosen on the mountain, there is no discrepancy between them, except for Judas the son of James, whom Matthew calls Thaddaeus (or in some versions, Lebbaeus).⁽³²⁴⁾ But who would deny that a man might be called by two or three names?

(71) It is also often asked how Matthew and Luke can record that the Lord told his disciples not to take a staff,⁽³²⁵⁾ but Mark says this: He commanded them to take nothing on the way, except a staff. And he continues, "no bag, no bread, no money in their belts."⁽³²⁶⁾ This makes it clear that this narrative is the same as that of the other two, who talk about not taking a staff. This can be solved by understanding that the staff that Mark [says] they were not to take must be different than the staff that Matthew and Luke [say] they were to take. The word "temptation" is similarly found to have different meanings, as when it is said, "God tempts no one,"⁽³²⁷⁾ but then it is also said, "The Lord your God tempts you, to know whether you love him."⁽³²⁸⁾ In the former it is seduction, in the latter it is testing. The word "judgment" is similar, as it is said, "Those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment,"⁽³²⁹⁾ and it is also said, "Judge me, God, and take up my cause, against an unholy nation."⁽³³⁰⁾ In the former, "judgment" is damnation, but in the latter it is choosing.

(72) And there are many words that do not have one meaning, but in different places are understood in different ways, and sometimes are even given an explanation, as in, "Do not be children in your thinking, but be infants as to evil, so that you may be perfect in thinking."⁽³³¹⁾Here is a sentence that could have been summarized as, "Do not be children, but be children." The [following] is the same: If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool, so that he may be wise."⁽³³²⁾ For what is this saying, but, "Let him not be wise, so that he may be wise"? Sometimes these are said in order to work on the [mind of] the inquirer, as in Galatian: Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Let each one test his own work, and then he will have glory in himself, and not in another. For each one will bear his own burden.⁽³³³⁾ For unless "burden" can mean different things, one would think without a doubt that the same author has contradicted himself, and in words placed so near each other in one paragraph. For having just said, "Bear one another's burdens," he goes on to say, "For each one will bear his own burden." But the former refers to the burdens that we share in our infirmity, while the latter are those that we will give to God in an account of our actions. The former are borne as they are shared with our brothers [and sisters], and the latter are those carried by each individually. Thus, "rod"⁽³³⁴⁾ is meant spiritually when the apostle says, "Shall I come to you with a rod?"⁽³³⁵⁾ But [it is meant] corporally, when referring to that used on a horse or for some other such purpose. For now, we shall omit the other figurative uses of the word.

(73) Therefore we must accept that the Lord said both these things to the apostles, both that they should not take a staff, and that they should take nothing but a staff. For according to Matthew, he said, "Have neither gold, nor silver, nor money in you belts, no bag for the way, nor two tunics, nor shoes, nor a staff," and then added immediately, "for the worker is worthy of his food."⁽³³⁶⁾ He thereby makes it clear enough why they are not to have or carry these things. It is not that these things are unnecessary for the sustaining of life. But he sent them to preach the Gospel to those who would believe it, and it would be clear to them that they ought to give these things to [the disciples], just as wages [are due] to soldiers, the fruit of the vine to the planters, and the milk of the flock to the shepherds. Paul says this too: Who is a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not gather the flock's milk?⁽³³⁷⁾ He said this in reference to those things that were necessary to those who preached the Gospel. A little further on he says this: If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap carnal things? If others have this power over you, do not we have it even more? But we have not used this power.⁽³³⁸⁾ This makes it clear that the Lord did not instruct the evangelists to live only on what was given to them by those to whom they preached the Gospel. (The apostle himself acted contrary to such a command, for he obtained his living through the works of his own hands, so that he would not be a burden to any of them.)⁽³³⁹⁾ But he gave them a power for which they knew they should [be given] these things. For when the Lord gives any command, unless it is done, there is the guilt of non-obedience. But when a power is given, anyone is free not to use it, and thereby to yield his or her right. Therefore, when the Lord said these things to the disciples, he was doing what the apostle explained a little further on: Do you not know that those who work in the temple eat what is in the temple? And those who serve at the altar share the things from the altar? In the same way the Lord ordained that those who preach the Gospel should get their living from the Gospel. But I have used none of these things.⁽³⁴⁰⁾ So when he says that the Lord ordained this, but he has not used it, he shows that it was a power given to him that he might use, and not a necessity imposed on him that he must obey.

(74) The Lord having ordained what the apostle says he ordained - that those who preach the Gospel should get their living from the Gospel - he said these things to the apostles, so that they would be free from care, not having or carrying the necessities of life, whether great or small. So he said, "nor a staff," in order to show to his faithful that his ministers ought [to be given] all things, although they needed nothing superfluous. And when he added, "For the worker is worthy of his food," he made it clear and intelligible enough how and why he had said all these things. The word "staff" signifies this power, when he said, "to take nothing for the way except a staff."⁽³⁴¹⁾ For he could have summarized it by saying, "Take with you none of the necessities, not even a staff, but only a staff." [Put this way], "not even a staff," would mean, "not even the least things"; but in the addition, "but only a staff," "staff" would signify that power given to them by the Lord, by which they would not lack the things they were not carrying. Therefore the Lord said both. But since one evangelist has not recorded both [statements], it appeared that the one who said that they should take a "staff" (in one sense), and the one who said that they should not take a "staff" (in another sense), are contradictory. But now that this has been explained, there is no need to suppose this.

(75) And likewise, when Matthew says that they were not to carry shoes on the way, they were warned not to worry that they would lack such things if they did not carry them. And as for the two tunics, it is to be understood that none of them were to think of taking another other than the one he was wearing, as though he was afraid, when the power given by [the Lord] guaranteed there would be no such need. Likewise, when Mark says they are to wear open shoes or sandals,⁽³⁴²⁾ he shows that this kind of shoe has some mystical significance, so that the foot is neither covered, nor bare to the ground, just as the Gospel is neither hidden, nor does it rely on earthly things. And here he more clearly forbids not the carrying or having of two tunics, but the wearing of them: "Do not put on two tunics."⁽³⁴³⁾ What does he teach them here, except that they are to walk not in duplicity, but in simplicity?

(76) Thus there is no doubt of any kind that they Lord said all these things - some in their own sense, some in a figurative sense - but each evangelist has put some into his writings, while the others [have put] other parts. In some places, two or three or even all four of them have said the same thing: but even in these cases they may not have written down everything said or done by him. For if anyone supposes that in one sermon the Lord could not use language both figuratively and literally, let him examine his other [speeches], and he will see how this would be judged as rash and uninformed. For to give one example that occurs to me now, when Christ teaches that the left hand should not know what the right is doing,⁽³⁴⁴⁾ one would then have to take the almsgiving figuratively, as well as the other teachings.

(77) But I must give this warning again, which the reader should keep in mind, so as not to need such warning so often: the Lord has often repeated in different places in his sermons things that he had already said elsewhere. If the order of the passages is not the same between two evangelists, one might take this as a contradiction, but one should understand it as [the Lord] again saying something that he had already said; and this observation applies not only to his words, but also to his actions. For there is nothing to keep us from believing that the same thing happened more than once. But it is impious vanity for someone to attack the Gospel, because he does not believe in some event being repeated, which no one can show is an impossibility.

(78) Matthew continues with the following: And it happened that, when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities. Now when John heard in prison about Christ's work, he sent two of his disciples, and said to him, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we wait for another?" etc., on down to where it says, "But wisdom is justified by her children."⁽³⁴⁵⁾ Luke also gives this entire passage on John the baptist: [the message] he sent to Jesus, the response received by those he sent, and what the Lord said about John after they left. But the order is not the same, and it is unclear which of them gives the order of his recollections, and which the [temporal] order of the events themselves.

(79) Matthew then continues with the following: Then he began to reproach the cities in which he had done most of his mighty works, because they did not repent, etc., on down to where it says, "It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.⁽³⁴⁶⁾ Luke also records this from the Lord's mouth as part of an extended speech of the Lord.⁽³⁴⁷⁾ It appears that he has kept the order in which the Lord said these things, while Matthew has the order in which he remembered them. But when Matthew says, "Then he began to reproach the cities," even if one supposes that he wished "then" to express that exact moment in time in which he said that, rather than some broader time period in which many of these things were done and said, then one could still believe that this was said on two [different occasions]. For even within one evangelist's [account], there are things that the Lord says twice. In Luke, one finds the Lord saying in two different places not to take a bag on the way;⁽³⁴⁸⁾ and it is similar with other things. So why is it remarkable, if something that was said twice should have each of its two occurrences reported by two separate [evangelists], each of whom keeps the actual order in which one of them was spoken, but the order seems different between them, because the one reported the one occasion on which it was said, and the other reported the other occasion?

(80) Matthew continues: At that time, Jesus answered and said, "I acknowledge you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent," etc., on down to where it says, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."⁽³⁴⁹⁾ Luke also mentions this passage, but only in part. For he does not say, "Come to me, all you who labor,"⁽³⁵⁰⁾ and the following. But it is plausible that on one occasion these things were said by the Lord, but Luke has not recorded everything that he said. For Matthew says, "At that time, Jesus answered and said," that is, right after he reproached the cities. But after the reproaching of the cities, Luke inserts other material, though not much, and then adds, "In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said."⁽³⁵¹⁾ But even if Matthew had said, "In that same hour," instead of, "At that time," Luke has inserted so little in between, that it does not seem unreasonable that he said these things at the same time.

(81) Matthew continues with the following: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck the grain and to eat," etc., on down to where it says, "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."⁽³⁵²⁾ Mark and Luke also record this, without any question of inconsistency,⁽³⁵³⁾ although they do not say, "At that time." This makes it more likely that Matthew has kept the temporal order, and they [have kept the order] in which they have recalled it, unless "that time" at which it was said is more broad, in which many various things happened.

(82) Matthew continues his account this way: And when he went on from there, he went into their synagogue. And behold, there was a man with a withered hand," etc., on down to where it says, "And it was restored to health like the other."⁽³⁵⁴⁾ The healing of this man with a withered hand is also not omitted by Mark and Luke. Since the [incident] of the grain and the healing are both recorded as having happened on a Sabbath, one might suppose that they happened on the same day; but Luke makes it clear that the healing of the withered hand happened on another Sabbath. So when Matthew says, "And when he went on from there, he went into their synagogue," [it means] that he went in only after he had gone on from there; but it does not state how many days there were between his leaving the field and going into the synagogue, nor that it followed uninterruptedly. This gives room for Luke's story, which says that his hand was healed on another Sabbath. But there may be a problem, for Matthew says that they asked the Lord, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" wishing to find an opportunity to accuse him, to which he proposed the comparison of a sheep: "What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not grab it and lift it up? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."⁽³⁵⁵⁾ But Mark and Luke say rather that they were asked this by the Lord: "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or evil? To save life or to kill?"⁽³⁵⁶⁾ But it may be understood this way. First, they asked the Lord, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" And since he knew their thoughts, that they were seeking an opportunity to accuse him, he put in their midst the one who was about to be cured, and asked them what Mark and Luke record he asked them. And then when they were silent, he proposed the comparison with a sheep, and concluded that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. And finally, looking around at them with anger, as Mark says, saddened by their hardness of heart, he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."⁽³⁵⁷⁾

(83) Matthew then continues his narrative thus: But the Pharisees went out and held a council against him, how they could destroy him. But Jesus, knowing this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all, and commanded them not to make him known, in order to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, saying, etc., on down to where it says, "And in his name will the nations hope."⁽³⁵⁸⁾ He is the only one to record this, the other two having gone on to other things. Mark in a way seems to have kept to the [temporal] order, for he says that Jesus, knowing the Jews' evil disposition against him, withdrew to the sea with his disciples, and the crowds flocked to him, and he healed many of them.⁽³⁵⁹⁾ However, it is unclear when he begins to move on to something other than what followed immediately. It could be when he says that the crowds gathered about him, for that could have happened then or at some other time; or when he says, "And he went up a mountain."⁽³⁶⁰⁾ Luke also seems to record this when he says, "And it happened that in those days he went out to a mountain to pray."⁽³⁶¹⁾ For by saying, "in those days," he makes it clear enough that it did not follow immediately.

(84) Matthew then continues with the following: Then a person who had a blind and mute demon was brought to him, and he cured him, so that he could speak and see.⁽³⁶²⁾ Luke records this story not in this order, but after many other things, and he says that he is only mute, not blind too.⁽³⁶³⁾ But we need not suppose that he is speaking of another person, just because he omits one thing or another, especially since what follows is the same as in Matthew.

(85) Matthew continues: And all the crowds were amazed, and said, "Is this not the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard it they said, "It is only by Beelzebul the prince of demons that he casts out demons." But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself it laid waste," etc., on down to where it says, "By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."⁽³⁶⁴⁾ Mark does not record this allegation that Jesus casts out demons by Beelzebul right after the story of the mute person.⁽³⁶⁵⁾ After some other things that he alone has recorded, he adds it, either because he recalled it at this point and added it, or because, after omitting it previously, he now resumes the sequence. But Luke gives almost the same words as Matthew.⁽³⁶⁶⁾ When he calls the "Spirit of God" the "finger of God," there is no difference in meaning. Rather, it teaches something more, so that we will know how to understand "finger of God" whenever we read it in the scriptures. Also, there is no problem with those other things that are omitted by both Mark and Luke, nor with those things that are said differently by them, for their meaning is the same.

(86) The Matthew continues: Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you," etc., on down to where it says, "So shall it be with this evil generation."⁽³⁶⁷⁾ Luke gives this passage in this place, but in a somewhat different order.⁽³⁶⁸⁾ For right after the miracle of the mute man, Luke has recorded that they asked the Lord for a sign from heaven, but he did not give the Lord's response to this. But after the crowds were gathered, he tells us his response, and we should understand this [response] as given to those who had previously asked him for a sign from heaven.⁽³⁶⁹⁾ He adds this only after inserting the story of the woman who said to the Lord, "Blessed is the womb that bore you."⁽³⁷⁰⁾ And he inserts this story of the woman after he has recorded the Lord's saying about the unclean spirit that went out of a man, who then returned and found the house cleaned.⁽³⁷¹⁾ So after the story of the woman, and after his response to the crowds about their seeking for a sign from heaven, then he inserts the comparison with the prophet Jonah, and then he continues the Lord's speech with his saying about the queen of the south and the Ninevites.⁽³⁷²⁾ So he has recorded what Matthew omitted, rather than omitted what [Matthew] wrote in this place. And who cannot see that it is irrelevant to ask about the order in which the Lord said these things? From the most high authority of the evangelists we ought to learn that it is not false if someone reports a speech in an order that is not the same as that in which it was spoken, as long as the order being one way or another does not affect the subject itself. Luke also shows that this speech of the Lord was longer, and he records in it things that Matthew had in the sermon on the mount.⁽³⁷³⁾ So we are to understand that these things were said twice, once then, and once at this point. At the end of this speech, Luke goes on to another subject, and it is unclear whether his order keeps to that of the actual events. For he adds: And while he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him.⁽³⁷⁴⁾ He does not say, "while he was saying these things," but, "while he was speaking." If he had said, "while he was saying these things," then this would have necessarily forced us to understand this as not just the narrated order, but as [the order] in which the Lord did these things.

(87) Matthew continues in this way: While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers were standing outside, asking to speak to him, etc., on down to where it says, "For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, that one is my brother, and sister, and mother."⁽³⁷⁵⁾ Without a doubt, we should understand that this followed immediately upon [the preceding] things. For he has begun this narrative with the transition, "While he was still speaking to the crowds." This "still" shows that he [continued] speaking on the same subject. For it does not say, "While he spoke to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers," but, "While he was still speaking," by which we must understand, "While he was speaking of those things just mentioned." For Mark also records what the Lord said after he mentioned the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: And his mother and brothers came.⁽³⁷⁶⁾ He omits some things of the Lord's speech that Matthew gives at greater length than Mark, and Luke at greater length than Matthew. Luke has not kept the temporal order of this event, but he has anticipated it before it happened, narrating it as he recalled it. Also, he has inserted it in such a way that it appears disconnected from what precedes it and what follows it. For after recording some of the Lord's parables, he has inserted the story of his mother and brothers in this way, "Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd,"⁽³⁷⁷⁾ but he does not say exactly when they came to him. Then when he moves on from this subject, he says, "And it happened that one day he got into a boat with his disciples."⁽³⁷⁸⁾ By saying, "And it happened that one day," he shows clearly enough that we need not understand it as the same day that the preceding event occurred, nor the following day. So there is nothing inconsistent between the accounts of Matthew and the other two, regarding the incident of the Lord's mother and brothers, neither in the Lord's words, nor in the order of the events.

(88) Matthew continues: On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the seaside. And great crowds gathered around him, so that he got into a boat and sat there, and the whole crowd stood on the shore. And he spoke many things in parables, saying, etc., on down to where it says, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure new things and old things."⁽³⁷⁹⁾ By saying, "On that day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the seaside. And great crowds gathered around him," Matthew shows that these things happened immediately after the incident of the Lord's mother and brothers and that his narrative has kept the temporal order. For by saying, "On that day," he shows clearly enough that this follows immediately on the preceding events, or that not much could have intervened (unless "day" just means "time," as it sometimes does in the Scriptures). The fact that Mark follows the same order makes this even more likely.⁽³⁸⁰⁾ But Luke, after telling the story of the Lord's mother and brothers, goes on to something else, but his connection does not seem to be inconsistent with this order. So in all the places where the Lord's speeches are reported the same by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, there is no question of inconsistency. There is even less controversy where Matthew alone reports something.⁽³⁸¹⁾ Although the order is somewhat different between them, sometimes keeping to the temporal order of events, sometimes to the order in which they were recollected, I see nothing contradictory among them.

(89) Matthew continues: And it happened that when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there. And coming to his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, etc., on down to where it says, "And he did not do many mighty works, because of their unbelief."⁽³⁸²⁾ Thus he goes from the parable sermon to this passage, but he does not indicate whether it necessarily followed it immediately. Also, Mark follows the parables not with this passage, but with another that is closer to Luke's. This makes their order seem more credible, in which they go on to the story of the boat in which Jesus was asleep, and then to the miracle of the expulsion of the demons among the Gerasenes,⁽³⁸³⁾ which two events Matthew has already included as he recalled them.⁽³⁸⁴⁾ Now we must see whether [Matthew's account of] what the Lord says and what is said to him in his own country is in agreement with that of the other two, Mark and Luke. For in a very different and dissimilar place in the narrative, John records some words that were either spoken by the Lord or to him,⁽³⁸⁵⁾ and are similar to this passage mentioned by the other three.

(90) Now Mark records this passage almost entirely the same as Matthew, except that he says that the Lord was called "the carpenter, the son of Mary,"⁽³⁸⁶⁾ by the people of his town, and not, as Matthew says, "the carpenter's son."⁽³⁸⁷⁾ But this is not remarkable, for he could have been called by both of these names, for they thought he was a carpenter because he was a carpenter's son. Luke gives the same incident more broadly, recording other things connected with this. He inserts this not long after his baptism and temptation, no doubt anticipating something that really happened only after many other intervening events. This brings to our attention something of the greatest importance to our great question of the agreement of the evangelists, which we have attempted with God's help. It is not from ignorance that they omit some things, nor is it from ignorance of the actual order of events that they have kept to the order in which they recall things. This can be seen clearly, by the fact that Luke, before he has given any account of what the Lord did at Capernaum, anticipates it in this passage that we are now considering, in which the other people of his town marvel at his mighty power, and disparage the lowliness of his family. For [Luke] says that he said this to them: Certainly you will say to me, "Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country."⁽³⁸⁸⁾ But in Luke's own narrative, we have not read of anything he did in Capernaum. We shall insert the whole passage here, since it is not too long, and it is easy and most necessary to consider it, [showing] where and how this narrative came to be. After the Lord's baptism and temptation, he continues: And when the devil had finished every temptation, he left him for a time. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report of him went out through all the region. And he taught in their synagogues and was glorified by all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me. He has sent me to preach the good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and sight to the blind, to release those who are broken, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of retribution."⁽³⁸⁹⁾ And when he had closed the book, he gave it back to the assistant, and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." And all gave witness to him, and marveled at the gracious words that came out of his mouth, and they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" And he said to them, "Certainly you will say to me, 'Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here also in your own country,'"⁽³⁹⁰⁾ etc., until he finishes this entire passage in his narrative. What could make it more clear that he knows this narrative came later, since he knows and refers to the great deeds done by him in Capernaum, but also knows that he has not yet narrated those? This passage is not so long after [Jesus'] baptism, that one could suppose that he had forgotten that he had not yet recorded anything that happened in Capernaum; for it is right after the baptism that he gives us this narrative of the Lord.

(91) Matthew continues: At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about the fame of Jesus; and he said to his servants, "This is John the baptist, he has risen from the dead and therefore these powers are at work in him."⁽³⁹¹⁾ Mark records this same passage in the same way, but not in the same order.⁽³⁹²⁾ He connects it to the end of the speech that was in part recorded by him after the Lord sent out the disciples, telling them to take nothing but a staff. But [his connection] does not force us to understand that these things necessarily happened right after the preceding. The same goes for Matthew, for he says, "At that time," not, "On that day" or "hour." But Mark does not say that Herod himself said this, but others: They said, "John the baptist has risen from the dead."⁽³⁹³⁾ But Matthew has it as Herod himself, for he says, "he said to his servants." Luke also has the same narrative order as Mark, though it does not force us to think that he was keeping to the real temporal order of events. He records it this way: But Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him, and he was confused, because it was said by some that John was risen from the dead, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the old prophets had risen. And Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him.⁽³⁹⁴⁾ With these words, Luke confirms Mark's version, in so far as it was not Herod, but others who said that John was risen from the dead. But he also records Herod's confusion and then his statement, "John I beheaded; but who is this about whom I hear such things?" This can be understood [in one of two ways]. Either he was no longer confused, but became convinced in his own mind of what others had said, so that he said to his servants, as Matthew reports it: And he said to his servants, "This is John the baptist, he has risen from the dead and therefore these powers are at work in him."⁽³⁹⁵⁾ Or he said these words in a way that showed he was confused. For if he had said, "Who is this?" or, "Can this perhaps be John the baptist?" then there would have been no need to indicate how they were said, for they are clearly said with doubt and confusion. But since these are not the words here, there are two ways they could have been said. Either we can think that he had been convinced by what others had said, so that he believed what he said, or else, as Luke reports, he was still confused. Likewise with Mark, who said before that it was others who said that John was risen from the dead, in the end has Herod himself say, "John, whom I beheaded, has risen from the dead."⁽³⁹⁶⁾ These words also can be taken as having been spoken in either of two ways, and they can be understood either as full of conviction or full of doubt. Also, after Luke records this incident, he passes on to other things. But the other two, Matthew and Mark, give a narrative at this point of how John was killed by Herod.

(92) Matthew continues with the following: For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison, for the sake of Herodias, his brother's wife, etc., on down to where it is said, "And his disciples came and took his body and buried it, and went and told Jesus."⁽³⁹⁷⁾ Mark tells this story similarly.⁽³⁹⁸⁾ But Luke does not recall it in this order, but places it near the Lord's own baptism.⁽³⁹⁹⁾ It is to be understood that he anticipated it at that point, putting something that happened much later into that earlier narrative. For he has recorded John's words concerning the Lord: "The winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor; he will gather his grain into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."⁽⁴⁰⁰⁾ He then immediately goes on to another incident, one which John the evangelist shows clearly could not have happened immediately after this. For he records that after Jesus was baptized, he went into Galilee, where he turned the water into wine.⁽⁴⁰¹⁾ Then, after staying a few days in Capernaum,⁽⁴⁰²⁾ he returned to the land of Judea and there he baptized many around the Jordan, and this was before John was put in prison.⁽⁴⁰³⁾ For what person, with less than perfect knowledge about these writings, would not suppose that it was immediately after those words about the winnowing fork and the cleared floor that Herod became hostile to John and put him in prison? But we have already shown that the order of the narrative here is not the order in which these things happened,⁽⁴⁰⁴⁾ and Luke proves this. For if John was put into prison immediately after those words, how can Luke himself tell the story of Jesus' baptism after he has recorded that John was put into prison? So it is clear that he has recalled this incident here and placed it into his narrative before many other things in his narrative that really occurred before this happened to John. But the other two, Matthew and Mark, as shown in their writings, also do not put John's imprisonment in their narratives in the order in which it occurred. For they say that the Lord went into Galilee when John was handed over.⁽⁴⁰⁵⁾ And after many other things that he did in Galilee, they come to Herod's statement or confusion about John, whom he had beheaded, rising from the dead.⁽⁴⁰⁶⁾ And in connection with this, they tell us of everything related to John's imprisonment and death.

(93) After saying how John's death was reported to Christ, Matthew continues his narrative thus: When Jesus heard this, he went away from there in a boat to a lonely place apart. And when the crowds heard this, they followed him on foot from the cities. And as he was going, he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion, and healed their sick.⁽⁴⁰⁷⁾ He records this as happening immediately after John's suffering. So what was narrated earlier - the fact that Herod was troubled and said, "I have beheaded John"⁽⁴⁰⁸⁾ - in fact happened after this. For it must be understood that these things must have happened, and then later they were reported to Herod, who was troubled and confused as to who this could be, of whom he heard such things, when he himself had killed John. And Mark, after telling of John's suffering, records that the disciples who had been sent out returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught. And the Lord - in a passage unique to Mark - tells them to rest a while in a lonely place. And he then got on a boat with them and left. And when the crowds saw this, they got there ahead of them. And the Lord had compassion, and taught them many things. And when it was late, it happened that all who were there ate of the five loaves and two fishes.⁽⁴⁰⁹⁾ All four evangelists record this miracle.⁽⁴¹⁰⁾ Luke, who has told the story of John's suffering much earlier, also connects it to this passage we are now discussing, for he here records Herod's confusion at who the Lord could be,⁽⁴¹¹⁾ and immediately connects it to the same things found in Mark: the apostles returned to him and told him what they had done, and he took them and withdrew to a lonely place, and the crowds followed him, and he spoke to them of the kingdom of God, and cured those who needed healing. And then he recods that as the day was wearing away, the miracle of the five loaves happened.⁽⁴¹²⁾

(94) But John differs greatly from the other three evangelists, in that he deals more with the Lord's sermons, than with his miraculous deeds. For he records that he left Judea and went again into Galilee, which is to be understood as the same [departure] as the other evangelists [speak of], when they say that he went into Galilee when John was handed over. After he records this, John inserts into his narrative many things that he said as he passed through Samaria, when he found the Samaritan woman at the well. And after two days he says he went into Galilee, and then he came into Cana of Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine, and he healed a certain official's son there.⁽⁴¹³⁾ But John tells us nothing of the other things he did and said in Galilee according to the other [evangelists]. On the other hand, they omit something that he tells us about: that he went up to Jerusalem on the feast day, and performed there the healing of that man who been ill for thirty-eight years, and who did not have anyone to put him into the pool where those with various illnesses were healed.⁽⁴¹⁴⁾ He also records how he said many things on that occasion. After this he tells how he went across the Sea of Galilee (which is the Sea of Tiberias), and a great multitude followed him. He then says that he went out on to a mountain and sat there with his disciples; and it was nearly the time of the Passover, a feast of the Jews. Then lifting up his eyes and seeing a great multitude, he fed them with five loaves and two fish,⁽⁴¹⁵⁾ which is also related by the other evangelists. This makes it certain that he has omitted those things that the others have passed through in their narratives on their way to their recording of this miracle. Among them there seems to be a different manner of narration, as those three omit things that [John] includes. This miracle of the five loaves is the meeting point for [all four]: for those three who have been following more or less the same course, and for that one who is more interested in the Lord's sermons. While he was [treating] other matters of which the others were silent, in some way he flew back and rejoined the others in recording the miracle of the five loaves, although it not long before he flies off again into higher matters.⁽⁴¹⁶⁾

(95) Matthew then proceeds in order after his story of the five loaves: When it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, "This is a lonely place, and the time is now past; send the crowds away, so they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves." But Jesus said to them, "They do not have to go; you give them something to eat," etc., on down to where it says, "And the number of those who ate was five thousand men, besides women and children."⁽⁴¹⁷⁾ We must examine and discuss this miracle, which all four evangelists record,⁽⁴¹⁸⁾ and on which they are thought to disagree. From this one instance we will learn the rules of speech [that apply] to other similar cases that retain the same sense and preserve the same truth, although [expressed] differently. We should begin this examination not with Matthew (although that would be in the order of the evangelists), but rather with John, who tells this story so [precisely] that he even gives the names of the disciples to whom the Lord spoke about this. He says this: Then lifting up his eyes, and seeing a great multitude coming towards him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?" He said this in order to test him, for he knew what he would do. Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not be enough for each of them to take a little bit." Then one of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, "Here is one boy who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are those among so many?" So Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." There was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed it to those who were sitting. And the same with the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they were full, he said to his disciples, "Gather up the left over fragments, so that they are not lost." So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.⁽⁴¹⁹⁾

(96) We need not inquire about what he says about the kind of loaves. For he has not omitted "barley," which the others have omitted. Nor need we inquire about his not saying that there were women and children as well as the five thousand men, as Matthew says. By now it should be clear to everyone, and a regular part of such questions, that when one includes what the other omits, this is no reason for concern. But we must inquire, how it is that the things said by them can all be true, so that one's version does not conflict with another's. For in John's version, when the Lord saw the crowds, he tested Philip by asking him how they were [to get] bread to give to them. But then there is a problem with the truth of the others, who say that first the disciples asked the Lord to send away the crowds, so that they could buy food for themselves in the nearby areas, to which he replied, according to Matthew, "They do not have to go; you give them something to eat."⁽⁴²⁰⁾ Mark and Luke agree with this, except they do not say, "They do not have to go." So it should be understood that after these words, the Lord looked at the multitude, and said to Philip what John records, but the others omit. John then says that Philip replied, while Mark says the response was from the disciples, wishing to show that Philip answered as the spokesperson for the others. (Or else they used the plural number for the singular, a most common usage.) And what then did Philip say? [According to John], "Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not be enough for each of them to take a little bit," which is also said in Mark, "Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?"⁽⁴²¹⁾ Mark reports that the Lord said, "How many loaves do you have?" but the others omit this. According to John, Andrew mentioned the five loaves and two fish, while the others say it was the group of disciples, putting it in the plural instead of the singular. And Luke has put the answers of Philip and Andrew together in one sentence. For when he says, "We have no more than five loaves and two fishes," that is Andrew's response; but when he adds, "unless we are to go and buy food for all this crowd,"⁽⁴²²⁾ this would seem to be Philip's response, except that he has left out the "two hundred denarii." But perhaps the sense of this can also be understood in Andrew's words, when he said, "Here is one boy who has five barley loaves and two fish," and then added, "but what are those among so many?" which is the same as saying, "unless we are to go and buy food for all this crowd."

(97) Although there is great variation in the words, there is agreement as to the subjects and ideas. It is clear enough that this should teach us, for our own good, to seek nothing in a person's words, other than the speaker's intention; and every truthful narrator should seek above all to show this [intention], whether they are speaking of people, or of angels, or of God. For this intention can be expressed in words that are in no way ambiguous with regards to itself.

(98) Certainly we should not neglect at this point to direct the reader's attention to other matters that may turn out to be of the same kind. For example, Luke says they were commanded to sit down in groups of fifty, while Mark [says] it was in groups of fifty and one hundred.⁽⁴²³⁾ But this is not really a problem, since the one reports the part, and the other the whole. For the one who says one hundred has just said what the other has omitted, and this is not a contradiction. Indeed, if the one had only reported fifty, and the other only one hundred, this certainly might have seemed to be a contradiction, and it might not have been easy to show that both were said, the one recording only the one, and the other [only recording] the other. But even in this case, who will not admit that with a more careful examination, [an answer] should have been found? I bring this up, because there are often such cases, where things that are not contradictory seem so to those who pay too little attention and make a judgment carelessly.

(99) Matthew continues in this way: And when he had dismissed the crowd, he went up on the mountain alone to pray. And when evening came, he was there alone. But the boat was in the midst of the sea, tossed by the waves, for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. And when they saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It is a ghost," etc., on down to where it says, "They came and worshiped him, saying, 'Truly you are the son of God.'"⁽⁴²⁴⁾After his account of the miracle of the loaves, Mark also tells of this: And when it was late, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he was alone on land. And seeing them struggling at rowing, for the wind was against them,⁽⁴²⁵⁾ etc., all of which is similar [to Matthew's account], except that he does not mention Peter walking on the water. But we must be careful that there is no problem with what Mark says of the Lord, when he was walking on the water: And he meant to pass by them.⁽⁴²⁶⁾ How could they have perceived this, except that he was going in the opposite direction, and wished to pass them by like strangers, those who had not recognized him, and had even thought he was a ghost? But who is so stupid that they could not notice that this has a mystical significance? But as they were confused and crying out, he came to their aid, saying, "Have faith, it is I, do not be afraid."⁽⁴²⁷⁾ So why would he want to pass by those whom he then helped in their terror? It must have been in order to elicit those cries to which he would then respond with help.

(100) But John dwells on these matters. For after his account of the miracle of the five loaves, he also does not fail to mention the boat struggling and the Lord walking on the water: Therefore, when Jesus perceived that they were coming to take him by force and make him king, he left to the mountain alone. And when it was late, his disciples went down to the sea. And they got into a boat, and went across the sea to Capernaum.⁽⁴²⁸⁾ And it was now dark, and Jesus had not come to them. And the sea rose because a great wind was blowing,⁽⁴²⁹⁾ etc. There is nothing in this that appears contrary [to the others], except that Matthew says that after dismissing the crowds, he went up on the mountain alone to pray, while John says that he was on a mountain when he fed the crowds with the five loaves. But since John himself says that after this miracle he went off to a mountain, so as not to be taken by the crowds, who wished to make him king, it is clear that they must have come down from the mountain to a level place, when those loaves were given to the crowds. So when he goes up the mountain again, there is no contradiction between Matthew and John, except that Matthew says, "He went up," and John says, "He left." But this would only be a contradiction if "leaving" did not include "going up." Nor is there any inconsistency, when Matthew says, "He went up on the mountain alone to pray," and John says, "When Jesus perceived that they were coming to take him by force and make him king, he left to the mountain alone." For there is nothing incompatible between "prayer" and "leaving." The Lord himself transfigured the body of our humiliation, so that he might make it like the body of his glory.⁽⁴³⁰⁾ This teaches us that the act of leaving can be the object of profound prayer. Nor is the following incompatible. Matthew says that first he commanded the disciples to get into the little boat and go before him across the lake, until he dismissed the crowds, and when he had dismissed the crowds he went up on the mountain alone to pray. But John reports that first he went off alone to the mountain and then says the following: And when it was late, his disciples went down to the sea, and they got into a boat,⁽⁴³¹⁾ etc. But who will not see that in John's summary, he says the disciples did something later, that Jesus had already commanded them [to do], before he went off to the mountain? Frequently in speech, one comes back to something that had been overlooked before. But if it is not noted that this reference is [to something previous], and if [the mention] is brief and sudden, then those who hear it might suppose that what is mentioned later in fact happened later. So, although he first says, "They got into a boat and went across the sea to Capernaum," and then says that they were struggling in the sea when the Lord came walking to them on the water, he means that this happened during their crossing to Capernaum.

(101) But after the miracle of the five loaves, Luke goes on to something else, and also diverges from this order. For he reports nothing of that little boat or of the Lord's [making] a path on the water. Instead he says the following: And all ate and were full. And they took up what was left over, twelve baskets of fragments. And he continues: And it happened that when he was alone praying, the disciples were with him, and he asked them, saying, "Who do the crowds say I am?"⁽⁴³²⁾ He has here narrated something that the other three have not: they instead tell of how the Lord walked on the water and came to the disciples while they were on their journey. But it should not be supposed that he said to the disciples, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" on that mountain that Matthew says he went up on to pray alone. Since Luke says, "As he was praying alone," and Matthew says, "He went up on the mountain alone to pray,"⁽⁴³³⁾ it might seem that these two [scenes] are the same. But it is not at all so. For when he asks this question, he is both alone praying, and his disciples are with him. Therefore, Luke says that he was alone, but not that the disciples were absent. But according to Matthew and John, they had left him and gone before him across the sea. But Luke has added most explicitly, "And the disciples were with him." So when he says that he was alone, [he means] the crowds were gone, for they did not live with him.

(102) Matthew continues: And when they had crossed over, they came into the land of Genesaret. And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent round to all that region, and brought to him all who were sick, and asked him if they could touch the edge of his garment. And as many as touched it were healed. Then the scribes and Pharisees came down to him from Jerusalem, saying, "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread," etc., on down to where it says, "But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."⁽⁴³⁴⁾ Mark also reports this, and there is no question of any inconsistency: although there are differences between them in the way things are said, there is no difference in sense. But after the [incident of] the Lord walking on the sea to come to the little boat, John [goes on to what happened] when they got to land; since he is most interested in the Lord's speeches, he reports that he taught them many divine things concerning bread.⁽⁴³⁵⁾ After this speech his narrative is sublimely carried on to other things. But this transition to other things is not incompatible with the [accounts of] the others, although it differs somewhat in order. Nothing would keep us from supposing that the Lord healed some people, as Matthew and Mark report; and that he said those things to the people who followed him across the sea, as John reports. [This is especially likely], since Capernaum, [the place] to which John says they were crossing, is near the lake of Genesar, the land to which Matthew says they were going.

(103) Matthew continues his narrative after the Lord's speech to the Pharisees about unwashed hands. His narrative order preserves the temporal order of the following events, as far as we can tell from the transitions: And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman came from those areas and cried out, saying to him, Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is greatly troubled by a demon." But he did not answer her a word, etc., on down to where it says, "O woman, great is your faith; be it done to you as you desire." And her daughter was healed that very hour.⁽⁴³⁶⁾ Mark also records [the story] of this Canaanite woman, giving the same order of events, and raising no question of inconsistency, except for his saying that the Lord was in a house when the woman came to him, pleading for her daughter.⁽⁴³⁷⁾ It could easily be supposed that Matthew has not mentioned the house, but is nonetheless reporting the same event, except that he says the disciples suggested that the Lord, "Send her away, for she is crying after us."⁽⁴³⁸⁾ This would seem to indicate that the woman gave voice to these pleas as [she followed] the Lord as he walked. So how can it have been in a house, unless we are to understand that she went into the place where Jesus was, which according to Mark was a house? But when Matthew says, "He did not answer her a word," he has hinted at what both of them have left unsaid: that, while silent, Jesus left that house. From there on, there is no disagreement between them. Mark reports the Lord's response to her, that the children's bread is not to be given to the dogs, while Matthew does not fail to mention some other sayings first. So, the disciples must have first begged him concerning her; then he answered them that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and then she came to him, or rather, followed him; and then she worshiped him, saying, "Help me";⁽⁴³⁹⁾ and then they said what both evangelists have recorded.

(104) Matthew continues his narrative thus: And when Jesus had gone on from there, he came to the shore of the sea of Galilee. And he went up on a mountain and sat there. And many crowds came to him, bringing with them the mute, blind, lame, maimed, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, so that the crowd marveled when they saw the mute speak, the lame walk, the blind see, and they glorified the God of Israel. Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion on the crowd, for they have stayed with me for three days, and have nothing to eat," etc., on down to where it says, "Those who ate were four thousand men, besides children and women."⁽⁴⁴⁰⁾ This other miracle of the seven loaves and few fishes is also recorded by Mark in almost the same order, except that he inserts [a story] told by none of the others: [the story] of the deaf man,⁽⁴⁴¹⁾ whose ears the Lord opened by spitting on his fingers and saying, "Ephatha," that is, "Be opened."⁽⁴⁴²⁾

(105) Certainly it is not unimportant to call attention to this miracle of the seven loaves that the two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, have given. If [only] one of them had given this [story] and not given that of the five loaves, then one would have thought he was in contradiction with the others. One would have then supposed that there was in fact only one [miracle], and that an incomplete and untruthful account has been given by one, or by the others, or by all of them, whether it was that one was mistaken and recorded seven instead of five, or that the others [recorded] five instead of seven, either from a desire to deceive, or from their own forgetfulness. Or one might have thought that there was a contradiction between the twelve "baskets" and the seven "hampers,"⁽⁴⁴³⁾ or between the five thousand and the four thousand who were fed. But since those who have narrated the miracle of the seven loaves have not omitted [the miracle] of the five [loaves], there is no problem, and anyone can understand that both occurred. We note this so that whenever one finds a similar deed of the Lord [told] by two evangelists in a way that seems so inconsistent that there is no way to reconcile them, one can only understand that it happened twice, and each of them reported one of the incidences. We have already raised this possibility with the seatings by hundreds and by fifties, where we also found both [numbers] in one [writer], when we might have supposed a contradiction if he had mentioned only one [of the numbers].

(106) Matthew continues: And dismissing the crowd, he got into a little boat and came to the coasts of Magadan, etc., on down to where it says, "An evil and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah."⁽⁴⁴⁴⁾ Matthew has already said this elsewhere.⁽⁴⁴⁵⁾ So again and again we must maintain that the Lord frequently said the same thing, so that if a contradiction can be found, it is to be understood that he said that thing twice. Indeed, Mark also keeps to the same order, for after the miracle of the seven loaves he adds the same thing as Matthew, except that Matthew does not say Dalmanutha,⁽⁴⁴⁶⁾ as in some versions of Mark, but Magadan. But no one can doubt that it is the same place under a different name. Besides, most versions of Mark have nothing other than Magadan. Nor is it a problem that Mark does not mention Jonah in the reply to those who asked for a sign from heaven, as Matthew does, but has the Lord reply, "A sign will not be given to it."⁽⁴⁴⁷⁾ For it can be understood that the kind of sign they sought was one "from heaven," and [Mark] has just omitted mentioning Jonah, which Matthew does record.

(107) Matthew continues: And he left them and departed. And when his disciples came across the lake, they had forgotten to bring bread. He said to them, "Consider and beware the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," etc., on down to where it says, "Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees."⁽⁴⁴⁸⁾ This is also given by Mark, and in the same order.⁽⁴⁴⁹⁾

(108) Matthew continues: And Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, and he asked his disciples, saying, "Who do people say I, the Son of man, am?" And they said, "Some [say] John the baptist, others [say] Elijah, and others [say] Jeremiah or one of the prophets," etc., on down to where it says, "And whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."⁽⁴⁵⁰⁾ Mark narrates this in nearly the same order, though he first inserts [the story], which he alone records, of the healing of the blind man who said to the Lord, "I see men like walking trees."⁽⁴⁵¹⁾ Luke also records this and inserts it after the miracle of the five loaves,⁽⁴⁵²⁾ but as we noted above, his recollected order is not inconsistent with their order. But it may be a problem, that Luke says the Lord asked his disciples about who people said he was, while he was alone praying and they were with him; but Mark says that he asked them this while they were on the way. But this is a problem only to someone who has not prayed on the way.

(109) I recall saying already that it should not be supposed that Peter received that name when he said to him, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."⁽⁴⁵³⁾ For he only received this name at the time that John records it: "You will be called Cephas" (which means Peter).⁽⁴⁵⁴⁾ Nor can it be supposed that he received the name Peter at the time when Mark records the names of the twelve apostles,⁽⁴⁵⁵⁾ telling how James and John were called sons of thunder, just because he says that he named him Peter: this is when it occurred to [Mark's] recollection, not when it happened.

(110) Matthew continues thus: Then he commanded his disciples to tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. From then on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and scribes, etc., on down to where it says, "You are not about the things that are of God, but of men."⁽⁴⁵⁶⁾ Mark and Luke put this in the same order,⁽⁴⁵⁷⁾ though Luke omits Peter's opposition to Christ's passion.

(111) Matthew continues: Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me," etc., on down to where it says, "Then he will repay everyone according to his work."⁽⁴⁵⁸⁾ Mark adds this in the same order, though he does not mention the Son of man coming with his angels to repay everyone according to his work. But he reports what was said by the Lord: "For whoever will be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of man will be ashamed, when he comes in his glory with the holy angels."⁽⁴⁵⁹⁾ This can be understood as meaning the same as Matthew's statement that, "He will repay everyone according to his work." Luke adds this in the same order, only varying the words slightly, but truthfully giving the same meaning.⁽⁴⁶⁰⁾

(112) Matthew continues: "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." And after six days, Jesus took Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain, etc., on down to where it says, "Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man rises from the dead."⁽⁴⁶¹⁾ Three disciples - Peter, James, and John - [see] this vision of the Lord on the mountain, and in the same scene, the witness of the Father's voice from heaven is related; all of this is given in the same order and with the same exact meaning by the three evangelists.⁽⁴⁶²⁾ But in other things, readers may see that they use different types of speech, but without any difference in meaning, as we have shown above in other cases.

(113) But Mark and Matthew say that this happened after six days, while Luke says it was eight days: anyone who is troubled by this should not be treated contemptuously, but should be instructed by being given reasons. For when we say, "after so many days," sometimes we do not count the day on which we are speaking, or the day on which the event we are predicting or promising is to occur, but [only count] the full and complete days that will come in between. This is what Matthew and Mark have done. They have left out the day on which Jesus said this, and the day on which he showed that memorable vision on the mountain, only considering the days in between, and therefore they have said, "after six days." But [Luke] has counted the end days, that is the first and the last, and therefore says, "after eight days," as when one speaks of the part as though it stood for the whole.⁽⁴⁶³⁾

(114) Now as for what Luke says about Moses and Elijah: And it happened that when they departed from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here,"⁽⁴⁶⁴⁾ etc. This should not be taken as contradicting what Matthew and Mark say here, as though Peter made this suggestion while Moses and Elijah still spoke with the Lord. For they do not say that it happened right then, but rather they omit [Luke's] addition that Peter suggested to the Lord the building of three tabernacles as they were departing. Luke has also added that they were entering the cloud when the voice came from the cloud,⁽⁴⁶⁵⁾ which the others do not say, but which they also do not contradict.

(115) Matthew continues: And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" And he replied and said to them, "Elijah shall come and restore all things: for I say to you that Elijah has already come, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of man will suffer from them." Then the disciples understood that he spoke to them of John the baptist.⁽⁴⁶⁶⁾ Mark also reports this in the same order; and although there is some difference in the wording, he in no way departs from the same truthful meaning.⁽⁴⁶⁷⁾ But he does not say that the disciples understood that the Lord was referring to John when he said that Elijah had come.

(116) Matthew continues in this way: And when he came to the crowd, a man came up to him, fell on his knees before him, and said, "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and suffers terribly," etc., on down to where it says, "But this kind does not come out except by prayer and fasting."⁽⁴⁶⁸⁾ Mark and Luke also record this in the same order, without any question of inconsistency.⁽⁴⁶⁹⁾

(117) Matthew continues: As they were living in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of man will be handed over into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise." And they were extremely sad.⁽⁴⁷⁰⁾ Mark and Luke record this in the same order.⁽⁴⁷¹⁾

(118) Matthew continues: And when they came to Capernaum, those who collect the half-drachma tax came up to Peter and said to him, "Does your master pay the half-drachma tax?" And he said, "Yes," etc., on down to where it says, "You will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for me and you."⁽⁴⁷²⁾ He alone records this, and after inserting it, he again follows the same order as Mark and Luke.

(119) Matthew then continues in the following way: In that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who do you think is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And Jesus called a child, and stood him in their midst and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven," on down to where it says, "So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if every one of you does not forgive your brother from your heart."⁽⁴⁷³⁾ Mark does not include all of this lengthy sermon of the Lord, but only some parts, though these are in the same order, and he also inserts some things that Matthew does not mention.⁽⁴⁷⁴⁾ The only interruption in this whole sermon that we have taken into consideration, is when Peter asks how often a brother should be forgiven.⁽⁴⁷⁵⁾ But the Lord spoke in such a way, that it is clear enough that Peter's question and the answer to it are part of the same sermon. Luke has recorded none of this [sermon] in this order, except for [the Lord] setting the little child before the disciples so that they could imitate it when they thought of their own greatness.⁽⁴⁷⁶⁾ Although he has said other things similar to the things found in this sermon, he has recalled them as they were said on other occasions. Similarly, John reports what the Lord said after his resurrection about the forgiveness of sins, that they would be retained by those to whom [the disciples] retained them, and forgiven to those to whom [the disciples] forgave them.⁽⁴⁷⁷⁾ In this sermon, Matthew reports that the Lord said something that he has already claimed he said to Peter earlier.⁽⁴⁷⁸⁾ This should not trouble us, even though the order of the sayings may appear inconsistent, for the Lord said the same thing often and at different places, [an observation] we have often made, and which we ought to keep in mind, so that we need not bring it up repeatedly.

(120) Matthew continues his narrative thus: And it happened that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away to Galilee and came into the coasts of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him, testing him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" etc., on down to where it says, "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."⁽⁴⁷⁹⁾ Mark also records this in the same order. But we must see whether there does not seem to be an inconsistency here. For Mark says that the Lord asked the Pharisees what Moses commanded, and they answered that he permitted them a bill of divorce.⁽⁴⁸⁰⁾ But Matthew says that the Lord's words showed from the law how God had joined male and female,⁽⁴⁸¹⁾ and therefore they should not be separated by a person, to which they replied, "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and send her away?" And he said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."⁽⁴⁸²⁾ Mark does not omit the Lord's response, he just [puts] it after their answer to his question about the bill of divorce.

(121) As to the order or the wording, we ought to understand that it makes no difference to the truth of the matter. [It makes no difference] whether they asked him about the bill of divorce allowed by Moses (who also wrote that God joined male and female), while the Lord was prohibiting divorce and proving his ideas from the law, or whether they mentioned it in their answer to his question about what Moses had commanded them. He intended not to give them a reason for why Moses had permitted this, until after they had mentioned it first. Mark shows this intention with [Jesus'] question. But their intention was that the authority of Moses, who had commanded them to give a bill of divorce, would stop him from certain prohibition on divorce. For they had come to him to say something that would test him. Their intention is expressed by Matthew, who does not record that they were questioned, but that they asked about Moses' command, so that they could convict the Lord of prohibiting the divorce of spouses. Both evangelists have shown the intentions of the speakers, which is what words are supposed to do; therefore it makes no difference if there are differences in their ways of telling the story, so long as neither deviates from the truth of the matter.

(122) It may also be understood in this way. Perhaps as Mark says, they first questioned the Lord about divorcing a wife, and he then asked them about what Moses had commanded. They then responded that Moses had allowed them to write a bill of divorce and send her away. He then answered regarding the law given by Moses, and of how God had instituted the joining of male and female, saying as Matthew puts it, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning male and female?"⁽⁴⁸³⁾ etc. When they heard this, they repeated what they had answered to his previous question, saying, "Why then did Moses command one to give a bill of divorce and send her away?"⁽⁴⁸⁴⁾ Then Jesus showed that the reason was their hardness of heart: Mark had briefly shown this earlier when [Jesus] answered their response, which Matthew omitted. He judged that no damage would be done to the truth, whichever place he put these words, for the statement to which they responded was said twice, and the Lord's response was in these words.

(123) Matthew continues: Then little children were brought to him, so that he could lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples rebuked the, etc., on down to where it says, "For many are called, but few are chosen."⁽⁴⁸⁵⁾ Mark follows the same order as Matthew here, though Matthew alone inserts the story of the hiring of the workers for the vineyard.⁽⁴⁸⁶⁾ Luke first records what he said to those who questioned who would be the greatest among them, and then he adds [the story] of the man they saw casting out demons, although he did not follow [Jesus]; then he diverges from the other two, saying how he set his face to go to Jerusalem,⁽⁴⁸⁷⁾ and after inserting many other things,⁽⁴⁸⁸⁾ he rejoins their record with [the story] of the rich man, to whom it was said, "Sell all that you have."⁽⁴⁸⁹⁾ This is recorded by all of them in the order that they all have in common.⁽⁴⁹⁰⁾ For Luke includes [the story] of the little children right before he mentions the rich man, just as the other two do. As for this rich man, who asks what good he must do in order to obtain eternal life, there may seem to be some discrepancy between them. For according to Matthew, [Jesus] said, "Why do you ask me about what is good?" while according to the others, he said, "Why do you call me good?"⁽⁴⁹¹⁾ "Why do you ask me about the good?" may refer to his question, "What good must I do?" He both called [Jesus] "good" and asked about the "good," but "good teacher" was not his question. So the best way to understand this would be that [Jesus] said both: "Why do you call me good, and ask me about the good?"

(124) Matthew continues in this way: And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and they will hand him over to the gentiles to be mocked, flogged, and crucified, and on the third day he will rise." Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him, with her sons, worshiping him and asking him for something, etc., on down to where it says, "Even as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."⁽⁴⁹²⁾ Mark also follows this order, except that he has the request come from the sons of Zebedee themselves, while Matthew says it was not from them directly, but from their mother, who presented their wish to the Lord. So Mark has briefly given the statement as being from them, rather than from her. But both Matthew and Mark have the Lord reply to them rather than to their mother. But Luke, after recording in the same order his prediction to his twelve disciples of his passion and resurrection, omits what the others include, and rejoins them after this [with the report of what happened] at Jericho.⁽⁴⁹³⁾ As for what Matthew and Mark say about the leaders of the gentiles exercising power over their subjects, and how this is not to be so with [the disciples], but the one who is greatest among them should serve the others, Luke says something similar, though not at this point, and his order indicates that this idea was expressed by the Lord on a separate occasion.⁽⁴⁹⁴⁾

(125) Matthew continues: And as they left Jericho, a great crowd followed. And behold, two blind men sitting by the road heard that Jesus was passing by, and the cried out, saying, "Lord, have mercy on us, O Son of David," etc., on down to where it says, "And immediately they could see and they followed him."⁽⁴⁹⁵⁾ Mark also records this, though with only one blind man.⁽⁴⁹⁶⁾ We can solve this question in the same way as we solved it in the story of the two men who suffered from the legion of demons in the region of the Gerasenes.⁽⁴⁹⁷⁾ Only [Matthew] tells of two blind men, but one of them must have been of special standing and fame in that city. This is shown clearly enough by the fact that Mark records the name of both him and his father, which occurs in none of the other healings done by the Lord, except when he mentions the name of the ruler of the synagogue, Jairus, whose daughter Jesus resuscitated,⁽⁴⁹⁸⁾ and in that instance it is clear that the ruler of the synagogue was a high-ranking man in that place. So no doubt this Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, had fallen from some great fortune to the most remarkable and famous misery, because he was not only blind, but even had to sit begging. Therefore Mark has chosen to report only that one whose cure made this miracle as famous, as his loss had been notorious.

(126) Although Luke has an altogether similar incident, it is nevertheless to be understood as the record of the miracle of another blind man, similar to this miracle.⁽⁴⁹⁹⁾ For he says that it happened as he approached Jericho, while the others [say] it was when he was leaving Jericho. Though the name of the city and the similarity of the act encourage one to suppose that there was one event, the fact that the evangelists disagree with one another, in that one says, "As he came near Jericho," while the others [say], "As he left Jericho," surely persuades one that these are not the same event, unless one is more inclined to believe that the Gospel is false, than that Jesus did similar miracles under similar circumstances. All faithful children of the Gospel will easily see which of these is more believable and true; and all antagonists, when they are shown how things are, will either be silent or, if they choose not to be silent, will answer themselves with their own thoughts.

(127) Matthew continues in the following way: And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethpage, to the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tied, and a colt with her," etc., on down to where it says, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, hosanna in the highest."⁽⁵⁰⁰⁾ Mark reports this in the same order.⁽⁵⁰¹⁾ Luke stays in Jericho longer, recording some things the others omit, such as [the story] of Zacchaeus, the chief tax-collector, and other things spoken in parables.⁽⁵⁰²⁾ After this he rejoins the others in reporting on the colt on which Jesus sat.⁽⁵⁰³⁾ And it is no problem that Matthew speaks of an ass and a colt, while the others do not mention the ass. For we must remember that rule which we discussed above in the case of the seatings by fifties and by hundreds when the crowds were fed with the five loaves.⁽⁵⁰⁴⁾ Once this is remembered, the reader should find no problem here. Even if Matthew had omitted the colt, and the others had omitted the ass, one need not suppose some great difference because one mentioned an ass, and the others the colt of an ass. So it is even less of a problem, if the one mentions the ass, which the others have omitted, but also includes the colt, which the others also mention! So when it is possible to suppose that both things were there, there is no inconsistency, if one mentions the one thing and another [mentions] the other, and there is even less [of a problem] if one [mentions] one, and the other [mentions] both!

(128) Although John says nothing about the Lord sending his disciples to bring these animals to him, he nonetheless briefly mentions this colt, with the same prophetic witness used by Matthew.⁽⁵⁰⁵⁾ In this prophetic witness, although there is some difference in wording between the evangelists, there is no difference in their meaning. There may be some problem, however, for Matthew cites this passage as though the prophet mentioned the ass, when this is not the case, either in John's version, or in the church's versions of the usual translation. But it seems to me that the reason for this is that Matthew is held to have written his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Further, it is clear that the translation known as the Septuagint is not always identical to what is found in the Hebrew by those who know that language and by those who have made translations of those Hebrew books. If one seeks the reason for this difference, or for why the authority of the Septuagint translation differs in so many places from the truth found in the Hebrew books, there is no more probable explanation than this: the Spirit [who spoke] through the Septuagint translators was the same Spirit who had earlier spoken those things they were translating. This is confirmed by that agreement which they are said to have miraculously with one another. So although their wording may have varied, they in no way departed from the will of God, from which the words came and to which the words had to be subservient. They wished to show nothing other than that same thing that we now marvel at in the diversity of agreement among the four evangelists, in which it is shown to us that one need not be false, if one expresses something in a different way from another, as long as one does not depart from the intention of the one with whom one must be in accord and agreement. Knowing this is advantageous both to [our] morals, as we can guard against and judge falsehood, and also to [our] faith, so that we do not suppose that God has defended the truth by giving us not only the thing itself, but even the words in which it is expressed, as though they were a kind of deified sound. It is rather the case that the thing which is to be learned is so far above the words by which it is learned, that we would not need to ask about them at all, if we were able to know the thing itself without them, as God knows it and his angels know it in him.

(129) Matthew continues thus: And when he entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, "Who is this?" And the people said, "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee." And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, etc., on down to where it says, "But you have made it a den of thieves."⁽⁵⁰⁶⁾ All [the evangelists] record this [event] of the crowds of merchants who were cast out of the temple, but John [gives it] in a very different order.⁽⁵⁰⁷⁾ For after the testimony of John the baptist concerning Jesus, he then records his going into Galilee when he turned the water into wine. And then after noting his stay in Capernaum for a few days, he says that he went up to Jerusalem at the time of the Jews' Passover, and made a whip of small cords to drive the merchants from the temple. This makes it clear that the Lord did this, not once, but twice, and John has recorded the first time, and the others have recorded the last time.

(130) Matthew continues: And the blind and lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant. And they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes. Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise'?" And leaving them he went out of the city to Bethany and stayed there. In the morning, as he returned to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree on the way he went up to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again." And the fig tree withered up at once. And when the disciples saw it they marveled, saying, "How did it wither at once?" But answering, Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will do not only [what was done] to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea," it will be done. And whatever you ask for in prayer with belief, you will receive."⁽⁵⁰⁸⁾

(131) Mark also mentions this in what follows, but not in the same order.⁽⁵⁰⁹⁾ For what Matthew tells first, that he went into the temple and cast out those who sold and bought, Mark does not record [first]. Instead, he says that he looked around at everything, and when it was evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. Then on another day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry, and he cursed the fig tree, as Matthew also reports. Then Mark adds that he came to Jerusalem and entered the temple and cast out those who bought and sold, as though it happened on another day, and not on the first. But since Matthew has said, "And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany,"⁽⁵¹⁰⁾ and reports that when he returned in the morning to the city he cursed the fig tree, it is more likely to suppose that he has kept the temporal order of the casting out of those who bought and sold from the temple. For when he says, "And he left them and went out," to whom can this refer, except to those who were indignant when the children cried, "Hosanna to the Son of David"? So Mark has omitted what happened on the first day, when he entered the temple, and he has recorded what he recalled at that point - Jesus' finding nothing but leaves on the fig tree - even though that happened on the second day, as both of them testify. But the disciples' surprise at the tree's withering, and the Lord's response to them about faith and about the mountain being cast into the sea, did not [happen] on the second day, when he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you ever again," but on a third day. For on the second day, Mark reports the casting out of the merchants from the temple, which he had omitted from the first day. So it is on this second day that Jesus went out of the city at evening. And the following day when they passed by it in the morning, the disciples saw the fig tree withered from the roots, and Peter remembered it and said, "Master, behold the fig tree that you cursed has withered,"⁽⁵¹¹⁾ and then [Jesus] responds on the power of faith. But Matthew [says all] this happened on the second day: [Jesus] said to the tree, "May no fruit ever come from you again," the withering immediately followed, the disciples marveled when they saw it, and he responded to them on the power of faith. So it is to be understood that Mark reports as happening on the second day what he omitted from the first - the casting out of those who bought and sold from the temple. Meanwhile, Matthew reports what happened on the [second] day - the cursing of the tree as he returned in the morning from Bethany to the city; but he has omitted what Mark has recorded - his entering the city, leaving it at evening, and the disciples' surprise at the tree's withering when they passed by it in the morning. To the second day, on which the tree was cursed, he has added things that happened on the third day - the disciples' surprise at the withering and the Lord's response about the power of faith. He has connected them in such a way that without Mark's narrative to alert us, we would not have been able to detect where Matthew has omitted anything. So Matthew says this: And leaving them he went out of the city and stayed in Bethany. In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree on the way, he came to it and found nothing on it except leaves. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again." And the fig tree withered immediately.⁽⁵¹²⁾ Then he omits some things related to that day, and immediately adds the following: And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did it wither at once?"⁽⁵¹³⁾ But it was on another day that they saw this and marveled at it. But it is to be understood that it did not wither when they saw it, but immediately when it was cursed. For they saw it not just withering, but completely withered away already, and understood that it had withered immediately after the Lord's word.

(132) Matthew continues thus: And when he came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, saying, "By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?" Answering, Jesus said to them, "I will also ask you one thing; and if you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I do these things. From whence was the baptism of John?" etc., on down to where it says, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."⁽⁵¹⁴⁾ The other two, Mark and Luke, give this whole [story] in almost the same words.⁽⁵¹⁵⁾ Nor is there any difference in order, except for what was noted above, that Matthew has omitted some things from his account of the second day, so that, if it were not [for Mark] alerting us, we would have thought he was referring to the second day, while Mark [shows] it was really the third. And Luke has not added this [story] as though he was following the days in order, but after reporting the casting out of those who bought and sold from the temple, he omits his going to Bethany, his returning to the city, what happened to the fig tree, and the response about the power of faith made to the disciples' surprise. And after omitting this, he continues: And he was teaching daily in the temple. And the chief priests and scribes and leaders of the people sought to destroy him, but they could not find anything they could do, for all the people were listening to him attentively. And it happened that one day, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the Gospel, the chief priests and scribes with the elders came up and said to him, "Tell us: by what authority you do these things?"⁽⁵¹⁶⁾ etc. The other two record these things also. So there appears to be no difference, not even in order, for when he says, "And it happened that one day," this can be understood as that day to which the others also refer.

(133) Matthew continues: "But what do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said to him, 'Go today to work in my vineyard.' And answering he said, 'No.' But afterward he repented and went. And he went to the other and said the same. And answering he said, 'I go, sir.' But he did not go," etc., on down to where it says, "And he who falls on this stone will be broken; but he on whom it falls will be crushed."⁽⁵¹⁷⁾ Mark and Luke do not record this [story] of the two sons who were commanded to go and work in the vineyard. But the next [story] that Matthew tells, of the vineyard that was lent out to farmers, who abused the servants sent to them, and afterwards killed the beloved son and threw him out of vineyard, is not overlooked by the other two, who give it in the same order.⁽⁵¹⁸⁾ They tell it after the Jews say they are unable to answer the question about John's baptism, to which [Jesus] replies, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."⁽⁵¹⁹⁾

(134) There is no question of disagreement here, unless it is because Matthew has the Lord ask the Jews, "When the Lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those farmers?" and has them respond, "He will miserably destroy those evil ones, and let the vineyard out to other farmers, who will give him the fruits in their seasons."⁽⁵²⁰⁾ For Mark does not record this as their response, but as said by the Lord in response to his own question. For [in Mark], [Jesus] says, "What will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others."⁽⁵²¹⁾ But it is easy enough to understand that their words are added here without it being said, "They said," or, "They responded," but nonetheless this is to be understood. Or else, this response is attributed to the Lord, because when they spoke the truth, he who is himself the truth answered the same as they did.

(135) But the following is more of a problem. Like Mark, Luke attributes these words to the Lord, and so he does not say it was their response; but he even has them give a contrary response, saying, "Let it not be so!" For this is his version: "What then will the Lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When they heard this, they said, "Let it not be so!" But he looked and them and said, "What then is this that is written: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.'"⁽⁵²²⁾ So how can the same people who say in Matthew's [version], "He will miserably destroy those evil ones, and let the vineyard out to other farmers, who will give him the fruits in their seasons," say in Luke's [version] something completely at odds with these words, saying, "Let it not be so"? In truth, what the Lord then says about the stone that was rejected by the builders but became the head of the corner seems to be meant as a witness to discredit those who disagree with the parable. Matthew's report also seems directed against those who disagree: "Have you not read in the scriptures: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'?" For, "Have you not read?" [shows] that their response was in disagreement with this [parable]. Mark also indicates this with these words: "Have you not read this in the scriptures: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner'?"⁽⁵²³⁾ In Luke's [version], this sentence seems to be in the place where it was said, for it is right after their dissenting statement, "Let it not be so." And the way he puts it, "What then is this that is written: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,'" is equivalent to the others. For the same meaning is expressed in each of these sentences: "Have you never read? Have you not read? What then is this that is written?"

(136) It remains then for us to understand that among the people who were listening then, there were some who responded as Matthew reports: They say to him, "He will miserably destroy those evil ones, and let the vineyard out to other farmers."⁽⁵²⁴⁾ But there were also some [who said] what Luke does not fail to mention, "Let it not be so!" Those who said, "Let it not be so!" were responding to those who made the first reply to the Lord. But this first response has been attributed by Mark and Luke to the Lord, because, as was noted, the truth itself was spoken by them, even if they did not know it, and even if they were evil. The same [happened] with Caiaphas the high priest, who knew not what he said, but still prophesied;⁽⁵²⁵⁾ it also [happened] with those who did know, and who understood and believed. For that multitude was also there, through whom the prophecy had been fulfilled, when there was a great celebration at his arrival, and they cried out, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"⁽⁵²⁶⁾

(137) Nor is the following a problem. Matthew says that the chief priests and elders of the people came to the Lord and asked him by what authority he did these things, and who had given him this authority. And he asked them whether the baptism of John was from heaven or from humans. And when they answered that they did not know, he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."⁽⁵²⁷⁾ And he has followed this with the next words spoken: "What do you think? A man had two sons," etc. So according to Matthew, this speech continued without any interruption from things or persons, through [the parable] of the vineyard that was let out to farmers. So it may be supposed that all these things were said to the chief priests and elders of the people, who had asked him about his authority. But if they had asked these things to tempt him as enemies, then it is not possible to suppose that they believed and gave that clear, prophetic witness of the Lord. They must have not been unbelievers, but believers, in order to give a response like, "He will miserably destroy those evil ones, and let the vineyard out to other farmers." And this should not at all be a problem that would make us suppose that there were no believers in that multitude that heard the Lord's parables. For only for the sake of brevity has Matthew omitted what Luke has not: this parable was said not only to those who had asked him about his authority, but to the people. For he says this: And he began to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard,"⁽⁵²⁸⁾ etc. It is to be understood that among these people, there could have been some who listened to him in the same way as those who said, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."⁽⁵²⁹⁾ All of these, or some of them, were the ones who responded, "He will miserably destroy those evil ones, and let the vineyard out to other farmers."⁽⁵³⁰⁾ Mark and Luke attribute their response to the Lord [for two reasons]. [They do it] because he himself is the truth, and he himself can say these things, speaking even through the evil and ignorant, moving the human mind through a certain hidden instinct, not because of their own holiness, but by the right of his own authority; and also because they might correctly have already been deemed members of the Lord's body, so that what they said could rightly be attributed to him, whose members they were. For by that time he had baptized more than John,⁽⁵³¹⁾ and had crowds of disciples, as the evangelists often testify. The apostle Paul reports that after his resurrection he appeared to five hundred brethren,⁽⁵³²⁾ who must have been from this group. Moreover, their saying is according to Matthew, "They say to him, 'He will miserably destroy those evil ones.'" The "to him" is placed in such a way that it need not be the plural,⁽⁵³³⁾ as though the ones responding were the same as those who had deceitfully asked him about his authority. But, "They say to him," means "to the Lord himself," the singular pronoun, not the plural, which is clear in the Greek versions without any ambiguity.

(138) The evangelist John gives a speech of the Lord's that may make this more easily intelligible: Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." And they answered him, "We are Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to anyone. Why do you say, 'You will be made free'?" Jesus answered them: "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits a sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not stay in the house forever, but the son stays forever. So if the son makes you free, you will be truly free. I know that you are children of Abraham, but you seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you."⁽⁵³⁴⁾ He did not say, "But you seek to kill me," to those who already believed in him, to whom he had said, "If you continue in my word, you will truly be my disciples." He said this [latter statement] to those who already believed in him. But there was a multitude present, and among them were many of [his] enemies. Even though the evangelist does not say who it was who responded this way, the way they responded, and the type of answer they deserved from him, make it clear enough what kind of people [spoke] the words attributed to them. So just as in this multitude that John [speaks of], there were those who already believed in Jesus, and those who sought to kill him; so also in that one that we are now discussing, there were those who deceitfully questioned the Lord about the authority by which he did those things, and there were those who, without deceit, faithfully acclaimed him, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"⁽⁵³⁵⁾ So there were some there who said, "He will destroy them, and give his vineyard to others." And this can rightly be understood as the Lord's own voice, either because it is the truth, or because of the unity there is between the members and the head. There were also others who said to this response, "Let it not be so!" because they understood that this parable had been said against them.

(139) Matthew continues: And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. And when they sought to take him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet. And answering, Jesus again spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man, a king who made a marriage feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the feast, but they would not come," etc., on down to where it says, "For many are called, but few are chosen."⁽⁵³⁶⁾ Only Matthew tells this parable of those invited to the marriage feast. Luke records something similar,⁽⁵³⁷⁾ but it is not the same, as shown by the order alone, although there is some similarity. But Mark and Luke also confirm the things that Matthew adds right after the parable of the vineyard and the killing of the father's son - that the Jews realized this was said about them and they began to contrive plots - and they do so in the same order.⁽⁵³⁸⁾ But after this they go on to something else, adding something that Matthew also puts in the same order, after his unique insertion of the parable of the marriage feast.

(140) Matthew continues: Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to catch him in his talk. And they sent their disciples to him with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are true, and teach the way of God in truth, and do not care for anyone, for you do not regard the person of men. So tell us, what you think: is it lawful to give taxes to Caesar, or not?" etc., on down to where it says, "And when the crowd heard it, they marveled at his teaching."⁽⁵³⁹⁾ The Lord [gives] two replies here: one about the coin, in reference [to the question] about giving tribute to Caesar; and the one about the resurrection, in reference [to the question] about the woman who married seven brothers in succession. Mark and Luke tells these [stories] similarly and with no difference in the order.⁽⁵⁴⁰⁾ After all three [evangelists] record the parable about those to whom the vineyard was rented, which was said against the Jews and their preparing [their] plots, these two, Mark and Luke, omit the parable of those invited to the marriage feast, which is unique to Matthew. And then these two rejoin the first, telling of the tribute to Caesar and the women with seven husbands, in the same exact order, with no question of inconsistency.

(141) Matthew continues in the following way: But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You will love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.⁽⁵⁴¹⁾ This is the great and first commandment. And the second is similar to it: You will love your neighbor as yourself.⁽⁵⁴²⁾ On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."⁽⁵⁴³⁾ Mark also records this in the same order. It is not a problem that Matthew says that the man who questioned the Lord did it "to test" him, while Mark omits this and concludes by saying that he answered wisely, and the Lord said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."⁽⁵⁴⁴⁾ For it is possible that, although he approached him in order to test him, the Lord's response nonetheless set him right. Or else we need not assume that the testing was in a bad sense, as from one who wished to deceive an enemy, but rather a precaution, as from one who wished to learn more about some unknown person. For it is rightly written, "He who believes too readily is light-minded, and will be brought low."⁽⁵⁴⁵⁾

(142) Luke tells something like this, but not in this order, and in a totally different place.⁽⁵⁴⁶⁾ But it is uncertain whether that refers to this same [incident], or whether there was another person, to whom the Lord spoke similarly about these two commandments. It seems right that it was another person, not only because of the great difference in order, but because [in Luke's version], he himself replies to the Lord's question, and it is in his reply that the two commandments are mentioned. And after the Lord told him to do the great thing that he himself had said was in the law - "Do this and you will live" - the evangelist adds the following: But he, wishing to justify himself, said, "And who is my neighbor?"⁽⁵⁴⁷⁾ The Lord then tells the story of the man who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers. So this person is described as "testing" [the Lord], he mentions the two commandments in his own answer, and after the Lord advises him, "Do this and you will live," he is not commended, but it is said of him that "he wish[ed] to justify himself." But in the incident recorded by both Matthew and Mark in the same order, the man is commended by the Lord: "You are not far from the kingdom of God."⁽⁵⁴⁸⁾ So it is more probable that these are to be taken as two separate people.

(143) Matthew continues: Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said, "David's." He said to them, "How is it then that David in the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool'? If David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" And no one was able to answer him a word, and from that day on, no one dared ask him any more questions.⁽⁵⁴⁹⁾ Mark also records this in the same order.⁽⁵⁵⁰⁾ After omitting [the story] of the man who asked Jesus about the first commandment in the law, Luke also rejoins the same order, telling of this question that the Lord asked the Jews about how Christ was the Son of David.⁽⁵⁵¹⁾ Nor does it make any difference that in Matthew, when Jesus asks them what they think of the Christ, of whose son he is, they respond, "David's," and then he asks them why David called him Lord. But according to the other two, Mark and Luke, we find neither the question nor their answer. We must understand that these two evangelists have described the Lord's thoughts after their response. He spoke to those listeners whom he wished to teach usefully from his authority, and to bring them away from the scribes' teaching. [These listeners] knew Christ only as one who was from the seed of David according to the flesh, and did not understand that he was God, and Lord even of David. Therefore these two evangelists report that the Lord spoke of those erroneous [teachers] to those whom he wished to free from their errors. So when he says, "What do you say?" as Matthew tells it, it should be taken as spoken not just to them, but to those whom he wished to instruct.

(144) Matthew continues his narrative in this order: Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so observe and do everything they tell you, but not what they do. For they say, but do not do," etc., on down to where it says, "You will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"⁽⁵⁵²⁾ Luke reports a similar speech of the Lord's against the Pharisees and scribes and lawyers, though it [occurs] in the house of a certain Pharisee who had invited him to dinner.⁽⁵⁵³⁾ When he tells this story, he departs from Matthew's order, at the point where both of them report what the Lord said of the sign of Jonah's three days and nights, and of the queen of the South, and of the Ninevites, and of the unclean spirit that returned to find the house cleaned.⁽⁵⁵⁴⁾ After this speech Matthew says, "While he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him."⁽⁵⁵⁵⁾ But after this speech of the Lord in Luke's [Gospel], he records some things the Lord said that were omitted by Matthew, and then he departs from the order he had shared with Matthew: While he was speaking, a certain Pharisee asked him to dine with him, and he went in and sat at table. But the Pharisee was astonished and began to say something, because he did not wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and platter."⁽⁵⁵⁶⁾ Then he [gives] other sayings against the scribes and Pharisees and lawyers, similar to those in the Matthean passage we now have under consideration. When Matthew records these things, he does not specify that they were said in the house of this Pharisee, but he also does not describe the place in such a way that they could not have been in his house. But since the Lord had already come to Jerusalem from Galilee, and this speech is in the context of the things [discussed] above [that happened] after his arrival, then we should probably take them as having happened in Jerusalem. But Luke's account is of what the Lord [said] while going to Jerusalem. So it seems to me that these are two similar speeches, and the one [evangelist] has reported the one, and the other [has reported] the other.

(145) This also must be considered. How can the Lord say, "You will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,'"⁽⁵⁵⁷⁾ when according to Matthew they had already said this?⁽⁵⁵⁸⁾ And Luke has given this statement as the Lord's response to those who warned him to leave there, because Herod wished to kill him. He records the same words as Matthew, but as said against Jerusalem itself. For Luke tells it this way: On that same day, some Pharisees came, saying to him, "Get out and leave here, for Herod wants to kill you." And he said to them, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected. Nevertheless, I must walk today and tomorrow and the next day, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.' Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to you. How often did I wish to gather your children together, as a bird gathers her nestlings under her wings, but you would not! Behold, your house is abandoned to you. But I say to you, you will not see me, until the time comes when you will say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"⁽⁵⁵⁹⁾ But this narrative of Luke's does not seem to be inconsistent with the crowds saying at the Lord's arrival in Jerusalem, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." For according to Luke's order, he had not come there yet, and this had not been said. But [Luke] does not say that he left there, not to return until the time when that would be said. He continues his journey until he comes to Jerusalem. And when he said, "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected," this is to be understood as said in a mystical and figurative sense. For he did not suffer on the third day after that, [as shown] when he says immediately following that, "I must walk today and tomorrow and the next day." So we must also understand this as mystical: "You will not see me, until the time comes, when you will say, 'Blesses is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" This refers to his return, when he will be completely revealed. And when he says, "I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected," this refers to his body, which is the church. For demons are cast out when the Gentiles abandon their ancestral superstitions and believe in him; and cures are performed, when they live by his commandments, renouncing the devil and this world, all the way to the end, that it, the resurrection. Then there will be that perfection of "the third day," when the church will be brought up to that angelic fulness that includes immortality of the body. Therefore Matthew's order is not to be understood as a digression to something else. Rather, we should understand that either Luke has anticipated the events that happened in Jerusalem, inserting them here as he recalled them, before his narrative brings the Lord to Jerusalem, or else that when he was near that city, his reply to those who warned him to beware of Herod was similar to what Matthew says he spoke to the crowds when he was in Jerusalem, when all these things mentioned above had already occurred.

(146) Matthew continues in the following way: And Jesus left the temple and went away. And his disciples came to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered, saying to them, "You see all these? Truly I say to you, there will not be one stone left on another, that will not be thrown down."⁽⁵⁶⁰⁾ Mark also records this in nearly the same order, after he makes a small digression to report [the story] of the widow who put two coins into the treasury, which only he and Luke record.⁽⁵⁶¹⁾ After the Lord speaks with the Jews about how they think the Christ is David's son, Mark also tells of his warning against the Pharisees and their hypocrisy, a passage that Matthew has given more fully, telling more of the things said then.⁽⁵⁶²⁾ After this passage, which Mark gives briefly and Matthew gives more fully, Mark goes on, as I said, to [the story] of the widow who was so poor and yet so abundant. Without adding anything else, Mark rejoins Matthew's [order], speaking of the destruction of the temple.⁽⁵⁶³⁾ Luke also records the [question] of how the Christ is David's son, and then a few of the warnings against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Then, like Mark, he goes on to the widow, who put two coins in the treasury. And then he goes on to the future destruction of the temple,⁽⁵⁶⁴⁾ as do Matthew and Mark.

(147) Matthew continues thus: As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" And answering, Jesus said to them, "Watch, so that no one misleads you. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will mislead many," etc., on down to where it says, "And they will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."⁽⁵⁶⁵⁾ Now we must consider this long speech of the Lord's, as it is [reported] in the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They all include it in nearly the same order.⁽⁵⁶⁶⁾ Each of them includes some things that are unique to his version, but none that would make us fear any suspicion of inconsistency. But what must be shown is that where they are speaking similarly, no contradiction can be supposed. For if such were to be found, one could not say that it was a similar thing said by the Lord at a different time, for the narratives of all three are the same as to subjects and times. Although they do not all keep the same order, the same sentiments are expressed by the Lord, and so this should not affect the understanding or expression of the subject itself, so long as their reports of what he said do not contradict one another.

(148) Matthew says, "And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached through all the world as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come."⁽⁵⁶⁷⁾ And this is also reported by Mark in the same order, "The Gospel must first be preached to all nations."⁽⁵⁶⁸⁾ Although he does not say, "And then the end will come," when he says the word "first," in, "The Gospel must first be preached to all nations," it means the same thing. For since they had asked him about the end, when he says, "The Gospel must first be preached to all nations," [the word] "first" means that it will be before the end comes.

(149) Matthew says, "So when you will see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place, let the reader understand."⁽⁵⁶⁹⁾ And Mark says it this way, "But when you will see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be, let the reader understand."⁽⁵⁷⁰⁾ Though the words are changed, it carries the same meaning. He says, "where it should not be," because it should not be in the holy place. Luke says neither, "When you will see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place," nor, "where it should not be," but instead, "But when you will see Jerusalem surrounded by an army, then know that its desolation has come near."⁽⁵⁷¹⁾ So then the abomination of desolation will be in the holy place.

(150) Then Matthew says, "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let him who is on the roof not go down to take anything from his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his tunic."⁽⁵⁷²⁾ Mark also records this in nearly the same words. Luke's [account] is similar to the other two: "Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."⁽⁵⁷³⁾ But what follows is different: "Let those who are inside [the city] go out, and those who are in country, let them not enter it. For these are the days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written."⁽⁵⁷⁴⁾ Now there seems to be some difference here. For [the first two] say, "Let him who is on the roof not go down to take anything from the house," while [Luke] says, "Let those who are inside [the city] go out." Perhaps there will be such a large disturbance in the face of so great and immediate a disaster, that those trapped in the siege (who are referred to by the phrase, "who are inside [the city]), will be on the roof, stunned and wishing to see the impending doom or possible escape. But how can he say, "Let them go out," when he has just said, "But when you will see Jerusalem surrounded by an army"? And what follows, "Those who are in the country, let them not enter it," seems to be part of one complete warning. And one could see how those who are outside should not enter into it, but how are they who are inside of it to leave, when the city is already surrounded by an army? Perhaps this "inside of it" refers to when the danger will be so urgent, that there will be no time to escape with one's life, so that then the soul should be ready and free, neither occupied with nor weighed down by carnal desires. And the other two indicate this when they say, "on the roof," or, "up on the roof." So when [Luke] says, "Let them go out," it means that they should not hold on to the desire of this life, but should be ready to pass on to another life. This is the same as when the other two say, "Let him not come down to take anything from the house," which means that his affections should not turn towards the flesh, as though it could obtain anything useful. And when [Luke] says, "Those who are in the country, let them not enter it," this means that those who have with a good purpose of heart put themselves outside of carnal lust are not to be in it again, nor desire it. This is the same as when the others say, "Let him who is in the field not return to take his clothes," which means that he should [not] again be involved with worries that had been stripped away from him.

(151) Matthew says, "But pray that your flight may not be in the winter or on a Sabbath."⁽⁵⁷⁵⁾ Mark gives part of this, and omits part: "Pray that it may not happen in winter."⁽⁵⁷⁶⁾ Luke says nothing of this, but instead mentions something unique to himself, and which it seems to me illuminates the sense that the others have expressed obscurely: "But take heed to yourselves, so that your hearts will not be weighed down with hangovers and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and that day will come upon you unexpectedly. Like a snare it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you will be found worthy to escape all these things that will happen."⁽⁵⁷⁷⁾ This should be understood as the same escape that Matthew records, and which should not happen in the winter or on a Sabbath. And "winter" refers to the cares of this life, which Luke expresses more clearly, while "Sabbath" [refers] to the hangovers and drunkenness. For sad cares are like winter, and hangovers and drunkenness submerge and bury the heart in the pleasure and opulence of the flesh, which is an evil indicated by the name of the Sabbath, for both then and now, the Jews had the most evil habit of indulging in pleasures on that day, while they were ignorant of the spiritual Sabbath. But if the words of Matthew and Mark are understood another way, then Luke can also be speaking of something else, and there will be no question of inconsistency to bother us. But we have not attempted to explain the Gospels, but only to defend them from slanderous charges of inaccuracy and deceit. Other things that Matthew and Mark both place in this speech raise no questions. But what [Matthew has in common] with Luke, Luke does not place in this speech, although he does agree with his order. Instead, he has inserted them as he recalled them, so that they are anticipatory, reporting things earlier that the Lord in fact said later; or else it is to be understood that the Lord said them twice, once now, as Matthew [reports], and once then, as [Luke reports].

(152) Matthew continues: And it happened that, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, "You know that after two days it will be the Passover, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."⁽⁵⁷⁸⁾ This is confirmed by the other two, Mark and Luke, who also do not deviate from the same order. But they do not report this as said by the Lord; this they do not say. Mark says himself that, "It was now two days before the Passover and the [feast of] unleavened bread."⁽⁵⁷⁹⁾ And Luke says, "The day of the feast of the unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Passover."⁽⁵⁸⁰⁾ "Drew near" can mean the same as "after two days," but the other two express this more clearly. John has reported the nearness of this feast day three separate times, in connection with other things on the previous two occasions, but on this third occasion, it is clear that he is speaking of the same events as the other three, that is, when the Lord's passion was already near.

(153) But to those who investigate this with too little care, the following may seem to be a contradiction. After saying that the Passover was in two days, Matthew and Mark then report that Jesus was in Bethany, where they tell of that precious ointment.⁽⁵⁸¹⁾ But when John tells the story of the ointment, he says Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover.⁽⁵⁸²⁾ How can they say that it was two days before the Passover, and then tell the same story of the anointing at Bethany as John tells, when John says that was six days before the Passover? This is a problem, only if one does not understand that Matthew and Mark mention the anointing at Bethany as a reminiscence of something that happened earlier, when there were six days before the Passover, and not something [that happened] after the statement that it was two days before the Passover. For after they say that it was two days before the Passover, they do not then go on to the events at Bethany by saying, "After these things, when he was in Bethany." Matthew [says], "Now when Jesus was in Bethany," and Mark [says], "When he was in Bethany." So it can be understood that they are speaking of a time before what was said two days before the Passover. So from John's narrative it can be gathered that six days before the Passover he came to Bethany, where that dinner took place, where the precious ointment is mentioned. Then he came to Jerusalem, sitting on an ass. Then those things happened that they record as happening after his arrival in Jerusalem. So although the evangelists do not note it, we are to understand that from the day he came to Bethany, where he was anointed, to the day when all these things were done and said, four days passed, during which was the day that they specify as being two days before the Passover. Now when Luke says, "The day of the feast of unleavened bread drew near,"⁽⁵⁸³⁾ although he does not specify two days, the nearness that he reports ought to be taken as equivalent to these two days. But when John says, "The Passover of the Jews was near,"⁽⁵⁸⁴⁾ he did not wish to express that it was two days, but rather six days before the Passover. So when he records some things after this statement, he wishes to show how near the Passover was: Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus had died, whom Jesus raised from the dead. There they made him a supper.⁽⁵⁸⁵⁾ This is what Matthew and Mark record as a reminiscence, after they say that it was two days before the Passover. In their reminiscence they return to that day in Bethany, which was six days before the Passover, and tell the same story as John of the supper and the ointment. Then he came to Jerusalem, and after those things happened that are narrated, he came to the day that was two days before the Passover. Then they made a digression to recall what had already happened at the anointing in Bethany, and they then return to the point in their narrative where they made the digression. That is, [they return] to the Lord's speech that was given two days before the Passover. For if we remove the digression of the [anointing] in Bethany, which they told out of order as a recollection and reminiscence, we thereby set the order straight, the Lord's speech being this according to Matthew: "You know that after two days is the Passover, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified." Then the chief priests and elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took consul together in order to take Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, "Not on the feast day, so that there will not be a tumult among the people." Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests,⁽⁵⁸⁶⁾ etc. For between where it is said, "So that there will not be a tumult among the people," and where it is said, "Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot," they have inserted as a reminiscence that [story] of Bethany. And if we omit this, we have restored the flow of the narrative, so that we have shown there is no inconsistency in the temporal order. And if we similarly omit from Mark the dinner at Bethany, which he also inserts as a reminiscence, then his narrative will also keep its order: It was two days before the Passover and the [feast of] unleavened bread. And the chief priests and scribes sought how to take him by stealth and kill him. For they said, "Not on the feast day, so that there will not be a tumult among the people." Then Judas Scariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to hand him over,⁽⁵⁸⁷⁾ etc. Again, between where it is said, "So that there will not be a tumult among the people," and what we appended to it, "And Judas Scariot, one of the twelve," the [story] of Bethany is placed as a reminiscence. Luke has simply omitted what happened at Bethany. This is what we say concerning the six days before Passover, that John mentions in his story of what happened at Bethany, and the two days before Passover, that Matthew and Mark mention right before they report the same events in Bethany as John does.

(154) After this passage that we have now finished considering, Matthew continues his narrative thus: Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and took counsel together in order to take Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, "Not on the feast day, so that there will not be a tumult among the people." Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he sat at table, etc., on down to where it says, "What she has done will be told in memory of her."⁽⁵⁸⁸⁾ Now we must consider the [story] of the woman with the precious ointment in Bethany. Luke reports a similar event, in which even the name of the man with whom the Lord dined is the same, for he calls him Simon.⁽⁵⁸⁹⁾ But just as one person may have two names, so it is even more possible for two people to have one name, and in this there is nothing contrary to either nature or human custom. Therefore it is more believable that the Simon in whose house this happened in Bethany, [according to Luke], is different than [Simon] the leper. Nor does Luke say that this happened in Bethany. Although he does not report what city or village it happened in, nonetheless, his narrative does not seem to be about the same place. I think there is only one way to understand this. It is not that [the woman in Matthew's version] is different than the woman who was a sinner and came to Jesus' feet, and kissed them, and washed them with tears, and wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment, and to whom the Lord applied the parable of the two debtors, and said that her many sins were forgiven her, because she loved much. But it was the same Mary who did this twice. Luke records the first time, when she came with humility and tears and obtained forgiveness for her sins. Although John has not narrated the events like Luke, he does report it while mentioning the same Mary when he begins to tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, before [Jesus] came to Bethany. His narrative is thus: Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.⁽⁵⁹⁰⁾ By saying this, John confirms [the version] of Luke, who said that it was in the house of a certain Pharisee [named] Simon that Mary did this. But what she did again in Bethany is another [incident], not included in Luke's narrative, but told similarly by the [other] three, John, Matthew, and Mark.⁽⁵⁹¹⁾

(155) Let us see, then, what the correspondence is among these three, Matthew, Mark, and John. For here there is no doubt that they are telling the same story of what happened in Bethany. All three report that the disciples murmured against the woman because of the costliness of the ointment. Matthew and Mark say the ointment was poured on the Lord's head, but John [says] it was on [his] feet. But the rule that we demonstrated in the case of the feeding of the crowds with the five loaves, shows that this is not a contradiction. For in that case, one did not fail to report that they sat down by fifties and hundreds, while the other said only fifties, but no contradiction could be found.⁽⁵⁹²⁾ There might have been [some contradiction], if one had said only hundreds, and the other only fifties; but even in that case, it ought to have been decided that it was in fact both. This example should remind us, as I counseled before, that when the evangelists record two different things individually, we should understand both to have happened. So we should accept that the woman poured it on not only his head, but also his feet. But perhaps, since Mark reports that she broke the alabaster jar when she poured it on his head, someone absurd and scandalous could deny that there could have been anything left in the broken vessel to pour on [his] feet. But while someone who was striving against the truth of the Gospel might argue that it was broken in such a way that there was nothing left in it, someone who is striving for the truth of the Gospel would argue in a better and more moral way that it was not broken in such a way that everything was poured out! And if that slanderer is so obstinately blind as to try to break the harmony of the evangelists with this broken alabaster jar, he should rather accept that it was poured on [his] feet before it was broken. So it remained intact, until it was poured on [his] head, when it was broken and completely emptied. We know that [to go] from the head [down] is an appropriate order, but going up from the feet to the head is also [an appropriate] order.

(156) The other things that happen here do not seem to me to raise any question. The others say that the disciples murmured against the wasting of the precious ointment, while John reports that it was Judas, and "he was a thief."⁽⁵⁹³⁾ But I think it is clear that the name of "disciples" also indicates Judas, as we showed in regard to Philip at [the miracle] of the five loaves, when the plural was used instead of the singular. Or it may be understood that the other disciples either felt of spoke as [Judas did], or they were persuaded by what Judas said, so that Matthew and Mark have expressed in words what everyone was thinking. But Judas said it because he was a thief, while the others [did it] because of their care for the poor. And John has chosen to report it as [said] only by that one whose habitual stealing he believed should be shown on this occasion.

(157) Matthew continues: Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas Scariot, went to the chief priests and said to them, "What are you willing to give me, and I will hand him over to you?" And they agreed on thirty pieces of silver; on down to where it says, "And the disciples did as Jesus had told them, and they prepared the Passover.⁽⁵⁹⁴⁾ Nothing in this passage can be thought to be contrary to [the versions] of Mark and Luke, who tell the story similarly.⁽⁵⁹⁵⁾ Matthew says, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, 'The teacher says, my time is at hand, I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples.'"⁽⁵⁹⁶⁾ This indicates the same person whom Mark and Luke call "head of the household," or, "master of the house," who showed them the upper room where they were to prepare the Passover.⁽⁵⁹⁷⁾ So Matthew inserted "to a certain man" as his own statement, because he wished to show us by a short comment who this was. For if he had said that the Lord had said, "Go into the city and say to him/it,⁽⁵⁹⁸⁾ 'The teacher says, my time is at hand, I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples,'" then one might have thought they were to speak to the city itself. So he inserts as his own comment, and not as something said by the Lord, whose commands he is narrating, that the Lord told them to go to a certain person. He did this because it seemed to him to be enough to show the meaning of the one giving commands, without having to state everything. For anyone knows that no one says, "Go to someone." And if it had been, "Go to anyone," or, "anyone you please," this would be a more natural way of talking, but it would have been unclear to what man they had been sent. But Mark and Luke show that he was a particular person, though they omit his name. But the Lord knew to whom he sent them. And in order for those he was sending to be able to find that person, he told them something that they should look for: a man carrying a bottle or jar of water. And if they followed him, they would come to the house that he intended. So he could not have said, "Go to anyone you please," which is a correct way of speaking, but which would not have given the truth of the matter that he was trying to convey here. So how much less could he have said, "Go to someone," which is not even a correct way of speaking! So clearly, the disciples were not sent by the Lord to anyone they pleased, but "to a certain man," that is, to a particular person. This is something the evangelist could tell us in his own statement, saying, "He sent them to a certain person, to say to him, 'I will keep the Passover at your house.'"Or he could [have said], "He sent them to a certain person, saying, 'Go, say to him, I will keep the Passover at your house.'" So, to the Lord's words, "Go into the city," he has added, "to a certain man," not as though they were spoken by the Lord, but to show us that there was in the city a particular person, whose name has been omitted, to whom the Lord's disciples were sent to prepare the Passover. And after inserting these two words of his own, he goes back to the order of the Lord's words, saying, "and say to him, 'The teacher says.'" And if you ask to whom [they were to say this], then the correct answer is this: to that man, to whom the evangelist has indicated they were sent, with the insertion of his own statement, "to a certain man." This may be an unusual expression, but it can be understood as correct in this way. Or perhaps, as Matthew is supposed to have written in Hebrew, that language has some rule that would make it a normal figure of speech, even if the Lord himself said the entire phrase; but only those who know [that language] could decide this. Even in Latin, one could say something like this: "Go into the city to a certain man, who will be shown to you as the man who meets you carrying a bottle of water." If the command was given this way, one could act upon it without ambiguity. Or even if it was said, "Go into the city to a certain man who lives in this or that place, in such and such a house," then the description of the place and the specification of the house would make it understandable, so one could do it. But when these and other similar indications are left unsaid, and the person says, "Go to a certain man and say to him," it is not possible to obey him. For although he wishes one to understand what particular person [he means] when he says, "to a certain man," he has not indicated how [that one] is to be recognized. But if we take the statement as one made by the evangelist himself, then its necessary brevity will make it obscure, but not incorrect. Finally, Mark refers to a "bottle," while Luke [calls it] a "jar." One has indicated the kind of vessel, and the other its size, and both have preserved the true sense.

(158) Matthew continues: When it was evening, he sat with the twelve disciples, and as they ate, he said to them, "Truly I say to you, one of you will hand me over." And they were very sad, and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?" etc., on down to where it says, "Then Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, 'Is it I, master?' He said to him, 'You have said so.'"⁽⁵⁹⁹⁾ In these things that we have now raised for consideration, the other evangelists, who also record these matters,⁽⁶⁰⁰⁾ present nothing questionable.

1. Matt 1:1.

2. Cf. Matt 8:20; 9:6; 12:8, 32; 17:22; 20:18.

3. Cf. John 1:3.

4. Isa 53:8.

5. Cf. Matt 1:18-25.

6. Luke 3:23.

7. Luke 2:40-41.

8. Luke 2:33.

9. Luke 3:23.

10. Cf. Matt 1:1, 17, 20.

11. Rom 1:3.

12. Luke 1:5, 36.

13. See above, Book I.20.

14. Exod 2:10.

15. Gen 48:5-6.

16. Luke 3:23.

17. Matt 1:2.

18. Cf. contra Faustum 3.3.

19. Cf. John 1:12.

20. Cf. Rom 8:14-17, 23.

21. Gal 4:4-5.

22. Cf. Eph 1:5.

23. John 1:12-13.

24. John 1:14.

25. James 1:18.

26. Matt 1:16.

27. Luke 3:23.

28. Matt 1:17.

29. Heb 12:6.

30. Acts 14:22.

31. Ps 2:9.

32. Ps 2:6.

33. 1 Pet 4:17-18.

34. Ps 2:9.

35. Sacramenta.

36. Matt 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13.

37. Acts 1:3.

38. Matt 28:20.

39. Cf. Zech 2:6; 14:4.

40. Cf. the similar discussion of the numbers four and ten in Philo, On the Creation, 47. On Philo's possible influence on Augustine, see my "Allegorizations of the Active and Contemplative Lives in Philo, Origen, Augustine, and Gregory," [http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/articles /allegory.html], and also D. T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen: Van Gorcum/Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 330.

41. Gen 12:1-2.

42. Matt 1:17.

43. Cf. Eph 2:11.

44. Cf. Eph 2:20.

45. Jechonias (elsewhere called Jehoiachin) is also a figure of hope in the Hebrew Bible: although he was deposed and deported, his kind treatment by the Babylonians offered some hope to the other exiles, both as to their own fate and to the survival of the Davidic line (see 2 Kings 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34).

46. Matt 1:2-16; cf. contra Faustum 3.4.

47. Luke 3:23-38.

48. John 1:29.

49. Cf. Rom 5:10.

50. Rom 8:3.

51. Cf. 2 Sam 11:2-5.

52. Cf. 2 Sam 12:1-14; cf. Retr. 2.16.42.

53. Or "justice" (iustitia).

54. 1 Cor 6:17.

55. Cf. contra Faustum 3.4.

56. Matt 18:22, which has also been rendered "seventy times seven"; cf. Luke 17:4.

57. Or "justice" (iustitia).

58. Transgressio.

59. Exod 26:7; cf. also the discussion of the tabernacle in Heb 9:1-14.

60. Cf. Heb 8:1-13.

61. Cf. Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32. The number seventy-seven is not mentioned at Jesus' baptism, so Augustine's reasoning may be as follows. The number seventy-seven is mentioned in Matthew 18 as part of Jesus' teaching on forgiving one's "brothers," one's fellow children of God, and it expects God as Father to forgive as well. Jesus' was acknowledged as God's Son at his baptism for the forgiveness of sins by the descent of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the number seventy-seven is related to forgiveness and sonship, forgiveness and sonship are related to baptism, the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus at his baptism, and therefore the Holy Spirit is related to the number seventy-seven.

62. Matt 1:18.

63. Some versions read "from God" (deo) instead of "from the Lord."

64. Luke 1:26-35.

65. Isa 7:14.

66. Matt 1:19-25; 2:1.

67. Luke 2:3-5.

68. Matt 2:1-3.

69. Matt 2:12.

70. Cf. Luke 2:7.

71. Cf. Luke 2:8-12.

72. Cf. Luke 2:13-14.

73. Cf. Luke 2:15-20.

74. Cf. Luke 2:21.

75. Cf. Luke 2:22; Lev 12:2.

76. Cf. Luke 2:25-38.

77. Cf. Matt 2:13-15.

78. Cf. Matt 2:16-18.

79. Cf. Matt 2:19-23.

80. Cf. Matt 2:12.

81. Cf. Luke 2:22-39.

82. Matt 1:18. My translation of this long quotation and others from the Gospels are very close to the RSV, unless Augustine's Latin requires a different rendering.

83. Reading vocabatur.

84. "Shown strength" in our Bibles, but Augustine's fecit would not seem to admit of this translation.

85. Luke 1:5-56.

86. Isa 7:14.

87. Matt 1:18-25.

88. Luke 1:57-2:21.

89. Mic 5:2.

90. Matt 2:1-12.

91. Exod 13:2.

92. Lev 12:8.

93. Confitebatur, confess or acknowledge.

94. Luke 2:22-39.

95. Hos 11:1.

96. Jer 31:15.

97. Matt 2:13-23. The text to which Matthew is referring is unclear, though he may intend Judg 16:17 or Isa 11:1: favoring the former is R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1979) 208-13, 223-25; favoring the latter are W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988) 1:276-81.

98. Luke 2:40-52.

99. Matt 2:23.

100. Matt 3:1.

101. Mal 3:1.

102. Isa 40:3.

103. Mark 1:1-4.

104. Luke 2:52.

105. Luke 3:1-2.

106. Cf. John 1:1-5.

107. John 1:6.

108. Matt 3:1.

109. Luke 3:1-2.

110. Matt 2:19-21.

111. Luke 2:42-50.

112. Matt 3:1.

113. Jesus' age is only specified by Luke 3:23.

114. Cf. Luke 3:1-21.

115. Cf. Matt 2:15, 19-21.

116. Cf. Matt 2:22.

117. Cf. Luke 3:1.

118. Matt 1:20.

119. Cf. Luke 2:41.

120. Cf. Luke 2:22-40.

121. Cf. Luke 2:22-39.

122. Cf. Matt 2:13-16.

123. Cf. Matt 2:16-18.

124. Matt 3:1-3; cf. Isa 40:3.

125. Cf. Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4.

126. Luke 3:5-6 continues the quotation through Isa 40:4-5.

127. Cf. John 1:23.

128. Matt 9:9; cf. Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27.

129. John 21:24.

130. E.g. Matt 8:20; 9:6; 16:27; 17:9, 22; 20:18, 28; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:22, 58.

131. E.g. John 5:25.

132. Luke 24:46.

133. Matt 3:4.

134. John 1:23

135. Matt 3:4.

136. Cf. Mark 1:6.

137. Matt 3:5-12.

138. Cf. Luke 3:7-17.

139. Matt 3:9.

140. Luke 3:8.

141. Matt 3:11.

142. Cf. Luke 3:10-15.

143. Luke 3:16.

144. Matt 3:11.

145. Luke 3:16.

146. Matt 3:11.

147. Luke 3:16.

148. Mark 1:7-8.

149. Luke 3:16, though "Holy" is now accepted as authentic in Luke and not an interpolation.

150. John 1:15.

151. It may be worthwhile reviewing Augustine's logic at this point. The Gospels are always right. The Gospels do not always say the same thing as one another. Therefore it is possible for other people to say different things, but both be right. Whereas a modern person might use an idea of pluralism to argue for the truthfulness of the Gospel, Augustine here uses the Gospel truth to defend the possibility of pluralism.

152. Again, Augustine's logic is dense. It is good that there be less falsehood in the world. The Gospels are true, but contain variations. Therefore other accounts can contain variations, but remain true. Therefore there is less falsehood in the world.

153. Matt 3:11.

154. Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27.

155. Matt 3:13-15.

156. Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21; John 1:32-34.

157. Matt 3:16-17.

158. Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:22.

159. Matt 3:17.

160. Mark 1:11.

161. Luke 3:22; there is no difference between Mark and Luke in the best Greek manuscripts.

162. Augustine's version of Matthew's version of the saying contains mihi (with/in myself), whereas the Markan does not.

163. Ps 2:7; Luke 3:22; cf. contra Faustum 23.2.

164. John 1:33.

165. Matt 3:14.

166. Luke 1:41.

167. Matt 4:1-4.

168. Matt 4:11.

169. Cf. Luke 4:1-13.

170. Cf. Mark 1:12-13.

171. Matt 4:12.

172. Cf. Mark 1:14; Luke 4:14.

173. Cf. John 1:40-42.

174. Cf. John 1:43.

175. Cf. John 1:45-51.

176. Cf. John 2:1-11.

177. Matt 16:18.

178. John 1:42.

179. Matt 4:13.

180. Cf. Matt 4:14-7:29.

181. Cf. Mark 1:16-20.

182. Cf. Matt 4:23-25.

183. Cf. Mark 1:21-22.

184. Matt 7:29; Mark 1:22.

185. Cf. Mark 1:23-28, 29-31.

186. Cf. Luke 4:31-39.

187. Cf. Matt 8:14-15.

188. Cf. Matt 4:23-5:1.

189. Cf. Mark 1:16-31.

190. Cf. John 1:35-43.

191. Cf. Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20.

192. Cf. Luke 5:1-11.

193. Luke 5:10.

194. Cf. Matt 4:19; Mark 1:17.

195. John 2:1-2.

196. Cf. Acts 22:3.

197. John 2:12.

198. Cf. Matt 4:13, 19.

199. Matt 4:18.

200. John 1:43.

201. Cf. Matt 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11; John 1:35-44.

202. Cf. John 1:42.

203. Cf. Mark 3:17.

204. Cf. Luke 6:13.

205. Luke 6:17.

206. Luke 5:10.

207. Cf. John 21:3.

208. Cf. John 2:1-12.

209. Cf. John 2:13.

210. Cf. John 3:22.

211. John 3:23-24.

212. Matt 4:12.

213. Mark 1:14.

214. Luke 4:13-14.

215. John 4:1-3.

216. Mark 1:39.

217. Mark 1:40.

218. Matt 8:1-2.

219. Cf. Luke 5:12-16.

220. Matt 5:3.

221. Luke 6:20.

222. Cf. Matt 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49.

223. Cf. Matt 5:1; Luke 6:17.

224. Matt 4:25-5:3.

225. Luke 6:12-20.

226. Matt 7:28.

227. Matt 8:1-2.

228. Cf. Luke 5:12.

229. Cf. Luke 6:17.

230. Cf. Matt 5:1.

231. Cf. contra Faustum 33.7.

232. Matt 8:1.

233. Cf. Matt 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16.

234. Matt 8:5-6.

235. Matt 8:13.

236. Cf. the beginning of paragraph 44 above.

237. Luke 7:1-2.

238. Cf. Luke 7:10.

239. Augustine's problems in this passage are twofold. First, Luke puts the cleansing of the leper earlier: Augustine explains this on the basis of the principle enunciated at the beginning of paragraph 44, that the evangelists not only postpone until later things that happened earlier, they also anticipate and place earlier things that happened later. Therefore, Matthew's chronology is correct, but Luke's is not misleading. Second, Luke makes it seem that the healing of the centurion's servant happened immediately after the sermon on the plain, but Matthew makes it seem that the cleansing followed immediately on the sermon, and there was then a passage of time before the entrance into Capernaum. Augustine explains this on the basis of another principle he has used several times (e.g. paragraphs 34, 45, and 46 of Book II): the fact that events follow one another immediately in the narrative implies nothing about the real time between the two events.

240. Matt 8:5-6.

241. Luke 7:3-7.

242. Cf. contra Faustum 33.7.

243. Ps 34:5.

244. Matt 8:10; cf. Luke 7:9.

245. Cf. Luke 8:42-48; Matt 9:18-26; Mark 5:25-34.

246. Matt 8:14-15; cf. Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4:38-39.

247. Cf. Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37.

248. 1 Cor 12:11.

249. Isa 53:4.

250. Mark 1:32-35.

251. Luke 4:40-42.

252. Matt 8:18.

253. Matt 8:19, 22.

254. Cf. Luke 9:57-62.

255. Luke 9:57.

256. Cf. Matt 8:21; Luke 9:59.

257. Luke 9:61.

258. Luke 10:1.

259. Matt 8:23-24.

260. Matt 9:1.

261. Cf. Mark 4:35-41; 5:1-17; Luke 8:22-37.

262. Matt 8:26.

263. Mark 4:40.

264. Luke 8:25.

265. Matt 8:25.

266. Mark 4:38.

267. Luke 8:24.

268. Matt 8:27.

269. Mark 4:41.

270. Luke 8:25.

271. Cf. Matt 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-17; Luke 8:26-37.

272. Matt 9:1-2.

273. Matt 9:8.

274. Cf. Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26.

275. Matt 9:1-2.

276. Mark 2:1-5.

277. Luke 5:17-20.

278. Augustine's whole discussion relies on the dual meaning of civitas, city or state.

279. Ps 87:3.

280. Cf. Is 5:7; Jer 3:20; Ezek 3:4, 7.

281. Matt 9:9.

282. Mark 2:13-14.

283. Luke 5:27-28.

284. Cf. Luke 6:12-13.

285. Matt 9:10.

286. Matt 9:17.

287. Mark 2:15.

288. Luke 5:27-29.

289. Matt 9:11.

290. Mark 2:16.

291. Luke 5:30.

292. Luke 5:32.

293. Hos 6:6.

294. Matt 9:12-13.

295. Matt 9:14.

296. Mark 2:18.

297. Luke 5:33.

298. Matt 9:14.

299. Cf. Matt 9:15; Mark 2:19.

300. Luke 5:34.

301. Cf. Matt 9:16-17.

302. Cf. Mark 2:21-22; Luke 5:36-39.

303. Matt 9:18, 25-26.

304. Cf. Mark 5:21-24, 35-43; Luke 8:40-42, 49-56.

305. Mark 5:21-22.

306. Luke 8:40-41.

307. Mark 5:30; Luke 8:45.

308. Luke 8:50.

309. Mark 9:24.

310. Animus.

311. Matt 9:24.

312. Cf. Mark 5:42; Luke 8:42.

313. Gen 2:22.

314. Cf. Num 31:18.

315. Cf. Gal 4:4.

316. Matt 9:27, 34.

317. Cf. Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43.

318. Cf. Matt 20:29-34.

319. Matt 9:35-10:1; 10:42.

320. Mark 6:6-7, 11.

321. Cf. Mark 6:1-6.

322. Matt 13:53-58.

323. Cf. Luke 9:1-6.

324. Cf. Matt 10:3.

325. Cf. Matt 10:10; Luke 9:3.

326. Mark 6:8.

327. Jas 1:13.

328. Deut 13:3.

329. John 5:29.

330. Ps 43:1.

331. 1 Cor 14:20; cf. Conf. 13.13.14.

332. 1 Cor 3:18.

333. Gal 6:2-5; cf. de civ. Dei 15.6.

334. Virga, the same word used above for "staff."

335. 1 Cor 4:21.

336. Matt 10:9-10.

337. 1 Cor 9:7.

338. 1 Cor 9:11-12.

339. Cf. 1 Thes 2:9.

340. 1 Cor 9:13-15.

341. Mark 6:8.

342. Cf. Mark 6:9.

343. Mark 6:9.

344. Cf. Matt 6:3.

345. Matt 11:1-3, 19. Verse 19 is already harmonized with Luke 7:35 in the tradition, as the best manuscripts read "deeds" and not "children" at Matt 11:19.

346. Matt 11:20, 24.

347. Cf. Luke 7:18-35.

348. Cf. Luke 9:3; 10:4.

349. Matt 11:25, 30.

350. Matt 11:28.

351. Luke 10:21.

352. Matt 12:1, 8.

353. Cf. Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5.

354. Matt 12:9, 13.

355. Matt 12:10-12.

356. Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9.

357. Cf. Mark 3:5.

358. Matt 12:14-17, 21.

359. Cf. Mark 3:6-12.

360. Mark 3:13.

361. Luke 6:12.

362. Matt 12:22.

363. Cf. 11:14-15.

364. Matt 12:23-25, 37.

365. Mark does not introduce the Beelzebul controversy with a healing: cf. Mark 3:22-27. The Matthean and Lukan version is therefore normally attributed to Q (the Synoptic sayings source) now.

366. Cf. Luke 11:14-23.

367. Matt 12:38, 45.

368. Luke 11:16-32.

369. Cf. Luke 11:29-33.

370. Luke 11:27.

371. Cf. Luke 11:24-26.

372. Cf. Luke 11:29-32.

373. Cf. Luke 11:33-36; Matt 5:15; 6:22.

374. Luke 11:37.

375. Matt 12:46, 50.

376. Mark 3:31.

377. Luke 8:19.

378. Luke 8:22.

379. Matt 13:1-3, 52.

380. Cf. Mark 4:1-34.

381. Augustine means that when all three agree, there can be no disagreement, because they agree. When only one reports something, there can be no disagreement, because there is nothing with which to disagree.

382. Matt 13:53-54, 58.

383. Cf. Mark 4:35-5:17; Luke 8:22-37.

384. Cf. Matt 8:23-34.

385. Cg. John 6:42.

386. Mark 6:3.

387. Matt 13:55.

388. Luke 4:23.

389. Isa 61:1-2.

390. Luke 4:13-23.

391. Matt 14:1-2.

392. Cf. Mark 6:14-16.

393. Mark 6:14.

394. Luke 9:7-9.

395. Matt 14:2.

396. Mark 6:16.

397. Matt 14:3, 12.

398. Cf. Mark 6:17-29.

399. Cf. Luke 3:15-20.

400. Luke 3:17.

401. Cf. John 2:1-11.

402. Cf. John 2:12.

403. Cf. John 3:22-24.

404. Above, Book II, paragraphs 34-42.

405. Cf. Matt 4:12; Mark 1:14.

406. Cf. Matt 14:1-2; Mark 6:14-16.

407. Matt 14:13-14.

408. Luke 9:9; cf. Matt 14:1-2; Mark 6:14-16.

409. Cf. Mark 6:30-44.

410. Cf. Matt 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-13.

411. Cf. Luke 9:7-9.

412. Cf. Luke 9:10-17.

413. Cf. John 4:1-54.

414. Cf. John 5:1-47.

415. Cf. John 6:1-13.

416. Augustine plays with the iconography of John as eagle: see above, Book I, paragraph 9.

417. Matt 14:15-16, 21.

418. Cf. Mark 6:32-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-13.

419. John 6:5-13.

420. Matt 14:16.

421. John 6:7; Mark 6:37.

422. Luke 9:13.

423. Cf. Luke 9:14; Mark 6:40.

424. Matt 14:23-26, 33.

425. Mark 6:47-48.

426. Mark 6:48.

427. Mark 6:50.

428. John's version makes it seem they had gotten across the sea before Jesus came to them: this will be Augustine's problem in the following.

429. John 6:15-18.

430. Cf. Phil 3:21.

431. John 6:16-17.

432. Luke 9:17-18.

433. Luke 9:18; Matt 14:23.

434. Matt 14:34-15:2; 15:20.

435. Cf. John 6:22-71.

436. Matt 15:21-23, 28.

437. Cf. Mark 7:24-30.

438. Matt 15:23.

439. Matt 15:25.

440. Matt 15:29-32, 38.

441. Cf. Mark 7:31-37.

442. Mark 7:34.

443. Cophinis and sportis.

444. Matt 15:39; 16:4.

445. Cf. Matt 12:39.

446. Cf. Mark 8:10.

447. Mark 8:12.

448. Matt 16:4-6, 12.

449. Cf. Mark 8:13-21.

450. Matt 16:13-14, 19.

451. Mark 8:24.

452. Cf. Luke 9:18-20.

453. Matt 16:18.

454. John 1:42.

455. Cf. Mark 3:16-19.

456. Matt 16:20-21, 23.

457. Cf. Mark 8:30-33; Luke 9:21-22.

458. Matt 16:24, 27.

459. Mark 8:38.

460. Cf. Luke 9:23-27.

461. Matt 17:1, 9.

462. Cf. Matt 17:1-9; Mark 9:1-9; Luke 9:27-36.

463. I.e. Luke has counted two partial days as though they were whole days.

464. Luke 9:33.

465. Cf. Luke 9:34-35.

466. Matt 17:10-13.

467. Cf. Mark 9:11-13.

468. Matt 17:14-15, 20.

469. Cf. Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43.

470. Matt 17:22-23.

471. Cf. Mark 9:30-32; Luke 9:43-45.

472. Matt 17:24-25, 27.

473. Matt 18:1-3, 35.

474. Cf. Mark 9:33-50.

475. Cf. Matt 18:21.

476. Cf. Luke 9:46-48.

477. Cf. John 20:23.

478. Cf. Matt 16:19.

479. Matt 19:1-3, 12.

480. Cf. Mark 10:4; Deut 24:1.

481. Cf. Matt 19:5; Gen 1:27.

482. Matt 19:7-8.

483. Matt 19:4.

484. Matt 19:7.

485. Matt 19:13; 20:16 (in Augustine's version); cf. Matt 22:14 in RSV.

486. Cf. Matt 20:1-16.

487. Cf. Luke 9:46-51.

488. A formidable insertion indeed - Luke 9:52-18:14 - usually called "The Travel Narrative," since it is (loosely) structured around Jesus' going to Jerusalem, or Luke's "Special Section," since it contains most of the material unique to Luke's Gospel. The fact that it is unique is what allows Augustine to skip over it so easily: once he has established his principle that material unique to one Gospel presents no problem of disagreement with the other Gospels, he can skip over any insertion, no matter how large. The unique Lukan material may have come to Luke already gathered as a written source: see K. Paffenroth, The Story of Jesus according to L (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

489. Luke 18:22; cf. Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21.

490. I.e., although it occurs much later in Luke, it is in the same order relative to those stories that the three evangelists share.

491. Matt 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19.

492. Matt 20:17-20, 28.

493. Cf. Luke 18:35-43; Matt 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52.

494. Cf. Luke 22:24-27; Matt 20:24-28; Mark 10:41-45.

495. Matt 20:29-30, 34.

496. Cf. Mark 10:46-52.

497. See above, Book II, paragraph 56.

498. Cf. Mark 10:22-43.

499. Cf. Luke 18:35-43.

500. Matt 21:1-2, 9.

501. Cf. Mark 11:1-10.

502. Cf. Luke 19:1-27.

503. Cf. Luke 19:28-40.

504. See above, Book II, paragraph 98.

505. Cf. John 12:14-15; Zech 9:9.

506. Matt 21:10-12, 13.

507. Cf. Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-16.

508. Matt 21:14-22.

509. Cf. Mark 11:11-17.

510. Matt 21:17.

511. Mark 11:21.

512. Matt 21:17-19.

513. Matt 21:20.

514. Matt 21:23-25, 27.

515. Cf. Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8.

516. Luke 19:47-20:2.

517. Matt 21:28-30, 44; (verse 44 is omitted in many Greek manuscripts).

518. Cf. Matt 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19.

519. Mark 11:32; Luke 20:8.

520. Matt 21:40-41.

521. Mark 12:9.

522. Luke 20:15-17.

523. Mark 12:10.

524. Matt 21:41.

525. Cf. John 11:49-51.

526. Matt 21:9; cf. Ps 118:26.

527. Matt 21:27.

528. Luke 20:9.

529. Matt 21:9; cf. Mark 11:10; Luke 19:38.

530. Matt 21:41.

531. Cf. John 4:1.

532. Cf. 1 Cor 15:6.

533. The pronoun illi could be taken as the nominative plural or the dative singular, and Augustine argues (correctly) for the latter.

534. John 8:31-37.

535. Matt 21:9; cf. Mark 11:10; Luke 19:38.

536. Matt 21:45-22:3; 22:14.

537. Cf. Luke 14:16-24.

538. Cf. Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19.

539. Matt 22:15-17, 33.

540. Cf. Mark 12:13-27; Luke 20:20-40.

541. Deut 6:5.

542. Lev 19:18.

543. Matt 22:34-40.

544. Mark 12:34.

545. Sir 19:4.

546. Cf. Luke 10:25-37.

547. Luke 10:28, 29.

548. Mark 12:34.

549. Matt 22:41-46.

550. Cf. Mark 12:35-37.

551. Cf. Luke 20:41-44.

552. Matt 23:1-3, 39.

553. Cf. Luke 11:37-52.

554. Cf. Luke 11:24-26, 29-32; Matt 12:39-45.

555. Matt 12:46.

556. Luke 11:37-39.

557. Matt 23:39.

558. Cf. Matt 21:9.

559. Luke 13:31-35.

560. Matt 24:1-2.

561. Cf. Mark 14:41-44; Luke 21:1-4.

562. Cf. Mark 12:38-40; Matt 23:1-36.

563. Cf. Matt 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2.

564. Cf. Luke 20:41-21:6.

565. Matt 24:3-5; 25:46.

566. Cf. Mark 13:4-37; Luke 21:7-36.

567. Matt 24:14.

568. Mark 13:10.

569. Matt 24:15.

570. Mark 13:14.

571. Luke 21:20.

572. Matt 24:14-16.

573. Luke 21:21.

574. Luke 21:21.

575. Matt 24:20.

576. Mark 13:18.

577. Luke 21:34-36.

578. Matt 26:1-2.

579. Mark 14:1.

580. Luke 22:1.

581. Cf. Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9.

582. Cf. John 12:1.

583. Luke 22:1.

584. John 11:55.

585. John 12:1-2.

586. Matt 26:2-5, 14. Augustine is correct in a way, but the splitting up of the story is usually taken as deliberate Markan artfulness: see J. R. Edwards, "Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives," Novum Testamentum 31 (1989) 193-216.

587. Mark 14:1-2, 10.

588. Matt 26:3-7, 13.

589. Cf. Luke 7:36-50.

590. John 11:1-2.

591. Cf. John 12:1-8; Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9.

592. See above, Book II, paragraph 98.

593. John 12:4-5; cf. Matt 26:8-9; Mark 14:4-5 (Mark actually does not specify that it was the disciples who thus murmured).

594. Matt 26:14-15, 19.

595. Cf. Mark 14:10-16; Luke 22:3-13.

596. Matt 26:18.

597. Cf. Mark 14:13; Luke 22:10.

598. Augustine is pointing to the ambiguity of the pronoun in the dative case.

599. Matt 26:20-22, 25.

600. Cf. Mark 14:17-21; Luke 22:14-23; John 13:21-27.