The Harmony of the Gospels 2.96–2.121

The question here is not about what John said as to what kind of loaves they were; for he did not pass over that they were barley, which the others passed over. Nor is the question about what he did not say, that there were also women and children there besides the five thousand men, which Matthew says. And it should by now be altogether certain, and held as a rule in such questions, that no one ought to be troubled when something is said by one that is passed over by another. But the question is how all the things they said are true, so that one, in narrating something else, does not exclude the other's narrative. For if, according to John's narrative, the Lord, having looked at the crowds, asked Philip, testing him, where food could be given to them, it can trouble someone how what the others narrated is true: that first the disciples said to the Lord that he should send the crowds away, so that they could buy food for themselves from the nearby places, to whom he answered, according to Matthew, “They do not need to go; you give them something to eat.” Mark and Luke agree with this too, only passing over his words, “They do not need to go.” It is understood, then, that after these words the Lord looked at the multitude and said to Philip what John records and they passed over. Then what Philip answers in John, Mark records was answered by the disciples, wanting it understood that Philip answered this as the mouth of the rest; although they could also very commonly have put the plural for the singular. What, then, did Philip say? “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not enough for them, for each to receive a little.” This is to say what Mark says: “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give them to eat?” But what the same Mark records the Lord said, “How many loaves do you have?” the others passed over. And what Andrew in John suggested about the five loaves and two fish, the others, putting the plural for the singular, reported as said by the disciples. And Luke indeed compressed Philip's answer and Andrew's answer into one statement. For when he says, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish,” he reported Andrew's answer; but what he added, “unless perhaps we go and buy food for all this crowd,” seems to belong to Philip's answer, except that he said nothing about the two hundred denarii. Although this can also be understood in Andrew's own statement: for when he had said, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish,” he too added, “but what are these among so many?” That is to say, “unless perhaps we go and buy food for all this crowd.”

From all this variety of words, and agreement of facts and meanings, it is quite clear that we are taught, to our profit, to seek nothing in words but the will of the speakers, to show which all truthful narrators ought to be watchful when they narrate anything about a man, an angel, or God; for the will of these can be expressed in words, so that they do not disagree among themselves about it.

Certainly we should not fail at this point to make the reader attentive, for any other such things that may happen to come up, to the fact that Luke said they were commanded to recline in fifties, while Mark said in fifties and in hundreds. This does not trouble us here, because one gave a part, the other the whole. For the one who also reported the hundreds reported what the other passed over; so nothing is contradictory. But if one had recorded only the fifties and another only the hundreds, it would seem very contradictory, and it would not easily be discerned that both had been said, but one recorded by one and the other by the other. Yet who would not admit that, on more careful consideration, it ought to have been found out? I have said this because things of this kind often arise that seem contradictory to those who pay too little attention and judge rashly, and are not.

Matthew continues and says: “And having dismissed the crowd, he went up the mountain alone to pray. When evening came, he was there alone. But the boat in the middle of the sea was being tossed by the waves, for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. And seeing him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, ‘It is a phantom,’” and so on, up to where he says, “They came and worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” Mark too, after narrating the miracle of the five loaves, continues with the same thing thus: “And when it was late, the boat was in the middle of the sea, and he alone on land. And seeing them laboring in rowing, for the wind was against them,” and so on, similarly, except that he said nothing about Peter walking on the waters. But we must take care that it does not trouble anyone that Mark said of the Lord, when he was walking on the waters, “And he wished to pass by them.” For how could they have understood this, unless because he was going in a different direction, wishing to pass them by as if they were strangers, by whom he was so little recognized that he was thought a phantom? Who is so slow as not to be willing to notice that this refers to a mystical meaning? Yet when they were troubled and cried out, he came to their help, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.” How, then, did he wish to pass by those whom he so strengthens when they are afraid, unless because that will to pass by served to draw out that cry, which it was fitting to answer with help!

John too stays with them for a little while yet. For after narrating the miracle of the five loaves, he too does not pass over this about the laboring boat and the Lord's walking on the waters, joining it on thus: “When Jesus, then, knew that they were about to come to seize him and make him king, he fled again to the mountain by himself alone. And when it was evening, his disciples went down to the sea. And when they had got into a boat, they came across the sea to Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus had not come to them. And the sea was rising, as a great wind was blowing,” and so on. Nothing can seem contradictory here, except that Matthew says that, after dismissing the crowds, he went up the mountain to pray alone there, while John says he was on the mountain when he fed those same crowds with the five loaves. But since John himself says that after that miracle he fled to the mountain so as not to be held by the crowds who wanted to make him king, it is certainly clear that they had come down from the mountain to more level ground when those loaves were served to the crowds. And so it is not contradictory that he went up the mountain again, as both Matthew and John say, except that Matthew said “he went up” and John “he fled”; which would be contradictory if in fleeing he did not go up. Nor does it conflict that Matthew said, “He went up the mountain alone to pray,” while John said, “When he knew that they were about to come to make him king, he fled again to the mountain by himself alone.” For the reason for praying is not contrary to the reason for fleeing; since from this too the Lord, transforming in himself the body of our lowliness to make it like the body of his glory, teaches us this as well, that when there is a reason to flee, this is for us a great reason to pray. Nor is it contrary that Matthew said first that he commanded the disciples to get into the boat and go before him across the sea until he dismissed the crowds, and then, when he had dismissed the crowds, went up the mountain alone to pray, while John records first that he fled alone to the mountain and then, “And when it was evening,” he says, “his disciples went down to the sea, and when they had got into a boat,” and so on. For who does not see that John, by way of recapitulation, said afterward that the disciples did what Jesus had already commanded before he fled to the mountain, as in speech one usually returns in a way to something passed over? But because the return itself, done very briefly and in a moment of time, is not mentioned, hearers usually think that what is said afterward also happened afterward. So too, of those whom he had said got into the boat and came across the sea to Capernaum, he says that the Lord came to them, walking on the waters, as they labored on the sea, which certainly happened earlier, during the very voyage by which they were coming to Capernaum.

Luke, however, after narrating the miracle of the five loaves, goes on to something else and departs from this order. For he records nothing about that boat and the Lord's way on the waters; but when he had said, “And they all ate and were satisfied, and what was left over to them of fragments was taken up, twelve baskets,” he then added, “And it happened, when he was alone praying, the disciples too were with him, and he asked them, saying, ‘Who do the crowds say that I am?’” From here on he narrates something else, not what those three who reported that the Lord, walking on the waters, came to the disciples as they sailed. Nor should it therefore be thought that it was on that mountain which Matthew said he went up to pray alone that he said to the disciples, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” (for Luke seems to agree with Matthew in this, because he said, “when he was alone praying,” while Matthew had said, “he went up the mountain alone to pray”); rather, he asked this somewhere else altogether, when he was praying alone and the disciples were with him. For Luke said that he was alone, not without the disciples, as Matthew and John do, when they left him to go before him across the sea. For Luke very plainly added, “The disciples too were with him.” So he said “alone” meaning without the crowds, who did not live with him.

Matthew continues, saying: “And when they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret. And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent into all that region and brought to him all who were sick, and they begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched were made whole. Then scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came to him, saying, ‘Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread,’” and so on, up to where he says, “But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” Mark too records these things without any question of conflict; for whatever is said differently by one does not depart from the same meaning. John, however, from that boat to which the Lord came walking on the sea, after they went out onto land, intent as is his custom on the Lord's discourse, records that he spoke many things, especially divine things, on the occasion of the bread; and after this discourse his narrative is borne aloft again into one thing and another. Yet in departing from them, nothing in his passage into other things conflicts with their order. For what prevents us from understanding both that those were healed by the Lord of whom Matthew and Mark narrate, and that to those who followed him across the sea he said these things that John proclaims, since Capernaum, to which according to John they crossed over, is near the lake of Gennesaret, to whose land according to Matthew they are said to have come out?

Matthew, then, after that discourse of the Lord in which he dealt with the Pharisees about unwashed hands, continues and composes his narrative, keeping, as far as the transition itself indicates, the order of the events that followed too: “And going out from there,” he says, “Jesus withdrew into the regions of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders and cried out, saying to him, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, son of David; my daughter is badly troubled by a demon.’ But he did not answer her a word,” and so on, up to where he says, “O woman, great is your faith; let it be to you as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that hour.” Mark too records this about the Canaanite woman, keeping the same order of events and bringing up no question of conflict, except that he says the Lord was in a house when this woman came to him asking for her daughter. Matthew could indeed easily be understood to have been silent about the house yet to have recorded the same event; but since he says the disciples suggested to the Lord thus, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us,” he seems to signify nothing else than that the woman uttered her pleading cries after the Lord as he walked. How, then, in a house? Unless it is to be understood that Mark did say she came in where Jesus was, since he had said before that he was in a house; but since Matthew says, “He did not answer her a word,” he let us recognize what both passed over: that in that silence Jesus went out of that house. And so the rest is joined together, in which they now disagree in nothing. For what Mark records that the Lord answered her, about not throwing the children's bread to the dogs, was said after the things in between that Matthew did not pass over: namely, that the disciples asked him on her behalf, and that he answered that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and that she came, that is, followed, and worshiped him, saying, “Help me”; then afterward was said what both evangelists record.

Matthew continues, narrating thus: “And when Jesus had passed on from there, he came beside the sea of Galilee, and going up the mountain he sat there. And great crowds came to him, having with them the mute, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and many others, and they laid them at his feet, and he cured them, so that the crowds marveled, seeing the mute speaking, the lame walking, the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel. But Jesus, calling his disciples together, said, ‘I have compassion on the crowd, because they have now remained with me three days and have nothing to eat,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And those who ate were four thousand men, besides children and women.” This other miracle of the seven loaves and a few fish Mark also records, in almost the same order too, except that he inserts what no one else says, about the deaf man whose ears the Lord opened, spitting on his fingers and saying, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.”

It will certainly not be beside the point to note, regarding this miracle of the seven loaves which two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, set down, that if any of them who had not told of the five loaves had told of this one, he would be thought to contradict the others. For who would not suppose that it was one and the same event, not narrated completely and truthfully either by him or by the others or by all, but that either he, being mistaken, recorded seven loaves instead of five, or they five instead of seven, or both lied or were deceived by forgetfulness? He would suppose the twelve baskets and the seven hampers likewise to be contradictory, and the five thousand and four thousand of those who were fed. But because those who narrated the miracle of the seven loaves did not pass over the one of the five, no one is troubled, and all understand that both happened. We have said this so that, if anywhere a similar deed of the Lord is found which in some respect seems so to conflict with another evangelist that it cannot be solved at all, nothing else should be understood but that both happened and one was recorded by one and the other by the other, as we pointed out about those reclining in hundreds and fifties; because if we did not find both of these in one evangelist, we would think the individual writers said contradictory things.

Matthew continues and says: “And having dismissed the crowd, he got into the boat and came to the region of Magadan,” and so on, up to where he says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah.” The same Matthew has already said this elsewhere too. Hence it must be kept in mind again and again that the Lord often said the same things, so that what could not be solved as a contradiction is understood to have been said twice. Mark too, keeping this order, after the miracle of the seven loaves adds the same thing as Matthew, except that Matthew did not say Dalmanutha, which is read in some manuscripts, but Magadan. But there is no doubt that it is the same place under both names; for most manuscripts, even according to Mark, have only Magadan. Nor should it trouble anyone that Mark does not say that the same answer about Jonah was given to those seeking a sign from heaven as Matthew does, but says that the Lord answered, “No sign will be given to it.” For it must be understood: such a sign as they were asking for, that is, from heaven; and he passed over saying what Matthew recorded about Jonah.

Matthew continues: “And leaving them, he went away. And when his disciples came across the sea, they had forgotten to take bread. And he said to them, ‘Look out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,’” and so on, up to where he says, “Then they understood that he had not said to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Mark too arranges these same things, and in the same order.

Matthew continues: “Now Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, and he asked his disciples, saying, ‘Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ And they said, ‘Some John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Mark narrates this in almost the same order, but he first inserted the blind man given sight, which he alone records, the one who said to the Lord, “I see men like trees, walking.” Luke, however, recalls and inserts this after that miracle of the five loaves; and the order of his recollection, as we have already shown above, in no way conflicts with their order. But it can trouble someone that Luke said the Lord asked his disciples who people said he was when he was alone praying and they too were present, whereas Mark says they were asked this by him on the way. But this troubles only someone who has never prayed on the way.

I remember having already said this too, lest anyone think that Peter received his name here, where he says to him, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” For he did not receive this name except where John records it was said to him, “You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.” Hence it is not to be thought that Peter received his name in that place either where Mark, naming the twelve disciples one by one, said that James and John were called sons of thunder, because he said there that he gave him the name, so that he would be called Peter; for he said this by way of recollection, not that it was done then.

Matthew continues and says: “Then he commanded his disciples to tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. From then on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and scribes,” and so on, up to where he says, “You do not savor the things that are of God, but those that are of men.” Mark and Luke attach these things in the same order; but Luke is silent about Peter's contradicting Christ's passion.

Matthew continues: “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,’” and so on, up to where he says, “And then he will repay each according to his work.” Mark too adds this, keeping the same order; but he does not speak of the Son of Man coming with his angels to repay each according to his work. Yet he records that the Lord also said, “For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man too will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory with the holy angels.” This can be understood to belong to the same meaning as Matthew's “to repay each according to his work.” Luke too attaches the same things in the same order, in a manner of words not much different, and very similar in the same truth of meaning.

Matthew continues: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. And after six days Jesus took Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart,” and so on, up to where he says, “Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man rises from the dead.” This vision of the Lord on the mountain before three disciples, Peter, James, and John, where also the testimony of the Father's voice from heaven was given to him, is recorded by three evangelists in the same order and with exactly the same meaning; the rest can be seen by readers as following those different manners of expression without any difference of meaning, which we have shown above in many places.

As for Mark saying, as Matthew does, that it happened after six days, while Luke says after eight, those who are troubled by this are not to be despised but instructed by giving the reason. For when we state days, saying “after so many days,” we sometimes do not count the day on which we are speaking and the day on which the thing we foretell or promise will happen, but the days in between, after which, full and complete, it will truly happen. This is what Matthew and Mark did. Excluding the day on which Jesus said these things and the day on which he showed the vision on the mountain, they looked at the days in between and said “after six days”; whereas Luke, counting the end days too, that is, the first and the last, said “after eight days,” in that manner of speaking in which a part is put for the whole.

Likewise, what Luke says of Moses and Elijah, “And it happened, as they were departing from him, Peter said to Jesus, ‘Master, it is good for us to be here,’” and so on, should not be thought contrary to the fact that Matthew and Mark connected it so that Peter made this suggestion as though Moses and Elijah were still speaking with the Lord. For they did not state that it was then; rather, they passed over what Luke added, that Peter made this suggestion to the Lord about making three tents as they were departing. Luke also added that as they entered the cloud a voice came from the cloud. The others did not say this, but neither did they say anything against it.

Matthew continues: “And the disciples asked him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ But he answered and said to them, ‘Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So too the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist.” Mark too records this same thing, keeping this order, and with some difference of words, yet he nowhere departed from the truth of the same meaning; but he did not add that the disciples understood that the Lord meant John by saying that Elijah had already come.

Matthew continues and says: “And when he had come to the crowd, a man came to him, kneeling before him and saying, ‘Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and suffers badly,’” and so on, up to where he says, “But this kind is not cast out except by prayer and fasting.” Mark and Luke also recount this, and in the same order, without any question of conflict.

Matthew continues, saying: “And as they were staying in Galilee, Jesus said to them, ‘The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again.’ And they were exceedingly sorrowful.” Mark and Luke record this in the same order. Matthew continues: “And when they had come to Capernaum,

those who collected the double drachma came to Peter and said to him, ‘Does your teacher not pay the double drachma?’ He said, ‘Yes,’” and so on, up to where he says, “You will find a stater; take it and give it to them for me and for you.” Matthew alone records this; and having inserted it, he follows the same order in which Mark and Luke walk along with him.

The same Matthew, then, continues and says: “At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Who, do you think, is greater in the kingdom of heaven?’ And calling a little child, Jesus set him in their midst and said, ‘Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’” up to where he says, “So also my heavenly Father will do to you if you do not forgive each his brother from your hearts.” Of this somewhat longer discourse of the Lord, Mark, following the same order, set down not all but some things, and himself also inserted some things that Matthew does not say. The whole discourse, as far as we have undertaken to consider it, is interrupted only by Peter, asking how often he ought to forgive his brother. For the Lord was saying such things that it is quite clear that what Peter asked and what was answered him belong to the same discourse too. Luke, however, records nothing in this order except that about the little child whom he set before the disciples to imitate when they were thinking about their own greatness. For if he said similarly any other things that are placed in this discourse too, he recalled them as said elsewhere and on other occasions; just as John records that the saying about the forgiveness of sins, that they will be retained if one retains them and forgiven if one forgives them, was said by the Lord after the resurrection, whereas Matthew remembered that the Lord said it in this discourse, and he himself testifies that it had been said to Peter before. So, as we have so often pointed out, we must remember that Jesus said the same things often and in several places, so that we may not be troubled anywhere if the order of the sayings is thought to conflict in some respects; we must remember it so that it is not always necessary to give this warning.

Matthew continues, narrating thus: “And it happened, when Jesus had finished these discourses, he moved from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying, ‘Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause whatever?’” and so on, up to where he says, “Let him who can receive it receive it.” Mark also records this, keeping the same order. We must certainly see to it that it does not seem to conflict that the same Mark says the Pharisees were asked by the Lord what Moses had commanded them, and that in answer to his question they spoke of the bill of divorce permitted to them; whereas Matthew said that, after the Lord's words in which he had shown from the law that God joined male and female and that therefore they ought not to be separated by man, they gave the reply, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put her away?” to whom he said again, “Because of the hardness of your heart Moses permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” For Mark too does not pass over this reply of the Lord, but places it after they had answered his question about the bill of divorce.

In this order or manner of words we ought to understand that it makes no difference to the truth of the matter whether, when the Lord forbade separation and confirmed his judgment from the law, they themselves raised the question of the bill of divorce permitted to them through the same Moses through whom it was also written that God joined male and female; or whether they answered the same thing when he asked them about Moses' command. For his will was such that he would not give them the reason why Moses permitted it unless they had first mentioned it themselves; and this will of his is signified by the question that Mark set down. And their will was precisely to conclude, as it were, from the authority of Moses, because he commanded a bill of divorce to be given, that he would undoubtedly forbid separation; for they had come to say this, testing him. This will of theirs is expressed by Matthew in such a way that he does not record that they were asked, but that of their own accord they brought forward Moses' command, by which, as it were, they might convict the Lord as he forbade the separation of spouses. Since, then, the will of the speakers, which the words ought to serve, has been shown by both evangelists, it makes no difference how different the manner of narrating was between the two, so long as neither departed from the same truth.