The Harmony of the Gospels 2.122–2.139

This too can be understood: that, as Mark says, when they first asked about putting away a wife, the Lord asked them in turn what Moses had commanded them; and when they had answered that Moses permitted them to write a bill of divorce and to put her away, he answered them from the very law given through Moses, how God established the marriage of male and female, saying what Matthew sets down, that is, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female?” and so on; and that when they heard this, they repeated what they had answered him when he first asked, saying, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put her away?” Then Jesus showed the cause, the hardness of their heart, which Mark for brevity's sake puts earlier, as if it were given to that earlier answer of theirs which Matthew omitted; judging that nothing is lost to the truth, in whatever place the answer was given to the same words which they had said twice, since the Lord had given it in reply to those very words.

Matthew continues: “Then little children were brought to him, so that he might lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples rebuked them,” and so on, up to where he says, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Mark kept this order with Matthew, but Matthew alone inserts the laborers hired for the vineyard. Luke, however, after recording what he said to them when they were asking among themselves who was the greater, added that about the man whom they saw casting out demons although he did not follow him. From there he departs from these two, where he says that he set his face to go to Jerusalem; and after many things inserted in between, he meets them again in recording this rich man to whom it is said, “Sell all that you have,” whom these two now record in the order in which they go together. For there Luke too does not pass over these little children before mentioning the rich man, just as they do. As to that rich man, then, who asks what good he should do to gain eternal life, something can seem to differ, in that according to Matthew it is said, “Why do you ask me about the good?” but according to the others, “Why do you call me good?” For “Why do you ask me about the good?” can refer rather to his question, “What good shall I do?” For there he both named the good and there is a question; whereas “Good teacher” is not yet a question. It is most fittingly understood, then, that both were said: “Why do you call me good, and ask me about the good?”

Matthew continues and says: “And going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, ‘Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and on the third day he will rise again.’ Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, worshiping and asking something of him,” and so on, up to where he says, “just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark too keeps this order with him, reporting that the sons of Zebedee said what Matthew stated was said on their behalf, not by them themselves but through their mother, since she brought their wish to the Lord. Hence Mark briefly indicated that they, rather than she, said what was said. Indeed, both according to Matthew and according to Mark, the Lord answered them rather than their mother. Luke, however, after recording in the same order what he foretold to the twelve disciples about his passion and resurrection, passes over what these two record; after those things they meet him again at Jericho. As for what Matthew and Mark said about the rulers of the Gentiles who lord it over their subjects, that it would not be so among them, but that he who would be greater would be the servant of the others, Luke too says something like this, but not in this place; and the order itself shows that the same saying was spoken by the Lord a second time.

Matthew continues: “And as they went out from Jericho, a great crowd followed. And behold, two blind men sitting by the road heard that Jesus was passing by, and they cried out, saying, ‘Lord, have mercy on us, son of David,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And immediately they saw and followed him.” Mark too records this, but as done to one blind man. This question is solved in the same way as that of the two who suffered from a legion of demons in the region of the Gerasenes. For of the two blind men whom he has just inserted, that one was very well known and very famous in that city appears clearly enough from the fact that Mark recorded both his name and his father's name, which is not readily found among so many healed by the Lord earlier, except when he also named Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, whose daughter Jesus raised; and in that case the same sense appears even more, since that ruler of the synagogue was certainly a man of standing in that place. Without doubt, then, this Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, had fallen from some great prosperity and was of a very well-known and very famous misery, in that he sat not only blind but also a beggar. This, then, is why Mark wished to record him alone, whose giving of sight won as bright a fame for this miracle as his calamity was well known.

Luke, however, though recording a deed done in altogether the same way, must be understood to record a like miracle in another blind man, and a like manner of the same miracle. For he says this was done as he was drawing near to Jericho, whereas they say as he was going out from Jericho. The name of the city and the similarity of the deed incline one to think that it was done once; but that the evangelists contradict one another in this, because one says “as he was drawing near to Jericho” and the others “as he was going out from Jericho,” is certainly persuasive only to those who are more ready to believe that the gospel lies than that Jesus did two similar miracles in a similar way. Which is more credible, or rather which is true, every faithful son of the gospel sees very easily; and every contentious person, at least when he has been reminded, answers himself either by keeping silent or, even if he will not keep silent, in his thoughts.

Matthew continues and says: “And when they had drawn near to Jerusalem and come to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the village that is opposite you, and at once you will find a she-ass tied, and a colt with her,’” and so on, up to the place where he says, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest.” Mark too narrates this, keeping the same order. Luke, however, lingers at Jericho, recording some things that they passed over, about Zacchaeus, the chief of the tax collectors, and some things said in parables. After these he too meets them in recording this colt on which Jesus sat. Nor should it trouble anyone that Matthew speaks of both the she-ass and the colt, while the others are silent about the she-ass. Rather, we should recall that rule which we pointed out above concerning those reclining in fifties and hundreds when the crowds were fed with five loaves. Once that has been pointed out, this ought no longer to disturb the reader, even if Matthew had been silent about the colt as the others were about the she-ass, so that it would be thought most contradictory that one mentioned the she-ass and the others the she-ass's colt; how much less should one be troubled because one mentioned the she-ass, about which the others were silent, in such a way as not to be silent about the colt, of which they spoke! Where both can be understood to have happened, then, there is no conflict, even if one records one thing and another another; how much less when one records one and another both!

John too, though silent about how the Lord sent his disciples to bring these animals to him, nevertheless briefly inserts this about the colt, together with the prophet's testimony that Matthew uses. In this prophetic testimony too the evangelists' expression, somewhat different, does not depart from the same meaning; but it can trouble someone that Matthew uses it so as to say that the prophet mentioned a she-ass. This is not so either in what John inserts or in the church manuscripts of the usual translation. The reason for this seems to me to be that Matthew is said to have written his Gospel in the Hebrew language. And it is clear that the translation called the Septuagint is different in some places from what those who know that language find in the Hebrew, and from what those have found who have translated the same Hebrew books individually. If the reason for this difference too is asked, why the translation of the Seventy, of such great authority, differs in many places from the truth found in the Hebrew manuscripts, I think nothing more probable occurs than that those Seventy translated by the same Spirit by whom the things they were translating had been spoken, which is confirmed by their own wonderful agreement that is proclaimed. Therefore they too, by varying certain things in expression and yet not departing from the same will of God, whose words those were and which the words ought to serve, wished to show nothing else than this very thing which we now admire in a certain harmonious diversity of the four evangelists, by which it is shown to us that it is not a lie if anyone narrates something in a different way while not departing from the will of him with whom one must accord and agree. To know this is useful both for morals, for avoiding and judging lies, and for faith itself, so that we do not think truth is fortified by sounds as if consecrated, as though God commended to us the words that must be said for the sake of the thing in the same way as the thing itself; whereas rather the thing to be learned is so preferred to the speech through which it is to be learned that we ought not to seek speech at all if we could know the thing without it, as God knows it, and his angels in him.

Matthew continues and says: “And when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred, saying, ‘Who is this?’ And the people said, ‘This is Jesus the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.’ And Jesus entered the temple of God and cast out all who sold and bought in the temple,” and so on, up to the place where he says, “But you have made it a den of robbers.” All record this about the crowds of sellers cast out of the temple, but John in a widely different order. For after the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus, when he had recorded that he went into Galilee, when he turned water into wine, from there, after recording a few days in Capernaum, he says that he went up to Jerusalem when the Passover of the Jews was near, and, making a whip of cords, drove the sellers out of the temple. Hence it is clear that this was done by the Lord not once but twice; but the first was recorded by John, this last by the other three.

Matthew continues: “And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things he did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, ‘Hosanna to the son of David,’ they were indignant and said to him, ‘Do you hear what these are saying?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Yes. Have you never read, Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have perfected praise?’ And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there. And in the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry; and seeing a fig tree by the road, he came to it and found nothing on it but leaves only, and he said to it, ‘May no fruit ever come from you again.’ And the fig tree withered at once. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, ‘How did it wither at once?’ And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea, it will happen; and all things whatever you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.’”

Mark too says this in sequence, but does not keep the same order. For first, what Matthew said, that he entered the temple and cast out the sellers and buyers, Mark does not record; but he says that, having looked around at everything, since it was already evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve, and on the next day, as they were going out from Bethany, he was hungry and said to the fig tree what Matthew too records. And the same Mark adds that he came to Jerusalem, and when he had entered the temple, he cast out the sellers and buyers, as though it had been done on the second day, not the first. But since Matthew connects it thus, “And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany,” and records that, returning from there to the city in the morning, he cursed the tree, it is more probably believed that he rather kept the order of time concerning the sellers and buyers cast out of the temple. For when he says, “And leaving them, he went out,” whom can we understand he left, but those with whom he was speaking above, who were indignant that the children were crying, “Hosanna to the son of David”? Mark, then, passed over what was done on the first day, when he entered the temple, and inserted it as he recalled it after saying that he found nothing on the fig tree but leaves, which was done on the second day, as both attest. But he says that the disciples marveled that the tree had withered, and that the Lord answered them about faith and about moving the mountain into the sea, not on that same second day on which he said to the tree, “May no one ever again eat fruit from you,” but on the third day. For on that second day the same Mark recorded the sellers cast out of the temple, which he had passed over as done on the first day. On that second day, then, he says that when evening came he went out of the city, and as they passed by in the morning the disciples saw the fig tree withered from the roots, and Peter, remembering, said to him, “Rabbi, look, the fig tree that you cursed has withered,” and that then he answered about the power of faith. Matthew, however, tells it as though this whole thing happened on the second day, that is, both the saying to the tree, “May no fruit ever come from you again,” and its withering at once, and the answer about the power of faith given to the disciples, who saw this and marveled. Hence it is understood that Mark recorded on the second day what he had passed over as done on the first, namely the sellers and buyers cast out of the temple; while Matthew, when he had recorded what was done on the next day concerning the cursed tree, when he was returning in the morning from Bethany to the city, passed over what Mark recorded, that he came into the city, went out in the evening, and that in the morning, as they passed by, the disciples marveled that the tree was withered; and to what was done on the second day, when the tree was cursed, he added what was done on the third day, that the disciples marveled at its withering and heard from the Lord about the power of faith, joining them so that, unless we are compelled by Mark's narrative to pay attention to where and what Matthew passed over, it could not be recognized. When, then, Matthew had said, “And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there. And in the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry; and seeing a fig tree by the road, he came to it and found nothing on it but leaves only, and he said to it, ‘May no fruit ever come from you again.’ And the fig tree withered at once,” passing over the other things belonging to the same day, he at once added, “And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, ‘How did it wither at once?’” They saw it on one day and marveled on another. But it is understood that it did not wither when they saw it, but at once when it was cursed. For they did not see it withering but completely withered, and so understood that it had withered at once at the Lord's word.

Matthew continues and says: “And when he had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, saying, ‘By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘I too will ask you one question; if you tell me, I too will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, where was it from?’” and so on, up to where he says, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” The other two, Mark and Luke, set out all this in almost the same number of words. Nor do they seem to disagree at all among themselves in order, except for the point I spoke of above: that Matthew, passing over certain things belonging to the next day, so composed his narrative that, unless one pays attention, he could be thought to be still dealing with the second day, and Mark with the third. Luke, however, did not add this as if following the days in order; but after recording that the buyers and sellers were cast out of the temple, he passed over that he went out to Bethany and returned to the city, what happened with the fig tree, and the answer about the power of faith given to the marveling disciples; and having passed over these, he brought in, saying: “And he was teaching daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the leaders of the people sought to destroy him, and they did not find what to do to him, for all the people hung on his words as they heard him. And it happened on one of the days, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and scribes with the elders came together and spoke, saying to him, ‘Tell us, by what authority do you do these things?’” and the rest that those two also record. Hence it appears that he does not conflict with them even in order, since the day he says it happened, “on one of the days,” is understood to be the day on which they too reported that it happened.

Matthew continues: “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and going to the first he said to him, ‘Go today and work in my vineyard.’ He answered and said, ‘I will not’; but afterward, moved by repentance, he went. And going to the other, he said the same. And he answered and said, ‘I go, sir’; and he did not go,” and so on, up to where he says, “And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will crush him.” Mark and Luke do not record the two sons who were commanded to go and work in the vineyard; but what Matthew narrates after this about the vineyard let out to tenants, who persecuted the servants sent to them and afterward killed the beloved son and cast him out of the vineyard, they too both do not pass over, keeping the same order, that is, after the Jews, asked about John's baptism, said they did not know, and he answered them, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

No question of conflict arises here, then, except that Matthew, having said that the Lord asked the Jews, “When the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” adds that they answered and said, “He will destroy the wicked wickedly and let out the vineyard to other tenants, who will render him the fruit in their seasons.” Mark records this not as answered by them, but as said by the Lord next, after his own question, as if he answered himself. For he says thus: “What then will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.” But it can easily be understood either that their words were added without inserting “they said” or “they answered,” yet so as to be understood; or that this answer was attributed rather to the Lord because, when they spoke the truth, he who is the Truth also answered this concerning them.

But this troubles us more: that Luke not only does not say that they answered this, attributing these words too to the Lord as Mark does, but even reports that they gave a contrary answer, saying, “Far be it!” For he narrates thus: “What then will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy these tenants and give the vineyard to others. When they heard this, they said, ‘Far be it!’ But he looked at them and said, ‘What then is this that is written: The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner?’” How, then, according to Matthew, did those to whom he was speaking say, “He will destroy the wicked wickedly and let out the vineyard to other tenants, who will render him the fruit in their seasons,” when according to Luke they contradicted such words, saying, “Far be it!”? And indeed, what the Lord said next about the stone rejected by the builders and made the head of the corner was brought in so that by this testimony those who contradicted the parable would be refuted. For Matthew himself records it as said as if to people contradicting, when he says, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner?” For what does “Have you never read” mean, unless that they had answered something contrary? Mark too indicates this, reporting these same words thus: “Have you not read this Scripture: The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner?” According to Luke this saying appears more clearly in its place, spoken after their contradiction in which they said, “Far be it!” For it has just the same force as he too puts it: “What then is this that is written: The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner?” For this intention of the saying is conveyed whether by “Have you never read,” or “Have you not read this,” or “What then is this that is written?”

It remains, then, for us to understand that among the people who were listening, some answered what Matthew records, saying, “They say to him, ‘He will destroy the wicked wickedly and let out his vineyard to other tenants,’” and some what Luke did not pass over, that is, “Far be it!” To those, then, who had answered the Lord in that way, the others answered, “Far be it!” But the answer of those to whom these replied “Far be it!” was attributed to the Lord by both Mark and Luke, because, as I said, the Truth himself spoke through them: either through those who did not know it, if they were wicked, as through Caiaphas, who, not knowing what he said, prophesied because he was high priest; or through those who knew, already understanding and believing. For that multitude too was there through whom the prophecy had already been fulfilled when, meeting him as he came with great celebration, they cried out, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Nor should it trouble anyone that the same Matthew said that the chief priests and elders of the people came to the Lord and asked by what authority he did these things and who gave him this authority, when he in turn asked them about John's baptism, where it was from, from heaven or from men; and when they answered that they did not know, he said, “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” For from there he went on speaking in sequence and said, “But what do you think? A man had two sons,” and so on; and according to Matthew the discourse is continuous, without any thing or person inserted, up to what is recorded about the vineyard let out to tenants. So it can be thought that he said all of it to the chief priests and elders of the people, by whom he had been asked about his authority. And if they had asked as tempters and enemies, they cannot be understood to be among those who had believed and had given the Lord that glorious testimony from the prophet, who might also now have answered, not unknowingly but believing, “He will destroy the wicked wickedly and let out the vineyard to other tenants.” This should not at all make us think that there were no believers in that multitude which was then hearing the Lord's parables. For the same Matthew, for brevity's sake, was silent about what Luke does not pass over, namely that this parable was told not only to those who had asked about his authority but to the people. For he says thus: “And he began to tell the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard,” and so on. In these people, then, it must be understood that there could also have been those who heard him as did those who had said to him, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” and that these, or some of them, were the ones who answered, “He will destroy the wicked wickedly and let out the vineyard to other tenants.” Mark and Luke attributed their answer to the Lord not only because he himself had said it, since he is the Truth, which often speaks even through the wicked and the ignorant, moving a person's mind by a certain hidden prompting, not by the merit of his holiness but by the right of its own power; but also because they could have been such that they were not without reason already counted as members in the very body of the Lord, so that their voice was rightly attributed to him whose members they were. For he had already baptized more than John and had crowds of disciples, as the evangelists themselves often testify; and from these too were those five hundred brothers to whom the apostle Paul records that he showed himself after the resurrection. Especially since even according to the same Matthew it is not said, “They say to them, ‘He will destroy the wicked wickedly,’” so that the plural “to them” would be taken, as if this answer belonged to those who had craftily asked him about his authority; rather, it is said, “They say to him,” that is, to the Lord himself, with a singular pronoun, not a plural, which appears in the Greek manuscripts without any scruple of ambiguity.

There is a discourse of the Lord in the evangelist John where what I am saying can be understood more easily. “Jesus then said,” he says, “to the Jews who had believed in him, ‘If you abide in my word, you will truly be my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’ And they answered him, ‘We are the seed of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. How do you say, You will be free?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. But the slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. If, then, the Son sets you free, you will truly be free. I know that you are sons of Abraham; but you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.’” He would certainly not have said, “You seek to kill me,” to those who had already believed in him, to whom he had said, “If you abide in my word, you will truly be my disciples”; but he had said this to those who had already believed in him, while that multitude was present which had more enemies, even though the evangelist does not state who those were that answered. From the very fact of what they answered and what they then deserved to hear from him, it is clear enough to which persons which words are to be attributed. Just as, then, in this multitude according to John there were those who had already believed in Jesus and there were also those who sought to kill him, so in that one of which we are now speaking there were those who had craftily asked the Lord by what authority he did those things, and there were also those who had cried out, not craftily but faithfully, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” And so there were those who said, “He will destroy them and let out his vineyard to others,” a voice which is rightly understood to have been the Lord's own too, whether because of the truth or because of the unity of his members with their head; and there were also those who said to those answering in this way, “Far be it!” because they understood that the parable had been spoken against themselves.

Matthew continues: “And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they knew that he was speaking about them; and seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet. And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven has become like a king who made a wedding feast for his son and sent his servants to call those invited to the wedding, and they would not come,’” and so on, up to where he says, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew alone narrates this parable of those invited to the wedding. Luke records something similar; but it is not the same, as the order itself also indicates, although that one too bears some resemblance. But what Matthew adds after that parable of the vineyard and the slain son of the householder, that the Jews knew it was all said against them and began to plot, Mark and Luke too attest, keeping the same order; but from there they go on to something else, adding from it what Matthew too inserted in order after this parable of the wedding feast, which he alone inserted.