The Agreement of the Evangelists

Book III

(1) Now we are at the point in all four gospels, from which they necessarily proceed together to the end without diverging from one another. And if one records something that another omits, it seems to me that we can show more readily that all the evangelists are in agreement, if from here on we bring together everything from all of them and arrange it into a single narrative and presentation. It seems to me that what we have been trying to explain will be done more conveniently and easily this way. So we are attempting to make a narrative from all the things recorded through the witness of the evangelists, each of whom recollected out of all these things according to his ability or wishes. Further, all these things were said by all of them, showing that there is no disagreement among them in any way.

(2) Therefore let us begin with Matthew: As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, "Take and eat, this is my body."⁽¹⁾ Mark and Luke also record this.⁽²⁾ Although Luke mentions the cup twice, both before and after he gave the bread, this is because when he says it first, it is, as usual, in anticipation; and what he inserts in its proper place is not recorded earlier. So, when taken together, the meaning is the same as that in the other gospels. But John says nothing about the body and blood of the Lord at this point, though he clearly testifies that the Lord said this much more fully at another time.⁽³⁾ Now John records how the Lord rose from supper and washed the disciples' feet. He also tells why he acted thus, for the Lord showed in a hidden way through the witness of scripture that he was to be betrayed by one who ate his bread. Then John comes to the point that the other three also relate: When he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." Then (John adds) the disciples looked at one another, uncertain of whom he spoke.⁽⁴⁾ Then they were very sorrowful (as Matthew and Mark say), and began to say to him one by one, "Is it I?"⁽⁵⁾ And he answered, saying (according to Matthew), "He who dips his hand in the dish with me is the one who will betray me." And Matthew continues: "The Son of man goes as it is written of him. But woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.⁽⁶⁾ With this Mark is in agreement, even as to the order.⁽⁷⁾ Then Matthew continues: Then Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, "Is it I, master?" And he said to him, "You have said so." ⁽⁸⁾ Even these words did not state whether he was the one. For this may be understood as meaning, "I do not say so." It is possible that Judas said this and the Lord answered without any of the others noticing.

(3) Matthew then continues, inserting the mystery of the body and blood, as it was given to the disciples by the Lord; Mark and Luke do so likewise.⁽⁹⁾ But after he handed over the cup, he spoke again concerning the one who handed him over,⁽¹⁰⁾ as Luke says in the following: "But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. And the Son of man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed."⁽¹¹⁾ Here we should understand that there then follows what John narrates and the others omit (just as John omits some things that they have given). For after the handing over of the cup and the Lord's saying given by Luke, "But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table, etc.," John adds the following: Now one of the disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying on Jesus' breast, so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said to him, "Who is it of whom he speaks?" When he had laid himself on Jesus' breast, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?" Jesus answered, "The one to whom I will offer this bread when I have dipped it." And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the morsel, Satan entered into him.⁽¹²⁾

(4) This might make it appear that John not only contradicts Luke, who said earlier that Satan entered into the heart of Judas when he agreed with the Jews to betray him for money, but even that he contradicts himself. For John said earlier, before he received the morsel, that "during supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas to betray him."⁽¹³⁾ But how does he enter into the heart, except by putting evil inclinations into the thoughts of evil people? But we ought to understand that Judas was now more fully possessed by the devil. The same thing sort of happened to those good men who received the holy spirit after his resurrection when he breathed on them, saying, "Receive the holy spirit,"⁽¹⁴⁾ for they later received more when he was sent down from above on the day of Pentecost.⁽¹⁵⁾ In the same way, Satan then entered into this man after the morsel. And as John then records: Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly." Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that because Judas had the bag, Jesus had said to him, "Buy what we need for the feast," or that he should give something to the poor. So after receiving the morsel, he went out, and it was night. And after he said this, Jesus said, "Now the Son of man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. And God will also glorify him in himself,⁽¹⁶⁾ and will glorify him immediately.⁽¹⁷⁾

(5) "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, but, as I said to the Jews, 'Where I am going you cannot come,' and I say this now to you. A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, so you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?" Jesus answered, "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterwards." Peter said to him, "Why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you." Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times."⁽¹⁸⁾ John, from whose gospel I have taken this passage, is not the only one to give this prediction to Peter of his own denial, for the other three also record it.⁽¹⁹⁾ They do not all introduce it at the same point in the discourse, however. For Matthew and Mark both put it in the same order and in the same place in their narrative, after the Lord left the house in which they had eaten the Passover, while Luke and John have it before he left there. This might easily be understood either as a recapitulation by two of them, or an anticipation by the other two. But this seems less than likely, as not only do the words differ, but so do the Lord's ideas, which moved Peter to offer his presumptuous statement that he would die with the Lord or for the Lord. This leads us rather to understand that he made his presumptuous statement three times, at different points in Christ's speeches, and that the Lord answered three times that before the cock crowed, he would deny him three times.

(6) Nor is it incredible that Peter might have been moved to such a presumptuous statement on several distinct times, just as he denied him several times. Nor is it unlikely that the Lord answered similarly three times, just as after the resurrection Christ asked three times, without any other words or acts intervening, whether he loved him, and when Peter gave the same answer three times, he gave the same command three times to feed his sheep.⁽²⁰⁾ That Peter showed his presumptuousness three times, and that he heard the Lord's warning of his triple denial three times, will be shown to be more believable by the words of the evangelists themselves, who record the Lord's sayings in different words and different contexts. Let us recall that passage from John's gospel, in which he clearly said the following: "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, but, as I said to the Jews, 'Where I am going you cannot come,' and I say this now to you. A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, so you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, where are you going?"⁽²¹⁾ Now here it is clear that what moved Peter to say, "Lord, where are you going?" was the Lord's words, for he had heard him say, "Where I am going you cannot come." Then Jesus answered Peter, "Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterwards." And then Peter asked, "Why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you."⁽²²⁾ The Lord responded to this presumptuous statement by predicting his denial. But Luke records the Lord's words this way: "Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, so that he could sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned around, strengthen your brethren."⁽²³⁾ And then he adds Peter's response: "Lord, I am ready to go with you into prison and into death." And he said, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you will deny three times that you know me."⁽²⁴⁾ Who cannot see that this is another occasion, different from the other one on which Peter was moved to make a presumptuous statement? And Matthew says this: And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them, "You shall all be offended because of me this night. For it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'⁽²⁵⁾ But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee."⁽²⁶⁾ Mark says the same.⁽²⁷⁾ But what similarity is there between these words and their meaning, and those in which Peter makes his presumptuous statement either in John or in Luke? And Matthew continues thus: Peter answered and said to him, "Though they all are offended because of you, I will never be offended." And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you." And so said all the disciples.⁽²⁸⁾

(7) Mark records this in almost the same words, except that he makes the prediction more specific, giving the Lord's words as, "Truly I say to you that this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times."⁽²⁹⁾ Thus they all say that the Lord predicted that Peter would deny him before the cock crowed, but they do not all say how many times the cock would crow: only Mark notes this explicitly. So it seems to some that he is not in agreement with the others, but this is because they are not careful enough, and especially because their efforts are obscured by their minds being sunk in animosity against the gospel. Overall, Peter's denial is a triple denial. For his spirit remained agitated and his purpose remained false, until he was reminded of what had been predicted: then he was healed through bitter weeping and sorrow of the heart. But if everything, that is, all three denials, began after the cock crowed once, then three of the accounts would appear to be false. For Matthew says this: "Truly I say to you, that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And according to Luke: "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you will deny three times that you know me." And John: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow till you have denied me three times." Although the words and their order are different, they give the same sense of what the Lord said, namely, that before the cock crowed, Peter was to deny him. But if the whole triple denial happened before the cock began to crow, then Mark will be found to have given the Lord a superfluous statement: "Truly I say to you that this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." But what point is there in saying "before the cock crows twice"? If the whole triple denial was completed before the first cock crowing, then isn't it proved that it must also have been completed before the second, third, and any other cock crowings that took place that night? But the three evangelists note that the triple denial began before the first cock crowing, but not when Peter completed it. They note its extent and its beginning, that it was to be repeated three times and begin before the cock crowing. As for Peter's frame of mind before the cock crowing, it is possible to understand it overall. For although the actual words of denial began before the first cock crow and finished with the whole triple denial before the second cock crow, Peter's frame of mind and his fear were fully conceived before the first. Nor does it matter how long were the intervals of time between those three announcements, if his heart were completely possessed before the first cock crow, having filled him with a fear so great that he was able to deny the Lord when he was asked not just once, but twice, and even a third time. So if we look at it more correctly and carefully, it is the same as saying that the man who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart.⁽³⁰⁾ For Peter's words just expressed that fear that he had so intensely conceived in his mind, so that he was able to prolong his denial of the Lord to three times, so the whole triple denial should be assigned to that time when the fear that caused his triple denial took control of him. Even if the actual words of the denial only began to burst forth from him after the first cock crow, when his heart was assailed by the questions, it would be neither absurd nor untruthful to say that he denied him three times before the cock crowed, since before the cock crowed his mind had already been possessed by a fear that was able to bring him to a third denial. It should bother us even less if the triple denial and the triple statements of the denier should have begun before the cock crow, even if they were not completed before the first cock crow. Suppose someone were to say, "This night, before the cock crows, you will write me a letter, in which you will insult me three times." There would be no reason to call the prediction false, if the person began to write before the cock crowed at all, and finished afer the first cock crow. Therefore when Mark has the Lord say, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times," this indicates more clearly the intervals between the sayings. This will be made clear, when we come to that section of the gospel narrative, so that the agreement among the evangelists will be shown.

(8) But if they seek the actual words that the Lord said to Peter, it is impossible to find these, and useless to try, for his meaning, which is what he wanted to make known through saying these words, can be completely understood even through the diverse words of the evangelists. Either Peter, moved at different points in the Lord's speech, made his presumptuous statement at three separate times, and three times the Lord predicted his denial, which is more probable based on our investigation; or else the records of all the evangelists could be reduced to one version with some other narrative order, so that it could be shown that there was one occasion on which Peter made his presumptuous statement and the Lord made his prediction that he would deny him. But either way, no inconsistency between the evangelists can be shown, for there is none.

(9) Now we may follow the order as given by all of the evangelists. After this prediction to Peter, John then goes on to the Lord's speech: "Let not your heart be troubled. You believe in God, also believe in me. In my Father's house there are many rooms, etc."⁽³¹⁾ He narrates in detail his speech, so great and sublime, until he comes to that place where the Lord says, "O righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I know you, and these know that you have sent me. And I made known to them your name, and I will make it known, so that the love with which you have loved me will be in them, and I in them."⁽³²⁾ And Luke records this: There was a dispute among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who have authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is greater, the one who sits at table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. And you are those who have remained with me in my trials. And I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."⁽³³⁾ Then Luke adds that the Lord said to Simon, "Behold, Satan asked to have you, so that he could sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned around, strengthen your brethren." And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to with you into prison and into death." And he said, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you will deny three times that you know me." And he said to them, "When I sent you out without a bag, or wallet, or shoes, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now, let him who has a bag take it, and likewise a wallet. And let him who does not have a sword sell his clothes and buy one. For I say to you, that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned among the transgressors";⁽³⁴⁾ for the things concerning me have their fulfillment." And they said, "Look Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."⁽³⁵⁾ Then, as Matthew and Mark record it: And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus said to them, "You shall all be offended because of me this night. For it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'⁽³⁶⁾ But after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee." Peter answered and said to him, "Though they all are offended because of you, I will never be offended." And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you." And so said all the disciples.⁽³⁷⁾ We have already introduced this in Matthew's version, but Mark also has it in nearly the same number of identical words,⁽³⁸⁾ except for the difficulty we have already explained concerning the cock crow.

(10) Matthew then continues his narrative thus: Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane.⁽³⁹⁾ Mark says the same, and so does Luke, though he does not specify the name of the place: And he came out and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples followed him. And when he came to the place he said to them, "Pray that you may not enter into temptation."⁽⁴⁰⁾ This is the place which the other two tell us was named Gethsemane. This is to be understood as the garden which John mentions in his narrative: When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the river Kidron, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered.⁽⁴¹⁾ Then following Matthew's account: He said to the disciples, "Sit here, while I go over there and pray." And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and sad. Then he said to them, "My soul is sorrowful, even to death; stay here and watch with me." And going a little further, he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, "So, could you not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. For the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Again, he went away a second time and prayed, saying, "My father, if this cup cannot pass, except I drink from it, your will be done." And he came again and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And he left them and went away again, and prayed a third time, saying the same thing. Then he came to his disciples and said to them, "Sleep now and take your rest. Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is handed over into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go. Behold, the one who betrays me is at hand."⁽⁴²⁾

(11) Mark gives this in the same way and in the same order, abbreviating some of the sentences and expanding others.⁽⁴³⁾ However, within Matthew's version these sayings may seem to be inconsistent. For after he returned to his disciples from praying the third time, he said to them, "Sleep now and take your rest. Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is handed over into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go. Behold, the one who betrays me is at hand."⁽⁴⁴⁾ How can he say, "Sleep now, and take your rest," and then immediately go on to say, "Behold, the hour is at hand," and then, "Rise, let us go"? Those who read a disagreement in these words seek to pronounce, "Sleep now, and take your rest," as if it were said accusingly, and not by way of permission. It could rightly be taken this way, if it were necessary. But Mark records it this way: first he said, "Sleep now, and take your rest," and then he added, "It is enough," and finally, "The hour has come. Behold, the Son of man is betrayed."⁽⁴⁵⁾ So it can be understood this way. After he said, "Sleep now, and take your rest," the Lord was silent for a while, so that they did what he had permitted them to do. Then later he said, "Behold, the hour is at hand." Between these two statements, Mark has him say, "It is enough," that is to say, "The rest you have had is enough now." But since the Lord's silence in this interval is not specifically mentioned, and the interval is understood as compressed, so that these words seem to take on a different meaning.

(12) Luke has not specified how many times he prayed. But he has mentioned something which the others do not: that while he was praying, he was strengthened by an angel, and that as he prayed more earnestly, he had bloody sweat, with drops falling down to the ground.⁽⁴⁶⁾ So when Luke says, "And when he arose from prayer, he came to his disciples,"⁽⁴⁷⁾ he does not indicate how many times he had prayed. But there is nothing inconsistent between this and the other two. Indeed, John says that he went into the garden with his disciples,⁽⁴⁸⁾ but does not record what he did there up until his betrayer came with the Jews to arrest him.

(13) So these three have narrated the same event, just as one man could give three such accounts, with some variety among them, but without any real contradiction. For example, Luke is more specific as to how far away he withdrew when he went away to pray, saying that it was "about a stone's throw."⁽⁴⁹⁾ Mark first gives in his own words how the Lord prayed that, "if it were possible, the hour might pass from him,"⁽⁵⁰⁾ indicating his passion, which he then also signifies with the word "cup." He then gives the Lord's own words: "Abba, father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me."⁽⁵¹⁾ If we take these words together with those of the other two evangelists, and which Mark has given above in his own words, then the whole sentence is shown to be, "Father, if it be possible, for all things are possible to you, remove this cup from me." He said, "If it be possible," so that one could not suppose that he minimized the Father's power. For he did not say, "If you are able," but, "If it be possible," for whatever he wills is possible. So to say, "If it be possible," is the same as saying, "If you will." Mark makes it clear how one should understand, "If it be possible," by saying, "all things are possible to you." And when they record that he said, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (which means the same as saying, "Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,") it shows clearly enough that Jesus was referring to the Father's will and not to his ability, when he said, "If it be possible." Luke shows this even more clearly, for he does not say, "If it be possible," but, "If you are willing."⁽⁵²⁾ For even greater clarity, we may add Mark's insertion to Luke's clearer statement, so that the whole statement would be, "If you are willing, for all things are possible to you, remove this cup from me."

(14) As for Mark recording that he not only said, "Father," but, "Abba, Father," this is because "Abba" is in Hebrew what "Father" is in Latin. Perhaps the Lord said this symbolically, wishing to show that he bore this misery in that part of him which is his body, the church, of which he has been made the cornerstone, and which comes to him partly from the Hebrews, to whom he refers when he says "Abba," and partly from the Gentiles, to whom he refers when he says "Father."⁽⁵³⁾ The apostle Paul does not miss this symbolism, when he says, "In whom we cry 'Abba, Father,'"⁽⁵⁴⁾ and again, "God has sent his spirit into our hearts, crying, 'Abba, Father.'"⁽⁵⁵⁾ For it is right that the good teacher and true savior, by suffering together with those who are weaker, should reveal in himself that his martyrs should not despair, even though perhaps at the time of their suffering some sorrow might creep into their hearts because of human weakness. They will vanquish this weakness by preferring the will of God over their own, since he knows what is best for those upon whom he looks. This is not the time to discuss this whole matter fully. For now we are dealing with the agreement of the evangelists, from whose diversity of words we learn this helpful truth: the one thing that is necessary in order to hear the truth is not the words, but the meaning the speaker wished to convey. For the word, "Father," is the same as the words, "Abba, Father"; but as a symbolic expression, "Abba, Father," is clearer, while "Father" is sufficient to indicate unity. It is therefore to be believed that the Lord said, "Abba, Father." But this would not illuminate his meaning, except for the fact that others say only "Father," thereby showing that these two churches, one Jewish, the other Greek, are really one. Therefore, "Abba, Father," is to be understood in the same way as when the Lord says, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold."⁽⁵⁶⁾ This certainly means the Gentiles, since he also had sheep among the people of Israel. But he also goes on to add, "I must bring them also, so that there will be one fold and one shepherd." So just as "Abba, Father," includes the Israelites and the Gentiles, so too "Father" alone points to the unity of the flock.

(15) Matthew and Mark continue thus: While he was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people. The one who betrayed him had given them a sign, saying, "The one I shall kiss is the man; seize him." And immediately he came up to Jesus and said, "Hail, Master," and kissed him.⁽⁵⁷⁾ And then, as Luke tells us, he said to him, "Judas, do you betray the Son of man with a kiss?"⁽⁵⁸⁾ And then, as Matthew reports, he said, "Friend, why have you come?"⁽⁵⁹⁾ And then he said what John records, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." And Judas, who betrayed him, stood with them. When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go." This was to fulfill what had been spoken, "Of those whom you gave me, I lost not one."⁽⁶⁰⁾

(16) Then Luke continues: And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said to him, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" And one of them (as all four evangelists tell us) struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.⁽⁶¹⁾ (Luke and John tell us it was his right ear, and John says it was Peter who struck, and that the one struck was named Malchus.)⁽⁶²⁾ Then Luke continues: Jesus answered and said, "Let it be!"⁽⁶³⁾ Then we have what Matthew records: "Put your sword back in its place; for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"⁽⁶⁴⁾ We may add to these words what John reports he said at that time: "Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given to me?"⁽⁶⁵⁾ Then, as Luke says, he touched the ear of the one who had been struck and healed him.⁽⁶⁶⁾

(17) Nor should the following bother us as if it were a contradiction. Luke says that after the disciples asked whether they should strike with the sword, the Lord answered, "Let it be," as if he said this after the blow had been struck and was pleased with what had happened, but did not want anything more to be done. But the words in Matthew might be understood to mean that the whole incident of Peter using his sword displeased the Lord. For it is more likely that when they asked him, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" he answered, "Let it be." By this he meant, "Don't be bothered by what is about to happen. These men will be allowed to go so far, that is, to arrest me and to fulfill what has been written of me." But in the time between their question and the Lord's response, Peter struck, out of his desire to make a defense and from his greater fervor for the Lord. But although it is not possible to say two things at once, it is possible to do two things at once. For he would not have said, "Jesus answered," unless he was responding to their question, and not to Peter's act. Only Matthew records how Jesus judged Peter's act. But Matthew does not say, "Jesus answered Peter, 'Put back your sword,'" but, "Then Jesus said to him, 'Put back your sword,'" and it seems that the Lord said this after the act. And when Luke puts it this way, "Jesus answered and said to them, 'Let it be,'" this must be taken as his answer to those who questioned him. But as we said, the single blow was struck in the time between the question and the Lord's response; therefore Luke thought it right to narrate it in this order, so that he placed it between the question and the answer. There is nothing inconsistent between this and what Matthew says: "For all who take the sword shall perish by the sword," that is, those who may use the sword. But there might appear to be some inconsistency here, if the Lord's answer showed approval of this one, voluntary use of the sword that produced a non-lethal wound. But overall consistency may be understood in what was said to Peter. As we have remarked before, we may thus put this together with what Luke and Matthew have reported: "Let it be, and put your sword back in its place. For all who take the sword shall perish by the sword, etc." I have already explained how, "Let it be," is to be understood. If there is any better way of understanding it, do so, as long as the truth of the evangelists is affirmed.

(18) After this, Matthew continues, recording what he said to the crowds at that time: "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take me? Daily I sat with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize me."⁽⁶⁷⁾ He then added some other words, which are given by Luke: "But this is your hour, and the power of darkness."⁽⁶⁸⁾ And then he said, as Matthew gives it, "But all this has happened, so that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."⁽⁶⁹⁾ Then all the disciples forsook him and fled, as Mark also reports.⁽⁷⁰⁾ Then Mark records that, "a young man followed him, with a linen garment on; and they seized him, but he left the linen garment and ran away from them naked."⁽⁷¹⁾

(19) Matthew continues: Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.⁽⁷²⁾ But first he was led to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, as John tells us.⁽⁷³⁾ Mark and Luke do not mention the high priest's name at all.⁽⁷⁴⁾ Also, as John reports, he was led away bound, and a tribune and a cohort and the servants of the Jews were in that crowd. And Matthew says that "Peter followed him at a distance into the hall of the high priest, and going inside, he sat with the servants to see the end."⁽⁷⁵⁾ At this point in the narrative, Mark adds, "And he warmed himself by the fire."⁽⁷⁶⁾ Luke records something similar: Peter followed at a distance; and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the hall and sat down together, Peter was among them.⁽⁷⁷⁾ And John says that "Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. And since that other disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the hall of the high priest. But Peter stood outside at the door," according to John. And John also says that "the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the woman who kept the door, and brought in Peter."⁽⁷⁸⁾ This shows how Peter got inside and was in the hall, as the other three also mention.

(20) Matthew continues: Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, so that they could hand him over to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.⁽⁷⁹⁾ At this point Mark records that "their testimony did not agree."⁽⁸⁰⁾ And Matthew continues: At last two false witnesses came forward and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.'"⁽⁸¹⁾ Mark also records that there were others who said, "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another that is not made with hands.'"⁽⁸²⁾ Mark also notes that "their testimony did not agree."⁽⁸³⁾ Then Matthew continues: And standing up, the high priest said to him, "Have you no response to make to what they testify against you?" But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so."⁽⁸⁴⁾ Mark reports this in different words, though he does not mention that the high priest adjured him. But he shows how it is the same whether Jesus said, "You have said so," or, "I am."⁽⁸⁵⁾ For Mark says the following: And Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."⁽⁸⁶⁾ Matthew reports this the same, though he does not say that Jesus answered, "I am." Matthew records the following: Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy: why do we still need witnesses? Behold, you have now heard his blasphemy. What do you think? And they answered and said, "He deserves death."⁽⁸⁷⁾ Mark says the same.⁽⁸⁸⁾ Matthew continues thus: Then they spat in his face, and beat him, and others slapped him in the face with the palms of their hands, saying, "Prophesy to us, O Christ! Who is it that struck you?"⁽⁸⁹⁾ Mark says the same, though he also reports that they covered his face.⁽⁹⁰⁾ Luke also testifies to these things.

(21) It should be understood that the Lord endured these things until morning in the high priest's house, to which he was first led, and where Peter also was tested. But as for Peter's testing, which took place while the Lord was enduring these injuries, they do not all give the same order. For Matthew and Mark first record these injuries, and then the testing of Peter. Luke first presents the testing of Peter, and then the injuries done to the Lord.⁽⁹¹⁾ John begins with Peter's testing, then goes on to some of the injuries done to the Lord, then mentions that he was sent to Caiaphas the high priest, then resumes the story that he had begun of Peter's testing in the house where he had first been led, and then returns to the order, showing how the Lord was led to Caiaphas.⁽⁹²⁾

(22) Matthew continues thus: Now Peter was sitting outside in the hall. And a maid came up to him and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean." And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and said to those who were there, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied it with an oath: "I do not know the man." And after a little while those who stood by came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you also are one of them, for your speech makes you known." Then he began to curse and swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed.⁽⁹³⁾ Such is Matthew's version. But it is to be understood that after he went out, when he had denied him once, the cock crowed the first time: though Matthew does not mention this, Mark does.⁽⁹⁴⁾

(23) But it was not when he was outside the door that he denied the Lord again, but when he returned to the fireplace, though it was not necessary to record when he returned there. So Mark continues his story thus: And he went out the door of the hall, and the cock crowed. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to those who stood by, "This man is one of them." And he denied it again.⁽⁹⁵⁾ But this is not the same maid, but another one, as Matthew tells us. Indeed, it should be understood that at the second denial he was accused by two people: the maid, mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and another person, mentioned by Luke. For Luke tells the story this way: Peter followed at a distance; and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the hall and sat down together, Peter was among them. But a maid saw him sitting in the light, and she looked at him intently and said, "This man also was with him." But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know him." And after a little while, another person saw him and said, "You also are one of them."⁽⁹⁶⁾ When Luke says, "And after a little while," this indicates the time during which Peter went outside and the first cock crowed. And then he came back, which is why John says he was standing by the fireplace when he denied him again. John not only fails to mention the cock crowing at Peter's first denial (which they all do, except Mark), he also does not report that he was sitting by the fire when the maid recognized him. John puts it this way: The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."⁽⁹⁷⁾ Then he goes on to those things that happened with Jesus in that house, recording those that seemed right to him to include: Now the servants and attendants were standing by the coals warming themselves, because it was cold. Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.⁽⁹⁸⁾ Therefore it should be understood that at this point Peter had gone out and come back again. For at first he had been sitting by the fire, and then, after returning, he began to stand there.

(24) But perhaps someone will object that Peter had not gone out, but had only gotten up in order to go out. This might be said by someone who thought that the second questioning and denial happened outside the door. Let us see how John continues: The high priest then asked Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. Jesus answered him: "I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard me what I said to them. Behold, they know what I said." When he had said this, one of the attendants standing by struck Jesus, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken wrongly, then bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken well, then why do you hit me?" And Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.⁽⁹⁹⁾ This clearly shows that Annas was high priest, for he had not yet been sent to Caiaphas when he was asked, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" And at the beginning of his gospel, Luke records that these two, Annas and Caiaphas, were high priests.⁽¹⁰⁰⁾ After this, John returns to the story he had begun of Peter's denial, back to the house where the things he has narrated happened. It is from here that Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, to whom he was being led at the beginning of this scene, as Matthew reports.⁽¹⁰¹⁾ John records these things as a recapitulation of Peter's story, rejoining it in order to complete the narrative of the triple denial: Now Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples? He denied it and said, "I am not."⁽¹⁰²⁾ Therefore we find here that Peter's second denial was while standing by the fireplace, not by the door. But this could not have been, unless he had returned after having gone outside. So it is not that he went out and the other maid saw him outside; but that she saw him as he was going out, as he was getting up to go out. She noticed him then and said to those who were around the fire inside the hall, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."⁽¹⁰³⁾ Upon hearing this, the one who had gone out came back in and swore to those who were incensed against him that he did not know the man. Mark also says of this maid that "she began to say to those who were around, 'This man is one of them.'"⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ Although she was not speaking to him, but to those who had remained when he went out, he nonetheless heard her, and returned to stand by the fire again, and responded to their words with a negative. It is at this point that John says that "they said, 'Are not you also one of his disciples?'"⁽¹⁰⁵⁾ We understand this to have been said when he had returned and was standing there. This accords with the fact that Peter had to deal with not only that other maid mentioned by Matthew and Mark at the second denial, but also with that other person whom Luke mentions. This is why John says, "They said to him." It may be that, after he went out, the maid said to those who were with her in the hall, "This man is one of them," and that Peter heard this and came back, in order to clear himself in some way by a denial. Or, as seems more probable, perhaps he did not hear what was said about him as he went out, and that afterwards he returned, and the maid and that other person mentioned by Luke said to him, "Are not you one of his disciples?" And he said, "I am not." And when the other person mentioned by Luke insisted more tenaciously, saying, "You also are one of them." And Peter said, "Man, I am not."⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ But by bringing together all the testimony of the evangelists on this subject, it becomes clear that Peter's second denial happened inside the hall by the fire, and not at the door. Matthew and Mark, who record that he went out, have for the sake of brevity not mentioned his return.

(25) Now let us consider the degree of agreement in the third denial, which we have only examined in Matthew's version. Mark continues thus: And after a little while, those who stood by said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean." But he began to curse and swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak." And immediately the cock crowed a second time."⁽¹⁰⁷⁾ Luke continues his narrative this way: And after about an hour, another one insisted, saying, "Certainly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean." And Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are saying." And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed.⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ John continues with his account of Peter's third denial: One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" Peter again denied it, and immediately the cock crowed.⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ The amount of time Matthew and Mark mean by, "after a little while," is specified by Luke, who says, "And after about an hour." John, however, does not mention this interval. Matthew and Mark do not use the singular, but the plural number when talking about those who set upon Peter, while Luke speaks of only one, and John specifies this as a relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off. But this is easily understood either as Matthew and Mark using the plural for the singular, which is a common way of talking, or else that one of them who knew and had seen Peter was foremost in the attack, and that the others followed his confidence in pressing upon Peter. So two of the evangelists have spoken of the group together in the plural number, while the other two have preferred to single out the one who was the leader of the group. But Matthew claims that this was said to Peter himself: "Certainly you also are one of them, for your speech makes you known."⁽¹¹⁰⁾ Likewise, John claims that this was said to Peter: "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"⁽¹¹¹⁾ But Mark presents them as speaking among themselves about Peter: "Surely he is one of them, for he is a Galilean."⁽¹¹²⁾ Luke makes the same point, that the following was said about Peter, but not to him: another one insisted, saying, "Certainly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean."⁽¹¹³⁾ We may either understand that those evangelists who speak of Peter as the one addressed are holding to the sense, for talking about him right in front of him is more or less the same as talking to him. Or perhaps both these happened, and some recorded the one way, others the other way. Finally, we understand the second cock crow to have happened after the third denial, as Mark has specified.

(26) Matthew continues thus: And Peter remembered the word of Jesus that he had said to him, "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.⁽¹¹⁴⁾ Mark puts it this way: Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he began to weep.⁽¹¹⁵⁾ Luke says this: And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the Lord's word, how he had said, "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And Peter went out and wept bitterly.⁽¹¹⁶⁾ John fails to mention that Peter remembered this saying and then wept. Luke's statement that "the Lord turned and looked at Peter," needs more careful consideration as to how it is to be taken. For although both inner and outer halls might be called the same thing, Peter was in an outer hall with the servants, who were warming themselves along with him at the fire. And it is not plausible that the Lord would have been heard by the Jews in such a place, so this cannot refer to a bodily "look." For Matthew said this: Then they spat in his face, and beat him, and others slapped him in the face with the palms of their hands, saying, "Prophesy to us, O Christ! Who is it that struck you?" And he went on to say, "Now Peter was sitting outside in the hall,"⁽¹¹⁷⁾ which he would not have said, unless those things that were being done to the Lord were going on inside. And it can be gathered from Mark's narrative that these things happened not only inside, but in the upper parts of the house. For after Mark narrates these things, he continues thus: And as Peter was below in the hall.⁽¹¹⁸⁾ Matthew says, "Peter sat outside in the hall," in order to show that the other things happened inside. In the same way, Mark says, "And Peter was below in the hall," in order to show that these other things happened not only inside, but in the upper parts of the building. But how then could the Lord have looked at Peter in a corporeal way? Therefore it seems to me that it must have been a look from God himself, that brought before his mind how many times he had denied him and how the Lord had predicted it, and thus, the Lord's merciful look moved him to repentance and healthful weeping. We speak this way every day, when we say, "Lord, look upon me"; or, "The Lord looked upon him," when the divine mercy has delivered someone from some danger or hardship. Thus also it is said, "Look upon me and hear me,"⁽¹¹⁹⁾ and, "Turn, O Lord, and deliver my soul."⁽¹²⁰⁾ I judge that this should be taken the same way: "The Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord."⁽¹²¹⁾ Further, although the evangelists use "Jesus" more frequently in the narratives than "Lord," here Luke puts "Lord": The Lord turned and looked at Peter and Peter remembered the word of the Lord. Matthew and Mark, who do not mention this "look," do not say that he remembered, "the word of the Lord," but, "the word of Jesus." Therefore we understand this "look" from Jesus not as one made by a human eye, but by the eye of God.

(27) Matthew continues thus: When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. And when they had bound him, they led him away and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.⁽¹²²⁾ Mark says the same: As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a meeting with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.⁽¹²³⁾ And Luke, after finishing his account of Peter's denial, summarizes what was done to Jesus at (it seems) about morning: Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him; and when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, "Prophesy to us! Who is it that struck you?" And they said many other blasphemous things against him. And when it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came together and led him to their council, saying, "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe me; and if I also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. But from now on, the Son of man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God." And they all said, "Are you the Son of God then?" And he said, "You say that I am." And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We ourselves have heard it from his own mouth." And the whole multitude of them arose and brought him before Pilate.⁽¹²⁴⁾ Luke has narrated all this, and it should be understood that Matthew and Mark have narrated similar things: that the Lord was asked whether he was the Son of God, and he answered, "I say to you, that hereafter you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."⁽¹²⁵⁾ These things seem to have happened at daybreak, for Luke says, "And when it was day." So his narrative is similar, though he also records something that the others omit. We understand that the false witnesses spoke against the Lord at night; this is briefly recorded by Matthew and Mark, and omitted by Luke, though he narrates what happened at daybreak. Matthew and Mark give continuous narratives of what happened to the Lord up until morning, but then they resume the story of Peter's denial; when this is over, they return to the events of the morning, so that they produce a complete account of what happened to the Lord. But they do not record what happened at daybreak. John also, after telling what happened to the Lord as much as seemed right to him, and recording the whole story of Peter's denial, goes on thus: Then they led Jesus to Caiaphas in the praetorium. It was early."⁽¹²⁶⁾ From this we are to understand either that there was some cause that brought Caiaphas to the praetorium so that he was not present when the other chief priests interrogated the Lord, or else that the praetorium was in his house. In the latter case, from the beginning they must have been leading Jesus to Caiaphas, whom he now finally met at the end. But since they brought Jesus to him as though he was already convicted, and since it already seemed to Caiaphas that Jesus ought to die, there was no delay in handing him over to Pilate for death. This is why at this point Matthew narrates what happened between Pilate and the Lord.

(28) But first he makes a digression to record the end of Judas the traitor, which he alone narrates: Then Judas, who had betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repented and brought back the thirty silver pieces to the chief priests and elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? You see to it." And he threw the silver pieces into the temple and left, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them in the treasury, since they are blood money." And they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field, in which to bury strangers. Therefore that field has been called Akeldama, that is, "Field of Blood," to this day.⁽¹²⁷⁾ Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the children of Israel had put a price, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."⁽¹²⁸⁾

(29) But if it bothers someone that this testimony is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and this damages that person's trust in the evangelist, then first let it be noticed that not all of the copies of the gospels say "by Jeremiah," but only "by the prophet." So we can say that those copies are more accurate that do not include the name Jeremiah. For this was said by a prophet, but that prophet was Zechariah. So one can suppose that those copies that include the name Jeremiah are inaccurate, for they ought to have had the name Zechariah or no name at all; one such copy does this, saying that it was "by the prophet," which could be understood to be Zechariah. But this defense may be used by anyone who pleases. It is not satisfactory to me, because most copies do include the name Jeremiah, and those who study the gospels most carefully in Greek declare that it is found in the more ancient Greek copies. Further, there would have been no reason to add this name, and thereby make the copy misleading. But there would have been a reason to remove it from so many copies: bold ignorance would have led to this, when faced with the problem of why this testimony is not found in Jeremiah.

(30) But how is this to be understood, except that it must have been brought about by the secret plan of God's providence that ruled over the evangelists' minds? It might have been that the name Jeremiah instead of Zechariah occurred to Matthew's mind as he wrote his gospel. But if this had happened, he would undoubtedly have corrected it, as others would have noticed it as they read his work while he was still alive in the flesh. But he must have thought as he was writing (which writing was guided by the Holy Spirit), that the name of the one prophet would not have occurred to him instead of the other, unless the Lord wanted it to be written this way. But why did the Lord want it this way? One certainly ought to consider this first and most useful reason. Perhaps it shows the miracle of how all the holy prophets spoke with one voice, remaining in agreement with one another, a miracle much greater than if all the things said by all the prophets had been said by the mouth of one single man. Therefore one ought to accept without question whatever the Holy Spirit says through them, and accept what is said by one as said by all, and what is said by any as said by each. Therefore, if the sayings of Jeremiah are as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and if the sayings of Zechariah are as much Jeremiah's as Zechariah's, why would Matthew correct it when he looked back over what he had written and found that the one name had occurred to him instead of the other? Would he not rather follow the authority of the Holy Spirit, by whom he felt his mind to be ruled more than we do, and therefore leave his writing unchanged, as the Lord had directed him by his influence. This was done to show us that there is such agreement among the words of the prophets, that it is not ridiculous, but most appropriate if we cite Jeremiah for something that Zechariah said. Consider the following present day example. Suppose someone wished to show us someone else's words, but he said the name of someone other than the person who said them. But this other person was the closest friend and confidante of the person who had said the words. As soon as the person says the one name for the other, he realizes his mistake and corrects it, but says, "I did speak truthfully, however." How would we interpret this, except that there is such agreement between the speaker whom he wished to name and the person whose name actually occurred to him, that one can credit either with the saying? How much more should this be understood and approved of in the case of the holy prophets? We might accept the books of all of them as though they were one single book. One ought to believe that in this book there are no discrepancies as to the subject matter (as indeed none would be found), and that in it there is a greater consistency of truthfulness, than if all these things had been said by one man, even if he were the most learned. Therefore, although there are those among the unbelieving or ignorant who seek to make this into some kind of argument to show the discord among the holy evangelists, the faithful and learned ought rather to claim that this shows the unity of the holy prophets.

(31) There is another reason for why the authority of the Holy Spirit did not just allow the name of Jeremiah to be put here instead of Zechariah, but actually commanded it (though it seems to me that I should explore this more fully at another time and not prolong this discussion further, since necessity demands an end to this work). In Jeremiah, we find that he bought a field from his brother's son and gave him money for it,⁽¹²⁹⁾ but the price - thirty silver pieces - is not named there, as it is in Zechariah; but the purchase of the field is not mentioned in Zechariah. It is clear that the evangelist interprets the prophecy of the thirty silver pieces as fulfilled by the Lord, for this was his price. But perhaps Matthew wished to show by a mysterious symbol that what Jeremiah said about the purchase of a field also related to Jesus, so he did not give the name of Zechariah, whom mentioned the thirty silver pieces, but Jeremiah, who mentioned the purchase of a field. So by reading the gospel and finding there the name of Jeremiah, and then reading Jeremiah and not finding there any testimony about thirty silver pieces, but instead finding mention of the purchase of a field, the reader would be encouraged to compare the two, and thereby explain the real meaning of the prophecy and how it relates to what was fulfilled by the Lord. For Matthew also puts the following into this testimony: "Upon whom the sons of Israel put a price; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."⁽¹³⁰⁾ This is in neither Zechariah nor Jeremiah. So we must accept it as a beautiful and mysterious addition made by the evangelist himself; it had been given to him by revelation from the Lord that a prophecy of this kind related to the price that had been put upon the Lord. In Jeremiah, he is commanded to put the record of the purchase of the field into a pottery vessel. In the gospel, the price of the Lord was used to buy the potter's field, for the burying of strangers, showing that there is permanent rest for those who are strangers in this age and are buried with Christ through baptism. This purchase of a field also signifies what the Lord said to Jeremiah, that in the land there would a remnant freed from their captivity. I thought it right to lay this out, in order to show how one should carefully and precisely find the unity of the prophetic witnesses, and then compare it with the gospel narrative. This then is what Matthews says of the traitor Judas.

(32) He then continues thus: Jesus stood before the governor, who questioned him, saying, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus said to him, "You say so." But when he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you." But he did not answer him, not even a word, so that he wondered greatly. Now on the feast day he was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner, whomever they wished. And they had then a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?" For he knew that they had handed him over out of envy. But while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him." But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. But he answered them and said, "Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" And they said, "Barabbas." Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified." He said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" They cried out more, saying, "Let him be crucified." So when Pilate saw that he was not helping anything, but rather a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the people, saying, "I am innocent of this just man's blood; you see to it." And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." Then he released Barabbas to them. And having scourged Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified. These are the things Matthew reports were done by Pilate to the Lord.

(33) Mark agrees with this in both vocabulary and content.⁽¹³¹⁾ But Pilate's words, when he answered the people's request to release one prisoner, according to the custom of the feast day, he gives as follows: But Pilate answered them and said, "Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?"⁽¹³²⁾ But Matthew puts it this way: So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?"⁽¹³³⁾ No difficulty is raised by the fact that Matthew does not mention that they asked for one to be released. But it may be asked what words Pilate said, those given by Matthew or those given by Mark. For there does seem to be some difference between, "Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?" and, "Do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?" But since they called their kings "anointed ones" (christos), one could say one or the other; so it is clear that he asked them whether they wanted him to release to them the King of the Jews, that is, the Christ. Nor does it make any difference in the meaning, that Mark does not mention Barabbas, for he wishes to speak only of what relates to the Lord. He makes it clear enough in their reply whom they wished to have released: But the chief priests stirred up the crowd, that he should release Barabbas instead. And Pilate answered and said again to them, "Then what do you want me to do with the King of the Jews?"⁽¹³⁴⁾ This makes it clear enough, that by saying, "King of the Jews," Mark meant to indicate the same thing as Matthew did by saying, "Christ." For kings were not called "anointed ones," except by the Jews. And in the same place Matthew says that "Pilate said to them, 'Then what shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?'"⁽¹³⁵⁾ Mark continues: And they cried out again, "Crucify him."⁽¹³⁶⁾ Matthew puts it this way: They all said, "Let him be crucified." Mark continues: Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" And they cried out more, "Crucify him."⁽¹³⁷⁾ Matthew reports this,⁽¹³⁸⁾ and goes on to say that "when Pilate saw that he was not helping anything, but rather a riot was beginning,"⁽¹³⁹⁾ and also that he washed his hands before the people, to show that he was innocent of this just man's blood. (Mark and the others fail to mention this.) Matthew also shows clearly enough how the governor dealt with the people in an attempt to have Jesus released. Mark indicates this briefly when he reports that Pilate said, "Why, what evil has he done?" And then he concludes his account of what happened between Pilate and the Lord: So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to them; and having scourged Jesus, handed him over to be crucified.⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ This is how Mark narrates what happened with the governor.

(34) Luke narrates what happened with Pilate this way: And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king."⁽¹⁴¹⁾ The other two evangelists do not report this, though they do say that these people accused him. Thus Luke is the one who reveals what were the false charges brought against him. But he omits what Pilate said to him, "Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you."⁽¹⁴²⁾ But Luke continues with other things that are mentioned by the others: And Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" And he answered and said, "You say so."⁽¹⁴³⁾ Matthew and Mark also record this, before they mention that Jesus was rebuked for not answering his accusers.⁽¹⁴⁴⁾ It makes no difference to the truth, what order Luke has given these things; nor does it make any difference, if one omits what another records. Consider what Luke next says: Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no crime in this man." But they grew more vehement, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout Judea, from Galilee even to here." When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked if the man were a Galilean. And when he learned that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had desired to see him for a long time, because he had heard much about him, and hoped to see some sign done by him. So he questioned him with many words, but he did not answer. The chief priests and scribes stood by, roundly accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers insulted him, mocked him, and, dressing him in rich clothes, sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate were made friends on that day, for previously they had been enemies to one another.⁽¹⁴⁵⁾ Only Luke records all these things, that Pilate sent the Lord to Herod, and what happened there. But some of the things he says here are similar to things that can be found in the other gospels, in other parts of their narratives. But the others at this point wished only to report what happened with Pilate up until the time when the Lord was handed over for crucifixion. Before resuming his account of what happened with the governor, Luke makes this digression to tell what happened with Herod. He then continues: Then Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man to me as one who was perverting the people. And behold, having examined him before you, I have found no cause in this man for the things of which you accuse him."⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ Here we may notice that Luke does not mention that Pilate asked the Lord how he would answer his accusers. Then Luke continues: "Neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him,⁽¹⁴⁷⁾ and behold, nothing worthy of death has been done by him. Therefore I will chastise him and release him." For he was obligated to release one man to them during at the festival. But the whole crowd cried out together, saying, "Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas," who had been put in prison for making an insurrection in the city and for murder. Pilate spoke to them again, wanting to release Jesus. But they shouted back, saying, "Crucify, crucify him!" A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I find no reason to put him to death, so I will chastise him and release him." But they insisted, demanding with loud voices that he be crucified, and their voices prevailed.⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ Matthew confirms that Pilate tried several times to change their mind, since he desired to release Jesus, though he says this in fewer words, that "when Pilate saw that he was not helping anything, but rather a riot was beginning."⁽¹⁴⁹⁾ Matthew would not have said this, unless he made several efforts, although he does not mention how many times he tried to save Jesus from their fury. And Luke concludes his account of what happened with the governor this way: So Pilate passed sentence to do as they asked. He released to them the man who had been put in prison for murder and insurrection, whom they had requested, but he handed Jesus over to their will.

(35) Now let us consider how Pilate's actions are presented by John: They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the passover. So Pilate went out to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" They answered and said to him, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you."⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ It must be seen whether this is inconsistent with Luke's version, which says that specific charges were brought against him, and says what those were: And they began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting our nation, and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king."⁽¹⁵¹⁾ But according to John's record, it seems that the Jews were unwilling to state any charges. For when Pilate asked them, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" their only reply was, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you." They said this as though Pilate was to follow their authority, stop his inquiry, and believe Jesus guilty just based on the fact that they thought it right to hand him over to Pilate. Therefore we ought to understand that all these things were said, both what was reported by John, and also what was reported by Luke. For there were many statements and answers made, and out of these the writers chose what seemed right for their narratives, putting into them what they thought sufficient. John himself says that there were charges, as we will see in their proper place. He continues: Then Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own law." Then the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." This was to fulfill what Jesus had said to show how he would die. Then Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus answered, "Do you say this yourself, or did others tell it to you about me?"⁽¹⁵²⁾ This would not seem to agree with what was said by the others, "Jesus answered, 'You say so,'" unless it can be shown in what follows that both were said. And John shows that what he now says is something that was omitted by the other evangelists, rather than something the Lord did not say. Note how he continues: Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the high priests have handed you over to me. What have you done?" Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not of this world." Then Pilate said to him, "Are you a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king."⁽¹⁵³⁾ Behold, here he rejoins the account given by the other evangelists. Then he continues, giving sayings of the Lord that are omitted by the others: "For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, "I find no fault in this man. But you have a custom, that I release one man to you at Passover. Do you wish me to release to you the King of the Jews?" Then they all cried out again, saying, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" Now Barabbas was a robber. Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, put it on his head, and put a purple robe on him. And they came to him and said, "Hail, King of the Jews," and struck him with their hands. Pilate went out again and said to them, "Behold, I am bringing him out to you, so that you might know that I find no fault in him." Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, "Behold the man." When the chief priests and the servants saw him, they cried out, saying, "Crucify! Crucify!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no fault in him." The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, for he made himself the Son of God."⁽¹⁵⁴⁾ This could go along with what Luke records was the Jews' accusation: "We found this man perverting our nation,"⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ for they could then have added, "for he made himself the Son of God." John continues thus: When Pilate heard them say this, he was more afraid. And he entered the praetorium again and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave no answer to him. So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have the power to crucify you, and the power to release you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me, unless it had been given to you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." From then on, Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; everyone who makes himself a king is speaking against Caesar."⁽¹⁵⁶⁾ This could go along with what Luke says was the Jews' accusation. For after they say, "We found him perverting our nation," he adds, "and forbidding us to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king."⁽¹⁵⁷⁾ This could also solve the problem of one supposing that the Jews made no specific charge against the Lord in John's version, only saying that, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you."⁽¹⁵⁸⁾ For John continues this way: When Pilate heard these things, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat in the place called The Pavement, or in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of the preparation of the passover, at about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold your king." But they cried out, "Take him and crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.⁽¹⁵⁹⁾ This is what John says concerning the things done by Pilate.

(36) Now we have come to the point where we may examine the Lord's Passion itself, according to the witness of the four evangelists. Matthew begins it this way: Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the praetorium, and gathered before him the whole troop. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him. And plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on his head, and put a reed in his right hand. And they knelt before him and mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews."⁽¹⁶⁰⁾ At the same point in the narrative, Mark puts it this way: And the soldiers led him to the hall of the praetorium, and they called together the whole troop. And they clothed him in purple, and having plaited a crown of thorns, they put it on him. And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews." And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and kneeling, they worshiped him.⁽¹⁶¹⁾ So it is clear that Matthew says that "they put a scarlet robe on him," while Mark says that "they clothed him in purple." Perhaps the mockers used a scarlet robe instead of a royal purple one. Or perhaps it was a reddish-purple very similar to scarlet. Or perhaps Mark mentioned the purple that was in the robe, even though it was scarlet. Luke says nothing of this. But before he says that Pilate handed him over to be crucified, John mentions this: Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns, put it on his head, and put a purple robe on him. And they came to him and said, "Hail, King of the Jews," and struck him with their hands.⁽¹⁶²⁾ So it is clear that Matthew and Mark have reported this as a recapitulation, and that it did not actually happen when Pilate handed him over to be crucified, for John says clearly enough that these things happened when he was with Pilate. So the others, having omitted it previously, include it here. Matthew's continuation confirms this: And they spat upon him, and took the reed and struck him on the head. And after that, they mocked him, and stripped him of the robe, and put his own clothes on him, and led him away to crucify him.⁽¹⁶³⁾ From this we are to understand that they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him at the end of the scene, when he was being led away. Mark puts it this way: And after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple, and put his own clothes on him.⁽¹⁶⁴⁾

(37) Matthew continues thus: As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon. They compelled this man to carry his cross."⁽¹⁶⁵⁾ And Mark puts it this way: And they led him out to crucify him. And they compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.⁽¹⁶⁶⁾ And Luke says this: And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid the cross on him to carry behind Jesus.⁽¹⁶⁷⁾ But John puts it this way: So they took Jesus, and led him out. And carrying his own cross, he went to the place called The Place of a Skull, or in Hebrew, Golgotha, where they crucified him.⁽¹⁶⁸⁾ From this it is to be understood that Jesus was carrying his cross himself when he was going to the place mentioned. But on the way, Simon, whom the other three mention, was taken, and the cross was given to him to carry the rest of the way. So we find that it happened both as John said it did, and also as the other three said it did.

(38) Matthew continues: And they came to a place called Golgotha, that is, The Place of a Skull.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾ (As to the place, they most obviously agree.) Then Matthew adds this: And they gave him wine to drink, mixed with gall; and when he tasted it, he would not drink it.⁽¹⁷⁰⁾ Mark puts it this way: And they gave him wine mixed with myrrh to drink; and he did not take it.⁽¹⁷¹⁾ This is to be understood as the same as Matthew's statement that it was "mixed with gall." For Matthew mentions "gall" because of its bitterness, and wine mixed with myrrh is most bitter. Or perhaps the wine was mixed with both gall and myrrh. And when Mark says that "he did not take it," it is to be understood that "he did not take it and drink it," though he did taste it, as Matthew testifies. So Matthew's statement that "he would not drink it," is the same as Mark's statement that "he did not take it," and Mark says nothing about his tasting it.

(39) Matthew continues: And after they crucified him, they divided his clothes among them by casting lots. And sitting down, they watched him.⁽¹⁷²⁾ Mark puts it this way: And crucifying him, they divided his clothes among them by casting lots for what each one would take.⁽¹⁷³⁾ And Luke: They cast lots to divide his clothes. And the people stood by, watching.⁽¹⁷⁴⁾ So this incident is given briefly by these three. But John describes what happened in more detail: When the soldiers had crucified him, they took his clothes and made four parts, one part for each soldier, and the same with his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven from the top throughout. So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to see whose it will be." This was to fulfill what was said in the scriptures, "They parted my clothes among them, and for my garment cast lots."⁽¹⁷⁵⁾

(40) Matthew continues: And over his head they put his charge in writing, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."⁽¹⁷⁶⁾ But before Mark says that, he notes that "it was the third hour, and they crucified him."⁽¹⁷⁷⁾ He adds this right after he has described the parting of the clothes. We must examine this most carefully, in order to avoid a great error. For some think that the Lord was crucified on the third hour, and then from the sixth to the ninth hour, there was darkness. Understood this way, there must have been three hours between when he was crucified and when darkness fell. This could be the right way to understand this, except for the fact that John says it was about the sixth hour when Pilate sat on the judgment seat in the place called The Pavement, or in Hebrew, Gabbatha. He then goes on to say the following: Now it was the day of the preparation of the passover, at about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold your king." But they cried out, "Take him, take him and crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.⁽¹⁷⁸⁾ If it was about the sixth hour when Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat and handed Jesus over to the Jews to be crucified, how could he have been crucified at the third hour? Some have thought this because they do not understand Mark's words.

(41) First let us consider at what hour he could have been crucified, and then we will see why Mark says he was crucified at the third hour. As stated above, it was about the sixth hour when Pilate was sitting on the judgment seat and handed him over to be crucified. It was not exactly the sixth hour, but about the sixth hour; that is, the fifth hour had passed, and the sixth had begun. But they could not say "five and a quarter," or, "five and a third," or, "five and a half," or anything of that kind. For the scriptures often speak of whole numbers rather than parts, especially when it comes to time. For example, they say that after eight days he went up on a mountain,⁽¹⁷⁹⁾ but Matthew and Mark say it was after six days, because they only count the days in between.⁽¹⁸⁰⁾ John's statement is most judicious: he does not say, "sixth," but, "about the sixth." But even if he had not said this, but had said that it was the sixth hour, we still could understand this as an example of that scriptural style which, as I have said, speaks of whole numbers and not parts. So sometime after the end of the fifth hour and the beginning of the sixth, those things happened which are narrated concerning our Lord's crucifixion. And he hung there until the end of the sixth hour, when darkness fell, as stated by the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

(42) Now we must inquire, why Mark, after reporting that as they were "crucifying him, they divided his clothes among them by casting lots for what each one would take," goes on to add that "it was the third hour, and they crucified him."⁽¹⁸¹⁾ He had already said that "crucifying him, they divided his clothes," and it is confirmed by the others that when he was crucified, they divided his clothes. But if Mark's purpose was to note the time, then he could have just said, "It was the third hour." So why would he add, "and they crucified him"? He must have wanted this repetition to indicate something that could be found by investigation, for this scripture was read at a time when the whole church knew at what hour the Lord was hanged upon a tree, and could either correct an error, or refute a falsehood. But since Mark knew that the Lord had been hanged by the soldiers, and not by the Jews (as John clearly indicates),⁽¹⁸²⁾ his hidden purpose here was to show that those who cried out for his crucifixion were the ones who really crucified him, more than those who only obeyed their leader according to their duty. So it is to be understood that it was the third hour when the Jews cried out that the Lord should be crucified, and this shows most truly that the crucified him at the time when they cried out. It is especially important to note this, because they were unwilling to do it themselves, and therefore handed him over to Pilate. This is shown clearly enough by John: "What accusation do you bring against this man?" They answered and said to him, "If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you." Then Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him according to your own law." Then the Jews said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death."⁽¹⁸³⁾ So Mark shows that they did at the third hour what they were most unwilling to appear to be doing: kill a man. He judged most truly that the Lord was murdered more by the Jews' tongue than by the soldiers' hand.⁽¹⁸⁴⁾

(43) But if someone says that it was not the third hour when the Jews cried out in this way, then he shows himself as a most insane enemy of the Gospel, unless he can perhaps solve this question another way. But he cannot demonstrate that it was not the third hour, so we should rather believe an honest evangelist, than some person's contentious suspicions. But someone might ask how one could prove that it was the third hour. To which I make this response: I believe the evangelists. If you do too, then show me how the Lord could have been crucified at both the sixth hour and the third. For we must admit, that John's narrative puts it at the sixth hour, while Mark reports it was at the third. So if we believe both of them, show me another way in which both could have happened, and I will gladly accept your explanation. For what I value is not my own idea, but the truth of the Gospel. Would that others would discover more solutions to this question! But until they do, please use mine. And if no other solution is found, this one alone will suffice. But if there can be another, then when it is demonstrated, we will choose between them. But don't ever suppose that any one of all four evangelists is false, or has fallen into error from such a holy and high authority.

(44) But perhaps someone will try to prove that it was not the third hour when the Jews cried out in this way, based on the following. Mark says the following: And Pilate answered and said again to them, "Then what do you want me to do with the King of the Jews?" And they cried out again, "Crucify him."⁽¹⁸⁵⁾ There are then no other events in Mark's narrative, but it continues immediately with Pilate handing the Lord over to be crucified, which John reports happened at about the sixth hour. But I say that it must be understood that Mark omitted many things that happened during the time when Pilate was seeking a way to save Jesus from the Jews, most urgently striving against their mad will by every means possible. For Matthew says this: Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus, who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let him be crucified."⁽¹⁸⁶⁾ We say that at that time it was the third hour. But when Matthew then says that "Pilate saw that he was not helping anything, but rather a riot was beginning,"⁽¹⁸⁷⁾ we understand two hours to have passed, during which time Pilate tried to save the Lord and the Jews made their tumults against his efforts. Therefore, by this time the sixth hour had begun; and during the sixth hour, those things occurred that are described as happening between Pilate's handing over of the Lord, and the coming of the darkness. Matthew had previously recorded the following: But while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, saying, "Have nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him."⁽¹⁸⁸⁾ Although Pilate really sat on the judgment seat later, Matthew recorded the episode with Pilate's wife earlier in his narrative, in order to show the great reason why Pilate wished, up to the very end, not to hand Jesus over to the Jews.

(45) Luke reports that Pilate said, "I will therefore chastise him and release him," and then that the whole crowd cried out, "Take this man away, and release to us Barabbas."⁽¹⁸⁹⁾ But perhaps they had not yet said, "Crucify him." Luke continues: Pilate spoke to them again, wishing to release Jesus. But they cried out, saying, "Crucify him!"⁽¹⁹⁰⁾ This is understood to have been at the third hour. Luke then continues: A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I find no reason to put him to death, so I will chastise him and release him." But they insisted, demanding with loud voices that he be crucified, and their voices prevailed.⁽¹⁹¹⁾ Luke here shows clearly enough that there was a great tumult. One can also understand clearly enough for our investigation into the truth, how much time passed, before he spoke to them a third time, "Why, what evil has he done?" And when he goes on to say that "they insisted with loud voices, and their voices prevailed," who cannot understand that they did this because they saw that Pilate was unwilling to hand the Lord over to them? And since he was so unwilling to do this, he did not give up in just a moment, but more than two hours passed as he hesitated.

(46) Examine John likewise, and one will see how great was Pilate's hesitation and refusal to perform such a shameful deed. For John records these events in greater detail, though even he does not tell us everything that happened in those two hours, and part of the sixth. For after Pilate scourged Jesus, and allowed the soldiers to put the robe on him as a mockery, and allowed him to be mistreated and insulted in many other ways (which, I believe, he did to mitigate their fury, so that they would not continue in their savage lust for his death), John continues: Pilate went out again and said to them, "Behold, I am bringing him out to you, so that you might know that I find no fault in him." Then Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them, "Behold the man."⁽¹⁹²⁾ He said this in the hope that by seeing this disgraceful display, they would be placated. But John continues: When the chief priests and the servants saw him, they cried out, saying, "Crucify! Crucify!"⁽¹⁹³⁾ We say that this was at the third hour. Note what follows: Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no fault in him." The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, for he made himself the Son of God." When Pilate heard them say this, he was more afraid. And he entered the praetorium again and said to Jesus, "Where are you from?" But Jesus gave no answer to him. So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have the power to crucify you, and the power to release you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me, unless it had been given to you from above; therefore the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin." From then on, Pilate sought to release him.⁽¹⁹⁴⁾ This last statement, that "Pilate sought to release him," is significant, for we may suppose that this attempt took some time, and the evangelist has omitted many things said by Pilate, as well as the objections made by the Jews, until the Jews finally moved him and made him give up. For John continues: But the Jews cried out, saying, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; everyone who makes himself a king is speaking against Caesar." When Pilate heard these things, he brought Jesus outside and sat on the judgment seat in the place called The Pavement, or in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of the preparation of the passover, at about the sixth hour.⁽¹⁹⁵⁾ So when the Jews first cried out, "Crucify him," it was the third hour. But two hours then passed, with Pilate hesitating and the Jews raising a tumult, before he sat on the judgment seat. The fifth hour was then passed and the sixth hour had begun. John continues: And he said to the Jews, "Behold your king." But they cried out, "Take him and crucify him!"⁽¹⁹⁶⁾ But still Pilate did not give in easily, for he was not troubled by fear of their slandering him. For now his wife sent word to him while he was sitting on the judgment seat; only Matthew reports this, but he puts it earlier in his narrative,⁽¹⁹⁷⁾ placing it where he thought it more appropriate. Then Pilate, attempting to stop the process from going forward, said to them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.⁽¹⁹⁸⁾ By the time that Jesus went there and was crucified with the two robbers, and the division of his clothes was decided by lot, as was the possession of his tunic, and he was insulted in various ways (for while these things were happening, insults were also hurled at him), the sixth hour was over, and the darkness came, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke report.

(47) Let us cast off such impious obstinacy, and believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified on the third hour by the Jews' mouths, and on the sixth hour by the soldiers' hands. For while the Jews rioted and Pilate dithered, two hours passed from when they had first said, "Crucify him." For even Mark, a master of brevity, wanted briefly to show Pilate's desire and effort in favor of the Lord's life. First he notes that "they cried out again, 'Crucify him!'"⁽¹⁹⁹⁾ showing thereby that they had cried out before, when they asked him to release Barabbas. Then Mark adds, "Then Pilate was saying to them, 'Why, what evil has he done?"⁽²⁰⁰⁾ In this way he condenses things that took place over a long period of time. However, keeping in mind that we are trying to understand what Mark intended, it is important that he did not say, "Pilate said to them," but, "Pilate was saying to them, 'Why, what evil has he done?'" For if Mark had reported that he "said," then we might have thought he said it only once. But by saying, "he was saying," this shows clearly enough to the intelligent that he said it several times in different ways up until the beginning of the sixth hour. Let us consider then, how brief is Mark's version in comparison to Matthew's, how brief is Matthew's in comparison to Luke's, and how brief is Luke's in comparison to John's, though each records something unique to himself. And even John's version is brief in comparison to how many things happened, and how long it took them to happen. Let us stop this madness, and believe that more than two hours could have elapsed.

(48) But if this is how it happened, then someone might object that Mark could have said it was the third hour when it was the third hour, when the Jews' voice called out for the Lord's crucifixion, or that he could have said that it was the Jews themselves who then crucified him. Such an objection comes from boundless pride, and seeks to impose laws on the narrators of truth. One might as well say that if one were himself to narrate these events, then however he narrated them, they would have to be narrated in the same way and in the same order by anyone else who narrated them. Let him instead reckon Mark the evangelist's understanding as superior to his own, and Mark decided to put this statement where divine inspiration directed him. For their recollections have been ruled by the hand of the one who rules the waters however it pleases him, as it is written.⁽²⁰¹⁾ For human memory drifts through a variety of thoughts, and no one can control what kind of thought comes into one's mind, nor when it does so. These holy and truthful men committed their accidental recollections regarding the order of their narratives to God's hidden power, to which nothing is accidental. Therefore no one who is far from God's vision and wandering far from him ought to say that something ought to be placed in a different place, for one is completely ignorant of why God wished to put it in the place where it is. The apostle says that, "If our Gospel is hidden, it is hidden to those who are perishing,"⁽²⁰²⁾ and, "We are a fragrance of life to life to some, but to others, a fragrance of death to death," adding immediately, "And who is sufficient for these things?"⁽²⁰³⁾ That is, "Who is sufficient to understand how this can be done justly?" For the Lord himself says, "For I come, so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind."⁽²⁰⁴⁾ For it is out of the depths of the riches of God's wisdom and knowledge that out of one lump, one vessel is made for honor, another for base use,⁽²⁰⁵⁾ and to flesh and blood it is said, "O man, who are you to answer back to God?"⁽²⁰⁶⁾ So in this matter, who knows the mind of God? Or who has been his adviser?⁽²⁰⁷⁾ But God has guided the recollections in the hearts of the evangelists, and raised them to such a height of authority, esteemed in the church. God has done this so that those things that might seem contradictory in them blind many, deservedly handing them over to the lusts of their hearts and to their base mind;⁽²⁰⁸⁾ but these same things train many to have a perfect, pious understanding, in accord with the hidden justice of the Omnipotent. For a prophet speaks to the Lord this way, "Your thoughts are very deep. An imprudent man will not know, and a foolish man will not understand these things."⁽²⁰⁹⁾

(49) But I ask and warn all who have read what we have explicated with the Lord's help to bear the following in mind, so that it need not be repeated. This discussion, which I judged it right to introduce at this point, applies in all similar, difficult questions. All who wish to rid themselves of the hardness of impiety, and to examine the question, can easily see that the place where Mark mentions the third hour is most opportune. At the very point where Mark is recording what the soldiers did as their duty, he reminds one that the Jews crucified the Lord at the third hour, even though they wished to transfer the blame for the crime on to the Romans, either the leaders or the soldiers. For he says that when they were "crucifying him, they divided his clothes among them by casting lots for what each one would take."⁽²¹⁰⁾ Who was doing this, except the soldiers, as John confirms?⁽²¹¹⁾ Therefore, so that no one would turn the idea of so great a crime away from the Jews and blame only the soldiers, Mark notes that "it was the third hour when they crucified him," so that the reader can find who really crucified him: a careful investigator would find that this was done by those who cried out for his crucifixion at the third hour, while noting that what the soldiers did happened at the sixth hour.

(50) Further, John records that "it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour of the day."⁽²¹²⁾ But there are those who understand the preparation to have happened at the third hour, when Pilate sat on the judgment seat. Thus, the end of the third hour would seem to be when he was crucified, then hanging on the tree for another three hours before he gave up his spirit. Under this theory, the darkness fell when he died, that is, the sixth hour, and lasted until the ninth. For they say that the preparation of the Jewish Passover happened on the day before the Sabbath, for the days of unleavened bread begin with that Sabbath. But the true Passover, which was brought about by the Lord's Passion, is not the Jewish Passover, but the Christian. This began to be prepared, that is, have its preparation, from the ninth hour of the night, when the Lord was being prepared to be killed by the Jews. For the term they use - parasceve - means preparation. So from the ninth hour of the night up to his crucifixion there passed what John calls the sixth hour of the preparation, and what Mark calls the third hour of the day. So Mark has not mentioned the hour when the Jews cried out, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" as a recapitulation, but gives the third hour as the time when the Lord really was nailed to the tree. Any faithful person would accept this solution to the question, if only we could find something that would fit with everything else, and would connect the ninth hour with the beginning of the preparation of our Passover, that is, the preparation of Christ's death. For if we say that it began when the Lord was arrested by the Jews, then this was only at the beginning of the night. Perhaps it was when he was led to the house of Caiaphas' father-in-law, where the chief priests also heard him; but at this time, we gather that the cock had not yet crowed, for Peter's denial occurred when it was heard. Perhaps it was when he was handed over to Pilate; but scripture clearly says that then it was morning. So the only remaining explanation is that the preparation of the Passover, that is, the preparation of the Lord's death, began when the chief priests, having first heard him, answered and said, "He deserves death,"⁽²¹³⁾ which is found in both Matthew and Mark. (Therefore we are to understand the report of Peter's denial as a recapitulation of something that happened earlier.) And it is not at all unlikely to suppose, as I said, that the time when they pronounced him guilty of death, was in fact the ninth hour of the night. Between that time and the time when Pilate sat on the judgment seat, the sixth hour passed; not the sixth hour of the day, but the sixth hour of the preparation of the sacrifice of the Lord, which is the true Passover. So the Lord was hanged on the tree at the end of that sixth hour of preparation, which was the end of the third hour of the day. So we may choose either to understand it this way, or to suppose that Mark mentioned the third hour because he wished especially to focus on the condemnation of the Jews for their part in the Lord's crucifixion. For they are understood to have cried out for his crucifixion so much, that we may consider that they themselves crucified him, rather than those who with their own hands hanged him from the tree. This is similar to how the centurion approached the Lord more than did his friends whom he sent.⁽²¹⁴⁾ But without doubt we now have a solution to the question of the time of the Lord's Passion, which can greatly stir up the shamelessness of the contentious, and disturb the ignorance of the weak.

(51) Matthew then continues: Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.⁽²¹⁵⁾ Mark and Luke give it similarly.⁽²¹⁶⁾ Nor is a difficulty raised by the fact that John says nothing about the robbers. For he says, "And to others with him, one on either side, and Jesus between them."⁽²¹⁷⁾ This would only have been a contradiction, if the others had called them "robbers," and John had called them "innocent."

(52) Matthew continues: And those who passed by reviled him, shaking their heads and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself. If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross."⁽²¹⁸⁾ Mark says the same, almost word for word. Matthew continues: The chief priests, along with the scribes and elders, did the same, mocking him and saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. If he is the King of Israel, let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God, let him deliver him now, if he so wishes. For he said, "I am the Son of God."⁽²¹⁹⁾ Mark and Luke agree with the sense of this, although they use different words , and the one omits what the other records.⁽²²⁰⁾ Neither is silent concerning the chief priests insulting the Lord as he was crucified. But Mark is silent concerning the elders, and Luke mentions the "chiefs," but does not specify "priests," thereby indicating by this general label all the leaders, which we can understand as including both scribes and elders.

(53) Matthew continues: And the robbers who were hanged with him also insulted him.⁽²²¹⁾ Mark does not differ from this, saying the same thing in different words.⁽²²²⁾ But Luke might be thought to be inconsistent with this, unless we keep in mind a certain style of speech that is common enough. For Luke says the following: One of the robbers who were hanged reviled him, saying, "If you are the Christ, save yourself and us."⁽²²³⁾ Luke then adds the following: But the other rebuked him, answering and saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward for our deeds; but this man has done no wrong." And he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise."⁽²²⁴⁾ So how can we explain that Matthew says that "the robbers who were hanged with him insulted him," and Mark says that "those who were crucified with him reviled him,"⁽²²⁵⁾ but Luke's testimony is that one of them reviled him, but the other one rebuked the first and believed in the Lord? We must understand that Matthew and Mark, touching on the subject briefly here, have used the plural for the singular. Similarly, we find the plural in the Letter to the Hebrews, "they stopped the mouths of lions,"⁽²²⁶⁾ when this can only be understood as referring to Daniel alone. It is also in the plural that "they were sawn in two,"⁽²²⁷⁾ when this death has been reported only of Isaiah. In the Psalms it says that "the kings set themselves, and the rulers came together,"⁽²²⁸⁾ this must be the plural for the singular. For when the passage is explained in the Acts of the Apostles, those who apply the testimony of the Psalm understand "kings" to refer to Herod, and "rulers" to Pilate.⁽²²⁹⁾ And since the pagans often slander the gospels, let them consider how it can that their own authors write of more than one Phedre, Medea, and Clytemnestra, when there was only one of each. And isn't it common to say, "the country people also insult me," even though only one did so? So there would be no inconsistency from Luke mentioning only one, unless the other evangelists had specified that both the robbers reviled the Lord, for then it would not be possible to understand the plural number as referring to just one of them. But since they say, "the robbers," or, "those who were crucified with him," and they do not add, "both," this could mean that both of them did it, or that just one of them did it, the plural number being used according to a common method of speech.

(54) Matthew continues thus: From the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.⁽²³⁰⁾ Two of the others confirm this, though Luke adds that the darkness was brought about because "the sun was darkened."⁽²³¹⁾ Matthew continues: And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of those who stood by, when they heard it, said, "This man is calling for Elijah."⁽²³²⁾ In wording, Mark is almost identical, and in meaning, he does not just almost agree, but completely agrees. Matthew continues: And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink. Mark says it similarly: One ran and filled a sponge with vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave it to him to drink, saying, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down."⁽²³³⁾ But Matthew reports that the words concerning Elijah were not said by the one who offered the sponge with vinegar, but by others: But others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him."⁽²³⁴⁾ Therefore, we understand that this was said by both the one man and the others. Luke mentions the vinegar before he reports the robbers' insults: The soldiers also mocked him, coming up to him and offering him vinegar, saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"⁽²³⁵⁾ Luke wished this to include both what the soldiers did and what they said. Therefore it ought not to present any difficulty, if he does not say that it was one of them who offered the vinegar. It is a way of speaking, which we have already discussed, of giving the plural number for the singular. John also mentions the vinegar: After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now fulfilled, so that the scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst." Now there was a vessel full of vinegar there, so they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it on hyssop and put it to his mouth."⁽²³⁶⁾ Although John reports that he said, "I thirst," and that there was a vessel full of vinegar there, which facts the others omit, there is nothing remarkable in this.

(55) Matthew continues: Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.⁽²³⁷⁾ Mark is similar: Jesus cried with a loud voice and died.⁽²³⁸⁾ Luke tells what he said in a loud voice: And crying with a loud voice, Jesus said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he died.⁽²³⁹⁾ John, who does not mention the first cry of "Eli, Eli," as reported by Matthew and Mark, also does not mention the cry of "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit," which only Luke includes, the other two referring to it as a "loud voice." Luke also reports that this was said "in a loud voice," so that we may understand that it is the same as the "loud voice" reported by Matthew and Mark. But John reports something that none of the other three do: He said, "It is finished."⁽²⁴⁰⁾ He said this after he took the vinegar, and we understand this to have been said before the loud cry already described. For these are John's words: When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished"; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."⁽²⁴¹⁾ So in the time between when he said, "It is finished," and the time when he, "bowed his head and handed over his spirit," then he uttered that cry in a loud voice that John omits, but the other three do record. So the order would appear to be as follows. First he said, "It is finished," when the things prophesied of him were fulfilled in him. Then he committed and handed over his spirit, like one had been expecting this and died when he wished it. But whatever order one deems the most likely for these sayings, one should take the greatest care not to suppose that one of the evangelists is inconsistent with another, whether one omits what another mentions, or one mentions what another omits.

(56) Matthew continues: And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.⁽²⁴²⁾ Mark is similar: And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom."⁽²⁴³⁾ Luke also says it similarly: And the curtain of the temple was torn in the middle.⁽²⁴⁴⁾ He does not give it in the same order, however. For wishing to add miracle upon miracle, he says that "the sun was darkened," and then he deems it right to add immediately, "and the curtain of the temple was torn in the middle." So he has placed this earlier in the narrative, for it really happened when the Lord died. He then goes on to summarize the things that took place at the drinking of the vinegar, the cry in a loud voice, and the death itself, all off which we understand to have happened before the tearing of the curtain, and after the onset of darkness. For Matthew says that "Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit," and then immediately adds, "And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn." He thereby shows clearly enough that the tearing was after Jesus yielded up the spirit. If he had not added, "And behold," but had just said that "the curtain of the temple was torn," then it would have been unclear, whether he and Mark had recorded this as a summary, and Luke had kept to the real order, or Luke had given a summary of what they had placed in the real order.

(57) Matthew continues: and the earth shook, and the rocks split, and tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had been asleep arose, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.⁽²⁴⁵⁾ Though Matthew alone narrates these things, there is no reason to fear that they may appear inconsistent with those of the others. Matthew continues: When the centurion and those who were with him watching Jesus saw the earthquake and those things that happened, they were greatly afraid, saying, "Truly this was a Son of God!"⁽²⁴⁶⁾ Mark puts it this way: And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he cried out and breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was a Son of God!"⁽²⁴⁷⁾ And Luke: Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, "Truly this was a righteous man!"⁽²⁴⁸⁾ There is no inconsistency here. Matthew says that the amazement of the centurion and those with him was at the sight of the earthquake; while Luke says the amazement was at his cry at the moment of death, showing that he had power over when he would die. But since Matthew not only says that they "saw the earthquake," but also, "the things that happened," he shows that it is accurate for Luke to say at this point that the centurion marveled at the Lord's death, for this was one of the miraculous things that happened then. Even if Matthew had not put it this way, one could have supposed that many miraculous things happened then, and the centurion and those with him marveled at all of them; therefore, the narrators were free to choose to record any one of these as the object of their amazement. Nor is there any inconsistency, if one says it was one event, and another says it was another at which they marveled, for all these things amazed them. And anyone who remembers the many similar cases already mentioned and discussed will not be bothered by the fact that one reports that the centurion said, "Truly this was a Son of God," and another that he said, "Truly this man was a Son of God." For both these sets of words carry the same meaning. There is no contradiction if one omits the word "man," while the other includes it. It might appear more discrepant, that Luke does not report that centurion said, "This was a Son of God," but, "This was a righteous man." Either we ought to understand that the centurion said both, and the one statement is given by two of the evangelists, and the other by the third; or else, that Luke wished to show what the centurion meant by saying that Jesus was a Son of God. Perhaps the centurion did not understand that he was the only begotten, equal to the Father, but he called him the Son of God because he believed him to be a righteous man, as many other righteous men are called Sons of God. When Luke says that "when the centurion saw what had happened," he includes in this way all those marvelous things that happened at that time, recording all the miraculous members and parts as if they were one marvelous event. And as for the fact that Matthew mentions those who were with the centurion, while the others do not, this is explained by the frequently noticed rule that there is no contradiction if one mentions what another omits. And while Matthew says that "they feared greatly," Luke does not say that he feared, but that "he praised God": but who could not understand that he praised God by his fear of him?

(58) Matthew continues: But there were many women there, far off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.⁽²⁴⁹⁾ Mark's version is this: There were also women watching from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him and ministered to him; and many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.⁽²⁵⁰⁾ I see nothing here that might be supposed to be inconsistent. For what difference can it make to the truth, that some women are named in both, and some in just one? Luke continues his narrative this way: And all the crowds who had assembled for that sight, when they saw what had happened, beat their breasts and returned home. And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood far off, seeing these things.⁽²⁵¹⁾ Clearly, he is consistent with the other two as to the presence of the women, though he gives none of their names. As for the crowds who were there and, seeing what had happened, beat their breasts and returned home, this is also consistent with Matthew, who specifies that it was "the centurion and those who were with him." Thus Luke is unique only in his mention of Jesus' acquaintances, who stood far off. For John also records the presence of the women before the Lord yielded up his spirit: But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her into his own house.⁽²⁵²⁾ Except for the fact that Matthew and Mark name Mary Magdalene as one who was near the cross,⁽²⁵³⁾ we might have been able to say that there were some women far away, and some right by the cross, for none of the others mentions the Lord's mother except John. But this is how we are to understand that Mary Magdalene was standing far off with the other women, as Matthew and Mark say, and also right by the cross, as John says: they were at such a distance that one could say they were near, since they were right there in his sight, but also that they were far off, in comparison to the crowds standing there with the centurion and the soldiers. So we ought to suppose that those women who were there with the Lord's mother, after he commended her to the disciple, began to move away to escape the press of the crowd, and they saw the rest of what happened from a distance. So the other evangelists, who mention these women after the Lord's death, report that they were then standing far off.

(59) Matthew continues: When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Then Pilate ordered for the body to be given to him.⁽²⁵⁴⁾ Mark's version is this: And when it was evening, since it was the day of preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who also looked for the kingdom of God, came and went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. And Pilate marveled, if he were already dead. And calling the centurion, he asked him if he were already dead. And when he heard the centurion's answer, he gave the body to Joseph.⁽²⁵⁵⁾ And Luke: And behold, there was a man named Joseph, a councilman, who was a good and just man (he had not consented to their purpose and actions). He was from Arimathea, a Jewish city, and he looked for the kingdom of God. He went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.⁽²⁵⁶⁾ But John tells of the breaking of the legs of those crucified with the Lord, and the piercing of the Lord's side (all of which he alone relates),⁽²⁵⁷⁾ and then goes on to mention Joseph, in terms that agree with the others: And after this, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate if he might take away the body, and Pilate allowed it. So he came and took Jesus' body.⁽²⁵⁸⁾ Here there is nothing in one of them that could seem inconsistent with another. But one might ask whether John is inconsistent with himself. For he says along with the others that Joseph asked for Jesus' body, but he alone says that he was secretly a disciple of the Lord because of his fear of the Jews. For it is a legitimate question, how someone who was a disciple in secret because of fear, could somehow find the courage to ask for his body, an act that none of his declared followers dared to do. We are to understand that he did this out of confidence in his respectability, which enabled him to approach Pilate with great familiarity. In the end, the duty of performing the burial made him care less for the Jews, even though previously he had been used to hearing the Lord while avoiding their hostility.

(60) Matthew continues: And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and he left.⁽²⁵⁹⁾ Mark's version is this: And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb, which had been hewn out of the rock. And he rolled a stone to the door of the tomb.⁽²⁶⁰⁾ And Luke: And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid it in a tomb hewn out of the rock, in which no one had ever before been laid.⁽²⁶¹⁾With these three, no question of disagreement can be raised. But John reports that Nicodemus as well as Joseph performed the Lord's burial. For in what follows he starts with Nicodemus: Nicodemus also came, who had at first come to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds.⁽²⁶²⁾ Then he returns to Joseph and says the following: They took Jesus' body and bound it in linen cloths with spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, where no one had ever been laid. Then because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.⁽²⁶³⁾ But really, one need not suppose any discrepancy here. For the evangelists who do not mention Nicodemus, do not say that the Lord was buried by Joseph alone, even though they make mention only of him. Also, although they say that he was wrapped in linen by Joseph, this would not keep us from supposing that Nicodemus brought other cloths and added them. This is why John's true statement is phrased this way: not that he was wrapped in a cloth, but in cloths. Further, since there was a handkerchief around the head, and other strips bound around all the rest of the body, and all of these were made of linen, then there really was one linen shroud, and yet, one could say with complete truthfulness that they "bound it in linen cloths." For one can say "linen cloths" of anything made of linen.

(61) Matthew continues: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the sepulcher.⁽²⁶⁴⁾ Marks puts it this way: Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.⁽²⁶⁵⁾ Clearly, there is no discrepancy between these accounts.

(62) Matthew continues: Now the next day after the day of preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together before Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember how that deceiver said, while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Therefore order that the sepulcher be made secure until the third day, so that his disciples cannot come and steal him, and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' so that the last fraud will be worse than the first." Pilate said to them, "You have a guard. Go, and make it as secure as you know how." So they went and secured the sepulcher, sealing the stone and setting guards.⁽²⁶⁶⁾ Matthew alone narrates this, but there is nothing in the others that would seem to contradict this.

(63) Matthew then continues with the following: Now in the evening of the Sabbath,⁽²⁶⁷⁾ at dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulcher. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes white as snow. For fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. And the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen, and behold, he is going before you into Galilee. There you will see him. Behold, I have told you."⁽²⁶⁸⁾ Mark agrees with this.⁽²⁶⁹⁾ But the following might seem to be a problem. According to Matthew, the rock was already rolled away from the tomb and the angel was sitting on it. But Mark says that the women went into the tomb and saw a young man sitting there on the right, covered in a white robe, and they were amazed. But perhaps we are to suppose that Matthew has not mentioned the angel that they saw when they entered the tomb, and Mark has not mentioned the one they saw outside sitting on the rock. So they saw two angels and heard what both of them said about Jesus. First they listened to the one that they saw outside sitting on the rock, then they heard the one they saw sitting on the right when they entered the tomb. The one sitting outside encouraged them to enter by saying, "Come and see the place where the Lord lay." When they came, as was said, and entered, they saw the angel that Matthew does not mention, and which Mark says was sitting on the right, from whom they heard things similar to what the first had told them. Or perhaps we ought to accept the explanation that when they entered the tomb area they came to a part that was walled in, which it is reasonable to suppose was contiguous with the rock wall in which the sepulcher was hewn. In this area they saw the angel sitting to the right, who Matthew says was sitting on the stone, which he had rolled away from the door during the earthquake, in the area of the sepulcher that was hewn in the rock.

(64) It can also be asked how Mark can say the following: And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and fear had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.⁽²⁷⁰⁾ But Matthew says this: And they quickly departed from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.⁽²⁷¹⁾ Perhaps we are to suppose that they said nothing to the angels themselves, that is, they could not respond to what they had heard from them; or perhaps they did not speak to the guards whom they saw lying there. For the joy mentioned by Matthew is not inconsistent with the fear described by Mark. So we ought to suppose that both these feelings were in their souls, even though Matthew does not at first mention the fear. But when he says, "And they quickly departed from the tomb with fear and great joy," no question can remain on this point.

(65) But a question does arise which is not to be disparaged, concerning the time at which the women came to the tomb. For Matthew says, "Now in the evening of the Sabbath, at dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulcher."⁽²⁷²⁾ But Mark says, "And very early in the morning of the first day of the week, they came to the tomb at the rising of the sun."⁽²⁷³⁾ Mark's statement is not inconsistent with the other two, Luke and John. For Luke says, "early dawn,"⁽²⁷⁴⁾ and John says, "morning, while it was still dark."⁽²⁷⁵⁾ These mean the same as Mark's "very early, at the rising of the sun." They all refer to the time when the sky was brightening in the east, which only happens when the sun is about to rise. This brightening is usually called "dawn." Nor is there any inconsistency between this and the one who says, "while it was still dark," for as the day breaks, the remaining darkness recedes as the light advances. For one need not take "early morning" to mean that the sun itself was already seen over the lands; rather, it is an expression we often use when we wish to show someone that something is to be done at a certain time. If we were to say just "morning," someone might suppose that we meant the sun was visible over the earth: to avoid this, we would add to it and say, "early morning," so that they would know we meant daybreak. Likewise, it is common that after several cock crows, when people begin to think that the day is beginning, they say, "It is morning." But if, after saying this, they notice that the sun is rising, that is, they see that the sun is coming near these parts and reddening or brightening the sky, then they add to their statement that "It is morning," and say, "It is early morning." Whichever explanation makes no difference, so long as we understand the following. When Mark says "morning," it means the same as what Luke calls "dawn"; further, that "early morning," means the same as "early dawn," and the same as John's statement that it was "morning, while it was still dark"; and finally, that "rising of the sun," just means that its rising was beginning to illuminate the sky. But how can Matthew be in agreement with these three, since he does not say "dawn," nor "morning," but "in the evening of the Sabbath, at dawn of the first day of the week"? This should be carefully investigated. When Matthew refers to the first part of the night, which he calls "evening," he wishes to indicate that night, at the end of which the women came to the tomb. It should be supposed that he calls attention to this night, because at that time in the evening, it was then lawful for them to bring the spices, because the Sabbath was then over. Therefore, since it was the Sabbath that stopped them from doing it, Matthew indicated the time of night at which it became lawful for them to do it, whatever time of night they actually chose to do so. So he says "evening of the Sabbath" to mean "the night of the Sabbath," that is, the night that followed the day of the Sabbath. His words indicate this clearly enough. For he says, "Now in the evening of the Sabbath, at dawn of the first day of the week": therefore we cannot understand "evening" to mean the first part of the night, that is, only the beginning of the night. For "the dawn of the first day of the week" does not come at the beginning of the night, but during the night itself, which the light is beginning to bring to an end. For the end of the first part of the night is the beginning of the second part; but light is the end of the whole night. So one could not say that during the evening it was dawning on the first day of the week, unless one is to understand the word "evening" to mean the night itself, which ends with the light. It is a common way of speaking in divine scripture to use the part to refer to the whole. Therefore, "evening" means the whole night, which ends at dawn. Those women came to the tomb at dawn; this is the same as saying they came at night, which is referred to here as "evening." The whole night is designated by that word, as I said. Therefore, whatever time of night they came, they came during that night. Therefore, if they came at the very end of that night, they still unquestionably on that night. And it could not have been "in the evening, at dawn of the first day of the week," unless one understands this to refer to the whole night. Therefore, those who came in the night, came in the evening; and they came in the night, even if they came at the very end of that night.

(66) The three days between the Lord's death and his resurrection cannot be rightly understood, except by that way of speaking that takes the part for the whole. He himself said, "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."⁽²⁷⁶⁾ However we calculate the time, whether from the time he yielded up his spirit, or from the time of his burial, it will not come out right, unless we count each of the following as a whole day: the Sabbath (with its night), the day of preparation, and the first day of the week (which we call the Lord's day). It is of no use to us that there are some who are troubled by these difficulties, and are ignorant of what a large role this way of speaking of the part as the whole has in solving questions in the holy scriptures. These people wish to count as a night those three hours from the sixth to the ninth when the sun was hidden; and to count as a day those other three hours, when the sun reappeared to the lands, that is, from the ninth hour until sunset. There then follows the night of the Sabbath, and counting it with its day, there would then be two nights and two days.⁽²⁷⁷⁾ There then comes the night after the Sabbath, the night of the first day of the week, which ends with the dawning of the Lord's day: it was at this time that the Lord rose. By this calculation there were two nights, two days, and one more night (we would have to take this last one as a complete night, and not show that this dawn was the very end of it). Therefore, not even by taking these six hours - three of darkness and three of light - and counting them this way, could one come up with the three days and three nights. Therefore, we must calculate the time based on that way of speaking of the part as the whole that is so common in the scriptures. So we must take the day of the preparation, on which the Lord was crucified and buried, as a complete day and night, even though its night was already over. Likewise, we must take the Sabbath as a complete whole and not just a part. Finally, the third day must be counted from its first part; that is, its night must count as the whole day, including its daylight portion. Thus there were three days, in the same way as there were eight days after which the Lord went up on to a mountain. In that case, Matthew and Mark only count the intervening complete days, and therefore say, "After six days," but Luke says, "After eight days."⁽²⁷⁸⁾

(67) Now let us examine the others, to see whether they agree with Matthew. For Luke says most clearly that the women who came to the tomb saw two angels. We have understood these two angels to have been reported separately by the first two evangelists. Matthew speaks of the one who was outside the tomb sitting on the rock, while Mark speaks of the one who was inside the tomb sitting on the right. But Luke puts it this way: It was the day of preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, carrying the spices they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb; and when they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. And it happened that, as their minds were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in shining apparel. And as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the ground, they said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he spoke to you, while he was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise.' And they remembered his words. And returning from the tomb, they announced all this to the eleven, and to all the rest.⁽²⁷⁹⁾ Although they speak to the women similarly, how can these two have been seen separately, one sitting outside on the rock, according to Matthew, and the other sitting inside on the right, according to Mark, if Luke says they both stood beside the women? Perhaps we can understand that both Matthew and Mark describe the women as seeing one angel, as we discussed above. We may take it that when the women came into the area of the tomb, they entered an area with a wall around it, thereby entering the space in front of the stone sepulcher. And it was there that they saw the angel sitting on the rock that had been rolled away from the tomb, as Matthew reports, which meant he was sitting on the right, as Mark says. Then going inside, the women looked at the place where the body of the Lord had lain, and they saw two other angels standing there, as reported by Luke. These angels said similar things to them, encouraging their souls and lifting up their faith.

(68) But let us also examine what John says, to see whether and in what way it agrees with these. John's story continues this way: Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb in the morning, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone was taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have put him." So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. And stooping down, he saw the linen cloths, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying, and the handkerchief that had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also entered, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back again to their homes. But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb; and as she wept, she stooped and looked in the tomb, and saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, "Woman, why do you weep?" She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have put him." When she said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek?" Thinking that he was the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him, "Rabboni," which means "teacher." Jesus said to her, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers and say to them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, "I have seen the Lord, and this is what he said to me."⁽²⁸⁰⁾ John's narrative agrees with the others as to the day and time when they came to the tomb. As to the two angels who were seen, he agrees with Luke. But regarding whether the angels were standing or sitting, and other matters which the authors do not mention, it remains for us to show how there are no discrepancies among them, and the order in which these things happened. Unless we consider this carefully, there may appear to be inconsistencies among them.

(69) Therefore, with the Lord's help, let us take all these events around the time of the Lord's resurrection, as they are described in the testimonies of all the evangelists, and arrange them into one narrative, as they could have occurred. At dawn of the first day of the week, as all the evangelists agree, they came to the tomb. By then, the things recorded by Matthew alone had occurred: the earthquake, the rolling away of the stone, and the guards' fear, that in some way made them lie like dead men. Then, as John reports, Mary Magdalene came, whose love was unquestionably more fervent than that of the other women who had ministered to the Lord; therefore, it is not unwarranted of John to mention her alone, and omit the others who came with her, and who are mentioned by the other evangelists. So she came and saw the stone taken away from the tomb; she did not make any more careful investigation, for she had no doubt that Jesus' body was gone, so she ran, as John reports, and told this to Peter and to John himself, who is the disciple whom Jesus loved. And they began to run to the tomb; John arrived first, and he bent down and saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not enter. Peter followed next, and he did enter the tomb, and saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief that had been on his head, not lying with the other cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself. Then John entered, and saw the same things, and he believed what Mary had told him, that the Lord had been taken from the tomb. But he did not yet know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went away again to their homes. But Mary stood outside the tomb weeping.⁽²⁸¹⁾ She was outside the place where the sepulcher was hewn, but inside the area that they had entered. There was a garden there, as John reports.⁽²⁸²⁾ Then they saw the angel sitting on the rock on the right side, as described by both Matthew and Mark. Then he said to them, "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen. And behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him. Behold, I have told you."⁽²⁸³⁾ Mark describes this similarly.⁽²⁸⁴⁾ At these words, Mary, still weeping, bent down and looked into the tomb, "and saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, 'Woman, why do you weep?' She said to them, 'Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have put him.'"⁽²⁸⁵⁾ We must suppose that the angels got up at this point, so that they were seen standing, as Luke reports. Luke also reports that they said to the frightened women as they bowed their faces to the ground, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he spoke to you, while he was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise.' And they remembered his words.⁽²⁸⁶⁾ After this, John tells us that Mary "turned around and saw Jesus standing, but did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, 'Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek?' Thinking that he was the gardener, she said to him, 'Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him away.' Jesus said to her, 'Mary.' She turned and said to him, 'Rabboni,' which means 'teacher.' Jesus said to her, 'Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers and say to them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"⁽²⁸⁷⁾ Then she left the tomb, that is, the area where there was a garden in front of the hewn rock. With her were the other women, who Mark tells us were seized with fear and trembling; these were the ones who said nothing to anyone.⁽²⁸⁸⁾ At this point we return to Matthew's account: Behold, Jesus met them and said, "Hail!" They came up to him and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.⁽²⁸⁹⁾ From this we gather that the angels spoke to them twice when they came to the tomb. The Lord spoke twice as well, once when Mary thought he was the gardener, and once now when he met them on the way, repeating himself in order to strengthen them and lift them out of their fear: Then he said to them, "Do not be afraid, but go, tell my brothers to go into Galilee, and there they will see me."⁽²⁹⁰⁾ Then Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had said these things to her,⁽²⁹¹⁾ and not just to her, but also to others, as Luke reports. Luke says that they announced these things to the eleven disciples and to all the others,⁽²⁹²⁾ "but these words seemed crazy to them, and they did not believe them."⁽²⁹³⁾ This is confirmed by Mark. For after reporting that they left the tomb with fear and trembling and said nothing to anyone, he adds that the Lord "rose early on the first day of the week and appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. And she went and told those who had been with him as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe it.⁽²⁹⁴⁾ Matthew also has added that, as the women who had seen and heard all these things were going away, some of the guards, who had been lying like dead men, came to the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened, or at least everything that they themselves had been able to witness. They then gathered with the elders and took counsel, and they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers to say that his disciples had come and stolen him while they were asleep; they also promised to protect them from the governor, who had supplied those guards. And they took the money and did as they were taught, and this story is widespread among the Jews until this day.⁽²⁹⁵⁾

(70) Now we must consider how the Lord appeared to the disciples after his resurrection. On this subject, not only will the agreement among the four evangelists shine forth, but also they will be shown as consistent with the apostle Paul. He writes of this in his First Letter to the Corinthians: For I delivered to you first what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain to today, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born out of time, he appeared to me.⁽²⁹⁶⁾ None of the evangelists give this order. So we must consider whether their order is not in opposition to this. Paul has not included everything, and neither have they. So what must be examined is whether, among all the things they do report, they show any inconsistency among themselves. Luke is the only one of the four evangelists who does not mention that the women saw the Lord, but only the angels. Matthew says that he met them as they returned from the tomb. Mark says that he was first seen by Mary Magdalene; John says this too. Mark does not say how he appeared, though this is explained by John. But Luke not only fails to mention that he appeared to the women, as I said, he also tells of the two men, one of whom was Cleophas, who spoke with him before they recognized him. He thereby makes it seem that the women had only told of the appearance to them of the angels, who had said he was alive. This is Luke's version: Behold, that day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, which was sixty stadia from Jerusalem, and they talked to one another about all these things that had happened. And it happened that, as they spoke and discussed together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. And he said to them, "What are these things you are saying to one another as you walk along and are sad?" Then the one named Cleophas answered and said to him, "Are you the only visitor in Jerusalem who does not know what has happened there in these days?" He said to them, "What things?" And they said, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one who would redeem Israel. And now, besides all this, it is the third day since this happened. And some women among us amazed us. Before it was light they went to the tomb, and did not find his body. They came back, saying that they had seen a vision of angels, who had said that he was alive. And some among us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see."⁽²⁹⁷⁾ According to Luke, this is what they said. They spoke as they were able to recall what the women had said, or what the disciples had said after they had run to the tomb upon hearing that his body was gone from there. Also, Luke himself says that only Peter ran to the tomb, and bending down he saw the linen cloths lying by themselves, and he went home, wondering at what had happened.⁽²⁹⁸⁾ Luke puts this story of Peter before that of the two whom he found on the way, and after that of the women who had seen the angels and heard from them that Jesus had risen, as though it was at this point that Peter ran to the tomb. But rather, it should be supposed that Luke puts it here as a recapitulation. For Peter and John ran to the tomb at the same time, and when they ran there, they only knew what the women, especially Mary Magdalene, had told them: that the body was gone. Mary announced this when she saw the stone rolled away from the tomb. It was later that they saw the angels and then the Lord himself, who appeared to the women twice, once at the tomb and again when he met them as they were returning from the tomb. And this happened before he was seen on the way by the two, one of whom was Cleophas. When Cleophas was speaking with the Lord, before he recognized him, he did not say that Peter had gone to the tomb, but that "some among us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said." This also is to be understood as a recapitulation, since it refers to when the women came and told Peter and John that the Lord's body was gone. So when Luke says that Peter ran to the tomb, and that Cleophas said that some of them went to the tomb, this is to be understood as confirming John's account, which said that two ran to the tomb. Luke mentioned only Peter at first, because Mary told him first. But there may be a problem in the fact that Luke does not say that Peter entered, but only that he bent down and saw the linen cloths by themselves, and then left, wondering. But John says that it was he himself, since he is the disciple whom Jesus loved, who saw this: for he did not enter the tomb, but, arriving there first, bent down and saw the linen cloths laid there, though he himself does say that later he entered. So we must suppose that Peter first bent down and saw, as Luke reports, but which John does not mention. Then he entered before John did, so that all these have given true statements of what happened without any inconsistency.

(71) So we must bring together the Lord's appearances to the male disciples, leaving out his speeches to the women, and show the order in which they might have happened; we must do this not only with the testimony of the four evangelists, but also with that of Paul. Of all the men, we may suppose that he appeared to Peter first. At least, this would seem to be the case from the records of all four evangelists and Paul. But who would be bold enough either to affirm or deny that he might have appeared to someone before Peter, someone who has not been mentioned by any of the witnesses? For Paul does not say that "he appeared first to Cephas," but that "he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time."⁽²⁹⁹⁾ Thus it is not clear who these twelve were, or who these five hundred were. It is possible that these were twelve unknown people out of the crowd of disciples. If Paul meant those men whom he named apostles, then he would have said eleven and not twelve, as indeed some versions have. But I think that this is an emendation inserted by some who were bothered by this text, for they supposed that this referred to the twelve apostles, who were only eleven after the demise of Judas. So it may be that those versions that read "eleven" are more correct, or it may be that the apostle Paul wished to indicate some other twelve persons, or it may be that he retained that sacred number even after they were only eleven. The fact that there were twelve apostles had such a mystical importance that they had to elect just one person, Matthias, to take Judas' place,⁽³⁰⁰⁾ in order to preserve this sacred number. But whichever of these is the case, there is nothing that appears inconsistent with the truth, or inconsistent among these most truthful writers. It would then seem probable that after appearing to Peter, he then appeared to those two, of whom one was Cleophas, and about whom Luke gives a complete narrative, and Mark only a brief note: After this, he appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went to a village.⁽³⁰¹⁾ For it is not ridiculous to suppose that a "settlement" could also be called a "village." Indeed, Bethlehem itself is now called a village, even though formerly it was called a city, and despite the fact that its honor has grown as the name of the Lord born there has been spread throughout the churches of all nations. In the Greek, we find "farm," rather than "village." But "farm" not only refers to settlements, but also to towns and colonies beyond the city, which is the head and mother of the rest, and which is called a metropolis.

(72) As for the fact that Mark says that the Lord appeared to them in another form, Luke expresses the same thing when he says that their eyes were kept from recognizing him. For something happened to their eyes, and they were allowed to remain this way until the breaking of the bread, a familiar mystery. So he really did appear to them in a different form, and they did not recognize him until the breaking of the bread, as Luke's version shows. So just as their minds could not comprehend that Christ had to die and rise again, something similar happened to their eyes. It was not that the truth misled them, but that they themselves were incapable of perceiving the truth, and therefore thought of it as something else. So one cannot think that one knows Christ, unless one is part of his body, the church, the unity of which the apostle indicates in the sacrament of the bread: Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body.⁽³⁰²⁾ When he handed them the bread he had blessed, their eyes were opened and they recognized him; they were opened to knowledge of him by the removal of that obstacle that had kept them from recognizing him. For clearly they were not walking with their eyes closed. But there was something in them that kept them from recognizing what they saw, which often happens because of dullness or a certain kind of humor. It is not that the Lord could not transform his flesh, so that his form really would be different from the one they were used to seeing. Indeed, even before his Passion he was transfigured on the mountain, so that "his face shone like the sun."⁽³⁰³⁾ Indeed, he could change any body into any other kind of body that he wished to, just as he changed real water into real wine. It is just that he did not do so when he appeared in a different form to those two people. To them he did not appear to be what he was, because their eyes were kept from recognizing him. Further, it would not be inappropriate to suppose that this obstacle to their sight came from Satan, so that they would not recognize Jesus. Nonetheless, Christ allowed this to be so, until the sacrament of the bread, showing that participation in the unity of his body removes the enemy's obstacle, so that Christ may be known.

(73) We should believe that these are the same persons that Mark describes. For he says that they went and told the others, just as Luke says that "they got up that same hour and returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, 'The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon,'"⁽³⁰⁴⁾ and then goes on to have them tell "what had happened on the way, and how he was known to them in the breaking of bread."⁽³⁰⁵⁾ Therefore, by that time Jesus' resurrection had been made known by those women and by Simon Peter, to whom he had already appeared. So when these two people came to those in Jerusalem, they found them talking about this. It may have been fear that kept them from mentioning on the way that they had heard of his resurrection, instead only mentioning how the angels had been seen by the women. Since they did not know to whom they were speaking, it would have been reasonable for them to be worried about mentioning Christ's resurrection, for fear of falling into the hands of the Jews. But Mark says that "they told the others, but they did not believe them,"⁽³⁰⁶⁾ while Luke says that they were already talking about the Lord's resurrection and his appearance to Simon. Should we not therefore suppose that there were some there who refused to believe them? And to whom can it not be clear that Mark has omitted some things that Luke has explained more fully in his narrative, such as the conversation they had with Jesus before they recognized him, and how they recognized him in the breaking of bread? For after he says that Jesus appeared to them in a different form as they were going into a village, he continues thus: And they went and told the rest, but they did not believe them. But how could they speak of someone they did not recognize, or how could they recognize someone who appeared to them in a different form? Certainly, Mark has simply failed to mention how they came to recognize him so that they could tell the others. We ought to keep this in mind, so that we may become accustomed to noticing the evangelists' habit of omitting the things that they do not record, and connecting the things that they do record; there is no greater source of error than not considering this habit, leading some to suppose there are inconsistencies among the evangelists.

(74) Luke continues thus: As they were saying this, Jesus stood among them and said to them, "Peace to you. It is I; do not be afraid."⁽³⁰⁷⁾ But they were startled and frightened, and thought that they saw a spirit. And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and feet, that it is I. Handle me, and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.⁽³⁰⁸⁾ We are to suppose that John is referring to the same manifestation of the Lord when he says the following: Then, when it was late on the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace to you." And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and side.⁽³⁰⁹⁾ And with these words from John we may connect some things that Luke mentions, but which John omits. For Luke continues thus: And while they did not believe for joy, and wondered, he said, "Do you have anything here to eat?" And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb.⁽³¹⁰⁾ And when he had eaten before them, he took what was left and gave it to them.⁽³¹¹⁾ One should connect these words to some that are omitted by Luke, but given by John: Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. He said to them again, "Peace to you. As the father has sent me, so also I send you." When he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, then they are forgiven, and if you retain the sins of any, then they are retained."⁽³¹²⁾ Again, one should add to this something that John has omitted, but which Luke records: And he said to them, "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ must suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name in all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And I send the promise of my father upon you; but stay here until you are clothed with power from on high.⁽³¹³⁾ Observe how Luke has recorded the promise of the Holy Spirit, which we do not find the Lord making elsewhere, except in John's gospel.⁽³¹⁴⁾ This merits more than just a passing notice, so that we may bear in mind how the evangelists confirm one another, even regarding things that they do not themselves record, but which they nonetheless know to have been recorded. After this, Luke omits everything else that happened, recording nothing other than Jesus' ascent into heaven.⁽³¹⁵⁾ And he connects this in such a way, that it seems as though it happened immediately after Jesus said these words, together with the other things that happened on the first day of the week, that is, the day on which the Lord rose; but Luke himself says in the Acts of the Apostles that this took place on the fortieth day after his resurrection.⁽³¹⁶⁾ Finally, John says that the apostle Thomas was not with them at this time, while Luke says that the two persons, one of whom was Cleophas, returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them. There is no doubt that we should suppose that Thomas left there before the Lord appeared to them while they were discussing these things.

(75) John then reports another manifestation of the Lord to the disciples eight days later. Thomas was present this time, though he had not seen him the first time. John continues: And eight days later, his disciples were again inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came in, although the doors were shut, and stood among them and said, "Peace to you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and look at my hands, and put out your hand, and put it in my side. And do not disbelieve, but have faith." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."⁽³¹⁷⁾ This second appearance of the Lord to the disciples (that is, the one that John records as second,) might have seemed to be the same as the one Mark refers to in his usual brief style. But there is a problem, for Mark says that "Lastly,⁽³¹⁸⁾ he appeared to the eleven as they sat at table."⁽³¹⁹⁾ The problem is not that John does not mention their sitting at table, for he might have omitted that. Rather, the problem is that Mark says "Lastly," as though after that he did not appear to them, whereas John reports a third manifestation by the sea of Tiberias. Further, Mark says that "he reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen."⁽³²⁰⁾ This refers to the two who were going towards a village and saw him after he had risen; and to Peter, who first saw him, as our investigation of Luke showed; and possibly to Mary Magdalene and the other women who went with her, when he appeared to them at the tomb, and again when he met them on their way back. For Mark has constructed his narrative so that there is first a brief report of the two who saw him as they went towards a village, then they tell this to the others, who do not believe them, and then, "Lastly, he appeared to the eleven as they sat at table, and he reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen."⁽³²¹⁾ How are we to take "lastly," as if they did not see him after this? For the last time that the apostles saw the Lord on the earth was when he ascended into heaven, which happened forty days after his resurrection. But why would he then reproach them for not believing those who had seen him after he had risen, when by then they themselves had often seen him after his resurrection? Indeed, they themselves had seen him on the very day of his resurrection, that is, on the first day of the week, around nighttime, as Luke and John report it. Therefore we must suppose that all these things happened on the day of his resurrection, that is, the first day of the week. On that day, Mary and the other women with her saw him at dawn. Peter also saw him then. Also, those two, one of whom was Cleophas, saw him, as Mark himself also seems to record. Then around nighttime, he appeared to the eleven (except Thomas), and those who were with them, and it was to this group that those people had told what they had seen. Mark wishes to record all this in his usual brief style. So when he says "lastly," it is because this was the last thing to happen on that day. Night was beginning to fall as the two returned from the settlement, where they had recognized him in the breaking of bread, to Jerusalem, where Luke says they found the eleven and those who were with them, discussing the Lord's resurrection and his appearance to Peter. These two told them what had happened on the way, and how they had recognized him in the breaking of bread. But there must have been some there who did not believe, which shows the truth of Mark's statement that "they did not believe them."⁽³²²⁾ They were then sitting at table, as Mark says, and discussing these things, as Luke says, when the Lord stood among them and said to them, "Peace to you," as Luke and John report. Also, the doors were closed when he entered, as John alone records. And among those things that the Lord said to the disciples, as Luke and John report, there was also this reproach, as Mark says, for their disbelieving those who had seen him after he had risen.

(76) But perhaps the following is a problem. Mark says that he appeared to the eleven as the sat at table, but Luke and John report that it was the beginning of the night of the Lord's day. John clearly says that the apostle Thomas was not with them then; we believe that he went out before the Lord entered, but after those two returned from the settlement and were speaking with the eleven, as we find in Luke. Indeed, in Luke's narrative there is a point at which one may suppose that, as they were speaking, Thomas left, and then the Lord entered. But since Mark says that, "Lastly, he appeared to the eleven as they sat at table,"⁽³²³⁾ this forces us to admit that Thomas was still with them. But perhaps, despite the absence of one, he still chose to call them the eleven, because the company of apostles was called by this number before Matthias was elected to take Judas' place. Or if there is a difficulty in accepting this, we may suppose that after he had made so many manifestations of his presence to the disciples during the forty days, he also appeared to the eleven one last time as they sat at table, on the fortieth day itself. And at that time, as he was about to ascend into heaven, he wished on that day especially to reproach them for not believing those who had seen him after he had risen, until they themselves had seen him. He did this because, after his ascension, they would be preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, who would have to believe what they did not see. Right after this reproach, Mark continues thus: And he said to them "Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.⁽³²⁴⁾ So if they were to preach that one who does not believe will be condemned, and what one does not believe is that which one cannot see, should he not have reproached them? For before they themselves saw the Lord, they did not believe those to whom he had appeared.

(77) There is a further reason for us to believe that this was the last time that the Lord manifested himself bodily on earth to the apostles. For Mark continues thus: "And these signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes, and if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."⁽³²⁵⁾ Then he adds this: And then the Lord, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God. Then they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the message with the signs that followed it.⁽³²⁶⁾ When he says that "then the Lord, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven," this would seem to show clearly enough that this was the last time he spoke to them on earth, though it does not seem to exclude any other meaning. For he does not say, "after he had said these things to them," but rather, "after he had spoken to them." So if necessary, it would be possible to suppose that this was not the last time he spoke to them, nor that it was the last day that he was present with them on earth. Perhaps all the things he spoke to them on all those days, are implied in the one sentence, "after he had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven." But our previous discussion has persuaded us rather that this was the last day. So we need not suppose that this happened previously, when they were only ten, because of Thomas' absence. Therefore, after this speech that Mark records, and after those said by the disciples and by the Lord and recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, we believe that the Lord was taken up into heaven, on the fortieth day after the day of his resurrection.

(78) But John, although he admits that he has omitted many of the things that Jesus did,⁽³²⁷⁾ nonetheless wished to record a third manifestation to the disciples after his resurrection; this happened at the sea of Tiberias to seven disciples - Peter, Thomas, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee, and two others who are not named.⁽³²⁸⁾ While they were fishing, and at his command they cast the net on the right side and drew out many fish, one hundred and fifty three. At this time he also asked Peter three times, whether he loved him, and told him to feed his sheep. He also predicted what Peter would suffer, and he said of John, "Thus I wish that he remain until I come."⁽³²⁹⁾ With this John ends his gospel.

(79) Now we must inquire what was his first appearance to the disciples in Galilee, because this one that John places third happened in Galilee by the sea of Tiberias. One easily sees this, if one recalls the miracle of the five loaves, which John began by saying, "After this Jesus went across the sea of Galilee (or Tiberias)."⁽³³⁰⁾ And where else but Galilee could one suppose that he ought to have appeared first to his disciples after his resurrection? One should recall the angel's words, given by Matthew, spoken to the women as they came to the tomb: "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen. And behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him. Behold, I have told you."⁽³³¹⁾ Mark's version is similar, whether it is the same angel or a different one: "Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen, he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you."⁽³³²⁾ These words seem to indicate that Jesus was not going to show himself to his disciples after his resurrection except in Galilee. But Mark himself does not report this appearance, even though he says that he appeared first to Mary Magdalene early in the morning of the first day of the week. She then told the disciples who had been with him, as they mourned and wept, but they did not believe her. After this, he appeared to two people as they were going to a village, and they told what had happened to the others: Luke and John both confirm that this happened in Jerusalem on the very day of his resurrection, at the beginning of the night. Then Mark comes to that manifestation that he calls the last, made to the eleven as they sat at table; after this he says he was taken up into heaven, which we know happened on the Mount of Olives, not far from Jerusalem. So Mark never records the completion of what he testifies was predicted by the angel. Matthew mentions no earlier or later appearance, and says that the disciples saw the Lord in no place other than Galilee, as the angel had predicted. Matthew first describes how the angel spoke to the women; then he says that as they were going, the guards were bribed to lie; and then he goes on to describe the appearance in Galilee, as though it followed immediately on the preceding. Indeed, when the angel said that "he has risen. And behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him," it made it seem as though it would follow immediately. Matthew continues: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All power on heaven and earth has been given to me. Go therefore and teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."⁽³³³⁾ Thus Matthew closes his gospel.

(80) From all this, we might have decided that the Lord's first appearance to the disciples after his resurrection could have been nowhere other than in Galilee. But we are forced by the consideration of the narratives of the others to investigate this more carefully. Also, if Mark had failed to mention the angel's prediction, one might have supposed that Matthew told of the disciples going to the mountain in Galilee and worshiping the Lord, in order to make it seem that the angel's command and prediction, which Matthew had narrated, had indeed been fulfilled. But Luke and John make it sufficiently clear that on the very day of his resurrection, the Lord was seen in Jerusalem by his disciples; this is so far from Galilee, that it would have been impossible for him to be seen on the same day by the same people in both places. And Mark, who gives a similar prediction by the angel, does not report an appearance in Galilee by the Lord to the disciples after his resurrection. These facts strongly urge us to investigate what is meant by, "Behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him."⁽³³⁴⁾ If Matthew had also failed to mention that the eleven disciples went away to the mountain in Galilee that Jesus had directed them to, and there they saw and worshiped him, we might have supposed that this prediction was not literally fulfilled, but was a prediction with a completely figurative meaning. This would be similar to what we found in Luke, "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected,"⁽³³⁵⁾ which was clearly not fulfilled literally. If the angel had said, "He is going before you into Galilee," and then continued by saying, "there you will see him first," or, "only there you will see him," or, "you will see him nowhere else but there," then without a doubt, Matthew would be incompatible with the others. But he only says, "Behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him." It does not say when this will be; or whether it will be the first appearance, before he is seen by them elsewhere; or whether it will be after they have seen him in places other than Galilee. Further, although Matthew says that the disciples went to a mountain in Galilee, he does not say on what day this happened, nor does he order his narrative to force us to suppose that this necessarily was the first appearance. So Matthew is not opposed to the narratives of the others, and we may understand and accept their accounts as well at this point. But nonetheless, although the Lord did not indicate where he would first appear, he did indicate that he must appear later in Galilee. He indicated this both through the angel's words, "Behold, he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him,"⁽³³⁶⁾ and his own, "Go, tell my brothers to go into Galilee, and there they will see me."⁽³³⁷⁾ This would make any believer eager to find out how to understand this mysterious saying.

(81) First we must consider when he might have appeared bodily in Galilee, for Matthew says, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain where the Lord had directed them.⁽³³⁸⁾ And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted.⁽³³⁹⁾ Clearly this was not on the day of his resurrection. For on that day, Luke and John most clearly agree that he was seen in Jerusalem at the beginning of the night. Mark is not so clear about this. So when did they see the Lord in Galilee? It cannot have been the appearance described by John at the sea of Tiberias, for there were only seven there, and they were found fishing. We are seeking when the appearance described by Matthew occurred, where the eleven went to a mountain, to which Jesus went before them, as the angel had predicted. For he seems to say this in order to show that they found him there, because he had gone before them as planned. This did not happen on the day of his resurrection, nor in the eight days following, after which John says that the Lord appeared to the disciples, and Thomas saw him for the first time, for he had not seen him on the day of his resurrection. How could the eleven have seen him on the mountain in Galilee during those eight days, if Thomas, who was one of the eleven, only saw him for the first time after those eight days? Unless these eleven were not those eleven called apostles, but some other eleven disciples from out of the large number of his disciples. For those eleven were the only ones called apostles, but they were not the only disciples. So it could be that some of the apostles were there, though not all, and other disciples were with them, making eleven total. And Thomas was not there, and only saw the Lord for the first time after eight days. When Mark mentions these eleven, he does not just say "eleven," but that "he appeared to the eleven." Luke also says that "they returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them."⁽³⁴⁰⁾ This shows that "the eleven" means the apostles. For when he adds, "and those who were with them," he shows clearly enough that these others were with some people who were called "the eleven" as a signal of their status: they may be understood to be those who were called apostles. So it may be that out of the number of apostles and other disciples, there was a total of eleven disciples who saw Jesus on the mountain in Galilee, sometime during those eight days.

(82) But there is another problem that arises here. When John reports the Lord's appearance to seven who were fishing on the sea of Tiberias, rather than to the eleven on a mountain, he continues: This was now the third time that Jesus revealed himself to the disciples, after he was raised from the dead.⁽³⁴¹⁾ But if we accept that the Lord appeared to the eleven disciples during those eight days, and then he was seen by Thomas, then this appearance at the sea of Tiberias is not the third, but the fourth. And we ought to be careful that no one supposes that by saying this was the third, John meant there were only three appearances. Rather, it should be understood to refer to the number of days, and not to the number of appearances. And John himself testifies that these days are not successive, but separated by intervals. For on the day of his resurrection, not counting the appearance to the women, it is clear in John's gospel that he revealed himself three times: to Peter; to those two, one of whom was Cleophas; and a third time to the many who were conversing as night fell. John counts all these together as one, for they happened on one day. The second was when Thomas saw him, for this was on another day. Then the third appearance was at the sea of Tiberias, not because it was his third appearance, but because it was the third day of his appearances. This forces us to suppose that it was after all these things, that the eleven disciples then saw him on a mountain in Galilee, as Matthew reports. He went there before them, as planned, so that what had been predicted by the angel and by himself should be fulfilled to the letter.

(83) We find, then, that the four evangelists report ten appearances of the Lord to different people after his resurrection: first, to the women at the tomb;⁽³⁴²⁾ second, again to them as they returned from the tomb;⁽³⁴³⁾ third, to Peter;⁽³⁴⁴⁾ fourth, to those two who were going to the settlement;⁽³⁴⁵⁾ fifth, to the many in Jerusalem, when Thomas was absent;⁽³⁴⁶⁾ sixth, when Thomas saw him;⁽³⁴⁷⁾ seventh, at the sea of Tiberias;⁽³⁴⁸⁾ eighth, on the mountain in Galilee, as Matthew describes it;⁽³⁴⁹⁾ ninth, when Mark says, "Lastly, as they sat at table," for they would dine no more with him on earth;⁽³⁵⁰⁾ tenth, on that same day, not on the earth, but raised on a cloud as he ascended into heaven, as Mark and Luke report. Mark gives this last appearance immediately after he appeared to them as they sat at table: And after the Lord had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven.⁽³⁵¹⁾ Luke omits all that might have happened between him and his disciples during the forty days. From the day of his resurrection, when he appeared to many, Luke continues without notice to go on to the last day, when he ascended into heaven: Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. And it happened that as he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.⁽³⁵²⁾ So they not only saw him on earth, but also as he was carried into heaven. So this is how many times the evangelical books report that he was seen by people, before ascending into heaven: nine times on earth, and once in the air as he ascended.

(84) But not everything has been written down, as John attests.⁽³⁵³⁾ For he had many dealings with people during the forty days before he ascended into heaven,⁽³⁵⁴⁾ though he did not appear to them continuously throughout the forty days. For John says that after the day of his resurrection, there were eight other days, after which he appeared to them again. John gives this as the third appearance, at the sea of Tiberias, and it may have happened on the next day, as there is nothing to refute this. And then he appeared to them as he wished, according to his previous direction and prediction, going before them to the mountain in Galilee. Throughout these forty days he appeared whenever, to whomever, and however, he wished. Peter says as much, when he spoke before Cornelius and those who were with him, saying that he appeared "to us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead,"⁽³⁵⁵⁾ during the forty days. They did not eat and drink with him, however, every day of the forty days. That would contradict John, who mentions the eight days during which he was not seen, and then goes on to his third manifestation at the sea of Tiberias. But even if they saw him and lived with him every day after that, there would be no inconsistency. And perhaps the phrase, "during the forty days," which is four times ten, mysteriously refers, either to the whole world, or to the whole earthly age; then the first ten days of that period, during which those eight days fall, can not unreasonably be counted as a part of the whole, a common way of speaking in the scriptures.⁽³⁵⁶⁾

(85) Now let us examine what the apostle Paul says, to see whether it raises any question: He rose on the third day according to the scriptures, and appeared to Cephas.⁽³⁵⁷⁾ Paul does not say that he appeared first to Cephas, because this would contradict what is written in the gospel, that he appeared first to the women. Paul continues that he appeared "then to the twelve."⁽³⁵⁸⁾ Whatever people these were and whatever hour it happened, it must have been on the very day of his resurrection. Paul continues: Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brethren at once.⁽³⁵⁹⁾ It makes no difference whether this refers to the time when Jesus came to the eleven, who were gathered together behind closed doors out of fear of the Jews, and after Thomas had left, or to some other time after the eight days. Paul goes on to say that, "Then he appeared to James."⁽³⁶⁰⁾ We need not suppose that this was the first time that he appeared to James, but rather some special appearance to him by himself. "Then to all the apostles,"⁽³⁶¹⁾ does not mean that this was the first time he appeared to them, but that from then until the day of his ascension he had more familiar dealings with them. Then Paul says that, "Last of all, as to one born out of time, he appeared also to me."⁽³⁶²⁾ But that was when he came from heaven, a long time after his ascension.

(86) Now let us examine the question we put aside. We must find the significance of the mysterious saying, given in Matthew and Mark, that Jesus told them that when he rose, "I will go before you into Galilee; there you will see me."⁽³⁶³⁾ Even if this was fulfilled, it was not fulfilled until a long time later. But it is stated as though one would expect this appearance to be the only one, or the first one (though this is not an absolutely necessary interpretation of it). But doubtless it is significant that this is not said as part of evangelists' narrative comments, but come from the angel (under the Lord's command), and then from the Lord himself; it is in the evangelists' narratives, but it is said by the angel and by the Lord. Therefore it must be taken prophetically. "Galilee" may mean either "transmigration," or "revelation." If we take the first meaning, "transmigration," then there is only one way to understand, "He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see him":⁽³⁶⁴⁾ the grace of Christ had gone from the people of Israel to the Gentiles. There is no way the Gentiles would believe the apostles' preaching of the gospel, unless the Lord himself prepared a way for it in human hearts: this would be the meaning of, "He goes before you into Galilee." And they would be joyful and amazed at the destruction and removal of the obstacles that would open a door for them in the Lord through the enlightenment of the faithful: this would be the meaning of, "There you will see him." For it means that, "There you shall find his members, there you will recognize his living body in those who receive you." If we take "Galilee" in its second meaning, "revelation," then it may be understood that he will no longer be in the form of a servant, but in that form that is equal to the Father.⁽³⁶⁵⁾ He promised this to those who loved him, as he said in John's gospel: "And I will love him and manifest myself to him."⁽³⁶⁶⁾ He was not to appear as they had seen him before, nor as they had seen and touched him after his rising, still with his scars: he would appear as that ineffable light, that enlightens every person who comes into this world, and by which he shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not understand him.⁽³⁶⁷⁾ In this way he goes before us, coming to us without leaving that place, and going before us without leaving us behind. This will be a revelation like a true Galilee, when we shall be like him; there we shall see him as he is.⁽³⁶⁸⁾ If we embrace his commandments, we will experience that more blessed transmigration from this age to that eternity, to be seated apart at his right hand. Then those at his left hand will go to eternal burning, but the righteous to eternal life.⁽³⁶⁹⁾ They shall pass over and see him, as the wicked do not see him. The wicked shall be taken away, so that they will not see the brightness of the Lord,⁽³⁷⁰⁾ and the wicked will not see the light. As John says, "This is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."⁽³⁷¹⁾ Thus he will be known in that eternity, to which he leads his servants by the form of a servant, so that in freedom they may contemplate the form of the Lord.

Notes - Book III

1. Mt 26:26.

2. Mk 14:17-22; Lk 22:14-23.

3. Cf. Jn 6:32-64.

4. Jn 13:21-22.

5. Mt 26:22; Mk 14:19.

6. Mt 26:23-24.

7. Cf. Mk 14:20-21.

8. Mt 26:25.

9. Cf. Mt 26:26-28; Mk 14:22-24; Lk 22:17-20.

10. Playing on trado.

11. Lk 22:21-22.

12. Jn 13:23-27.

13. Jn 13:2.

14. Jn 20:22.

15. Acts 2:1.

16. Some manuscripts add the beginning of the verse, "And if God is glorified in him, God will also, etc."

17. Jn 13:27-32.

18. Jn 13:33-38.

19. Cf. Mt 26:33-35; Mk 14:26-31; Lk 22:31-34.

20. Cf. Jn 21:15-17.

21. Jn 13:33-36.

22. Jn 13:37.

23. Lk 22:31-32.

24. Lk 22:33-34.

25. Zech 13:7.

26. Mt 26:30-32.

27. Mk 14:26-28.

28. Mt 26:33-35.

29. Mk 14:30.

30. Cf. Mt 5:28.

31. Jn 14:1-2.

32. Jn 17:25-26.

33. Lk 22:24-30.

34. Is 53:12.

35. Lk 22:31-38.

36. Zech 13:7.

37. Mt 26:30-35.

38. Cf. Mk 14:26-31.

39. Mt 26:36.

40. Lk 22:39-40.

41. Jn 18:1.

42. Mt 26:36-46.

43. Mk 14:32-42.

44. Mt 26:45-46.

45. Mk 14:41.

46. Cf. Lk 22:43-44, absent from the best Greek manuscripts.

47. Lk 22:45.

48. Cf. Jn 18:1.

49. Lk 22:41.

50. Mk 14:35.

51. Mk 14:36.

52. Lk 22:42.

53. Cf. Eph 2:11-22.

54. Rom 8:15.

55. Gal 4:6.

56. Jn 10:16.

57. Mt 26:47-49; cf. Mk 14:43-45.

58. Lk 22:48.

59. Mt 26:50.

60. Jn 18:4-9.

61. Lk 22:49-50.

62. Cf. Jn 18:10.

63. Lk 22:51.

64. Mt 26:52-54.

65. Jn 18:11.

66. Cf. Lk 22:51.

67. Mt 26:55.

68. Lk 22:53.

69. Mt 26:56.

70. Mt 26:56; cf. Mk 14:50.

71. Mk 14:51-52.

72. Mt 26:57.

73. Cf. Jn 18:13.

74. Cf. Mk 14:53-65; Lk 22:54-62.

75. Mt 26:58.

76. Mk 14:54.

77. Lk 22:54-55.

78. Jn 18:15-16.

79. Mt 26:59-60.

80. Mk 14:56.

81. Mt 26:60-61.

82. Mk 14:58.

83. Mk 14:59.

84. Mt 26:62-64.

85. Cf. Mk 14:62.

86. Mk 14:62.

87. Mt 26:65-66.

88. Mk 14:63-64.

89. Mt 26:67-68.

90. Cf. Mk 14:65.

91. Cf. Lk 22:56-62.

92. Cf. Jn 18:15-27.

93. Mt 26:69-74.

94. Cf. Mk 14:66-72.

95. Mk 14:68-70.

96. Lk 22:54-58.

97. Jn 18:17.

98. Jn 18:17-18.

99. Jn 18:19-24.

100. Lk 3:2.

101. Mt 26:57.

102. Jn 18:25.

103. Mt 26:71.

104. Mk 14:69.

105. Jn 18:25.

106. Lk 22:58.

107. Mk 14:70-72.

108. Lk 22:59-60.

109. Jn 18:26-27.

110. Mt 26:73.

111. Jn 18:26.

112. Augustine here conflates Mk 14:70 with Lk 22:59. This is especially awkward, since he quotes Mk 14:70 at the beginning of this paragraph correctly (in second person).

113. Lk 22:59.

114. Mt 26:75.

115. Mk 14:72.

116. Lk 22:61-62.

117. Mt 26:67-69.

118. Mk 14:66.

119. Ps 13:3.

120. Ps 6:4.

121. Lk 22:61.

122. Mt 27:1-2.

123. Mk 15:1.

124. Lk 22:63-23:1.

125. Mt 26:64; cf. Mk 14:62.

126. Jn 18:28.

127. A conflation with Acts 1:19.

128. Mt 27:3-10; the quotation from "Jeremiah" is notoriously problematic, as it corresponds to no one passage in Jeremiah or anywhere else. It seems to be a combination of references to Jer 18:1-6; 19:1-12; 32:6-44; Zech 11:12-13.

129. Cf. Jer 32:6-44.

130. Mt 27:9-10.

131. Cf. Mk 15:2-15.

132. Mk 15:9.

133. Mt 27:17.

134. Mk 15:11-12.

135. Mt 27:22.

136. Mk 15:13.

137. Mk 15:14.

138. Omitting non, since Augustine has just included the passage in the previous paragraph.

139. Mt 27:24.

140. Mk 15:15.

141. Lk 23:2.

142. Mk 15:4.

143. Lk 23:3.

144. Cf. Mt 27:11; Mk 15:2.

145. Lk 23:4-12.

146. Lk 23:13-14.

147. This is Augustine's reading, as well as that of the Vulgate. The Greek original makes much more sense: "he sent him back to us."

148. Lk 23:15-23.

149. Mt 27:24.

150. Jn 18:28-30.

151. Lk 23:2.

152. Jn 18:31-34.

153. Jn 18:35-37.

154. Jn 18:37-19:7.

155. Lk 23:2.

156. Jn 19:8-12.

157. Lk 23:2.

158. Jn 18:30.

159. Jn 19:13-16.

160. Mt 27:27-29.

161. Mk 15:16-19.

162. Jn 19:1-3.

163. Mt 27:30-31.

164. Mk 15:20.

165. Mt 27:32.

166. Mk 15:20-21.

167. Lk 23:26.

168. Jn 19:16-18.

169. Mt 27:33.

170. Mt 27:34.

171. Mk 15:23.

172. Mt 27:35-36.

173. Mk 15:24.

174. Lk 23:34-35.

175. Jn 19:23-24.

176. Mt 27:37.

177. Mk 15:25.

178. Jn 19:14-16.

179. Cf. Lk 9:28.

180. Cf. Mt 17:1; Mk 9:1; see above, Book 2, paragraph 113.

181. Mk 15:24-25.

182. Cf. Jn 19:23.

183. Jn 18:29-31.

184. It should be clear from all this that Augustine's anti-Semitism is reprehensible, but not unique. It is, in fact, typical, and even faithful to the evangelists' own intentions: the attempt to exculpate the Romans at the expense of the Jews can already be seen in the development of the gospel accounts themselves.

185. Mk 15:12-13.

186. Mt 27:22.

187. Mt 27:24.

188. Mt 27:19.

189. Lk 23:16, 18.

190. Lk 23:20-21.

191. Lk 23:22-23.

192. Jn 19:4-5.

193. Jn 19:6.

194. Jn 19:6-12.

195. Jn 19:12-14.

196. Jn 19:14-15.

197. Cf. Mt 27:19.

198. Jn 19:15-16.

199. Mk 15:13.

200. Mk 15:14.

201. Cf. Ps 29:3; 33:7; 77:16.

202. 2 Cor 4:3.

203. 2 Cor 2:16.

204. Jn 9:39.

205. Cf. Rom 9:21.

206. Rom 9:20.

207. Cf. Rom 11:34.

208. Cf. Rom 1:24-28.

209. Ps 92:5-6.

210. Mk 15:24.

211. Cf. Jn 19:23.

212. Jn 19:14.

213. Mt 26:66; Mk 14:64.

214. Cf. above, Book 2, paragraphs 48-50.

215. Mt 27:38.

216. Cf. Mk 15:27; Lk 23:33.

217. Jn 19:18.

218. Mt 27:39-40.

219. Mt 27:41-43.

220. Cf. Mk 15:29-32; Lk 23:35-37.

221. Mt 27:44.

222. Cf. Mk 15:32.

223. Lk 23:39.

224. Lk 27:40-43.

225. Mk 15:32.

226. Heb 11:33.

227. Heb 11:37.

228. Ps 2:2.

229. Acts 4:26-27.

230. Mt 27:45.

231. Lk 23:45.

232. Mt 27:46-47.

233. Mk 15:36.

234. Mt 27:49.

235. Lk 23:36-37.

236. Jn 19:28-29. Hyssop is a shrub.

237. Mt 27:50.

238. Mk 15:37.

239. Lk 23:46.

240. Jn 19:30.

241. Jn 19:30.

242. Mt 27:51.

243. Mk 15:38.

244. Lk 23:45.

245. Mt 27:51-53.

246. Mt 27:54.

247. Mk 15:39.

248. Lk 23:47.

249. Mt 27:55-56.

250. Mk 15:40-41.

251. Lk 23:48-49.

252. Jn 19:25-27.

253. Augustine mistakenly has "Luke" instead of "Mark" here and in the next sentence.

254. Mt 27:57-58.

255. Mk 15:42-45.

256. Lk 23:50-52.

257. Cf. Jn 19:30-37.

258. Jn 19:38.

259. Mt 27:59-60.

260. Mk 15:46.

261. Lk 23:53.

262. Jn 19:39.

263. Jn 19:40-42.

264. Mt 27:61.

265. Mk 15:47.

266. Mt 27:62-66.

267. The Greek original does not mention "evening," so it does not include the problem that Augustine deals with below.

268. Mt 28:1-7.

269. Cf. Mk 16:1-8.

270. Mk 16:8.

271. Mt 28:8.

272. Mt 28:1.

273. Mk 16:2.

274. Lk 24:1.

275. Jn 20:1.

276. Mt 12:40.

277. Augustine's discussion, confusing enough as it is, is rendered more obscure by reckoning days (as in Jewish law) from sunset to sunset: although we usually think of the Sabbath as Saturday, it really is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

278. Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2; Lk 9:28; cf. above, Book II, paragraph 113.

279. Lk 23:54-24:9.

280. Jn 20:1-18.

281. Cf. Jn 20:9-11.

282. Cf. Jn 19:41.

283. Mt 28:5-7.

284. Cf. Mk 16:6-7.

285. Jn 20:12-13.

286. Luke 24:5-8.

287. Jn 20:14-17.

288. Cf. Mk 16:8.

289. Mt 28:9.

290. Mt 28:10.

291. Cf. Jn 20:18.

292. Cf. Lk 24:10.

293. Lk 24:11.

294. Mk 16:9-11.

295. Cf. Mt 28:11-15.

296. 1 Cor 15:3-8.

297. Lk 24:13-24.

298. Cf. Lk 24:12.

299. 1 Cor 15:5-6.

300. Cf. Acts 1:26.

301. Mk 16:12.

302. 1 Cor 10:17.

303. Mt 17:2.

304. Lk 24:33-34.

305. Lk 24:35.

306. Mk 16:13.

307. The second sentence of Jesus' saying is not in the best Greek manuscripts.

308. Lk 24:36-40.

309. Jn 20:19-20.

310. "And a honeycomb" is not in the best Greek manuscripts.

311. Lk 24:41-43. The last sentence is slightly different in most Greek manuscripts: "And he took it and ate before them."

312. Jn 20:20-23.

313. Lk 24:44-49.

314. Cf. Jn 14:26; 15:26.

315. Cf. Lk 24:50-51.

316. Cf. Acts 1:3.

317. Jn 20:26-29.

318. Novissime. This is not a problem in the original, where the Greek word means only "afterwards."

319. Mk 16:14.

320. Mk 16:14.

321. Mk 16:14.

322. Mk 16:13.

323. Mk 16:14.

324. Mk 16:15-16.

325. Mk 16:17-18.

326. Mk 16:19-20.

327. Cf. Jn 21:24-25.

328. Cf. Jn 21:1-23.

329. Jn 21:23.

330. Jn 6:1.

331. Mt 28:5-7.

332. Mk 16:6-7.

333. Mt 28:16-20.

334. Mt 28:7; Mk 16:7.

335. Lk 13:32; see above, Book 2, paragraph 145.

336. Mt 28:7.

337. Mt 28:10.

338. Augustine changes "Jesus" to "the Lord" in this quotation; cf. paragraph 79.

339. Mt 28:16-17.

340. Lk 24:33.

341. Jn 21:14.

342. Cf. Jn 20:14-18; Mk 16:9-11.

343. Cf. Mt 28:9-10; Lk 24:9-11.

344. Cf. Lk 24:34.

345. Cf. Lk 24:15-33.

346. Cf. Jn 20:19-24; Lk 24:36-43.

347. Cf. Jn 20:26-29.

348. Cf. Jn 21:1-24.

349. Cf. Mt 28:16-17.

350. Cf. Mk 16:14-18.

351. Mk 16:19.

352. Lk 24:50-51.

353. Cf. Jn 21:25.

354. Cf. Acts 1:3.

355. Acts 10:41.

356. It seems Augustine's obscure point here is the following. It could be said that Jesus appeared on every day of the forty days, even though he did not appear on eight of them, because if he appeared during part of the forty, and the part and the whole are interchangeable, then he can be said to have appeared on any of the forty.

357. 1 Cor 15:4-5.

358. 1 Cor 15:5.

359. 1 Cor 15:6.

360. 1 Cor 15:7.

361. 1 Cor 15:7.

362. 1 Cor 15:8.

363. This is a conflation of Jesus' prediction of his resurrection (Mt 26:32; Mk 14:28), with the statement of the angel (Mt 28:7; Mk 16:7), and with Jesus' statement at his resurrection (Mt 28:10).

364. Mt 28:7; Mk 16:7.

365. Cf. Phil 2:6-7.

366. Jn 14:21.

367. Cf. Jn 1:5-9.

368. Cf. 1 Jn 3:2.

369. Mt 25:46.

370. Cf. Isa 26:10.

371. Jn 17:3.