The Harmony of the Gospels 3.56–3.68

Matthew continues: “And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” And Mark thus: “And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” Luke too says this similarly, “And the veil of the temple was torn in the middle,” but not in the same order. For wishing to join miracle to miracle, when he had said, “The sun was darkened,” he thought he should immediately add, “And the veil of the temple was torn in the middle,” anticipating, evidently, what happened when the Lord breathed his last, so that he might then go back and follow out the drinking of the vinegar, that loud voice, and the death itself, which are understood to have happened before the tearing of the veil and after the darkness. For Matthew, who, when he had said, “And Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, yielded up his spirit,” immediately added, “And behold, the veil of the temple was torn,” expressed clearly enough that it was torn then, when Jesus had yielded up his spirit. But if he had not added “and behold,” but had simply said, “And the veil of the temple was torn,” it would be uncertain whether he and Mark recorded this by recapitulation and Luke kept the order, or Luke recapitulated what they put in order.

Matthew continues: “And the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose; and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” We need not fear that these things, which he alone said, seem to conflict with any of the others. The same goes on: “Now the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus, seeing the earthquake and what was happening, were greatly afraid, saying, ‘Truly this was the Son of God.’” Mark thus: “And the centurion, who stood facing him, seeing that he had breathed his last crying out thus, said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God.’” Luke thus: “And the centurion, seeing what had happened, glorified God, saying, ‘Truly this man was righteous.’” It is not contrary that Matthew says that the centurion and those with him marveled at seeing the earthquake, whereas Luke says he marveled that he breathed his last after uttering that cry, showing how he had it in his power when to die. For in that the same Matthew not only said, “seeing the earthquake,” but also added, “and what was happening,” he showed that Luke was entirely free to say that the centurion marveled at the Lord's death itself, since this too is among the things that were then wonderfully done. Although, even if Matthew had not added that, it should be understood that, since many wonderful things were done and the centurion and those with him could marvel at all of them, the narrators were free to record what each wished that he marveled at, and that they do not contradict one another when one says he marveled at this and another at that, since he had marveled at everything. As for one saying that the centurion said, “Truly this was the Son of God,” and another, “Truly this man was the Son of God,” it will not trouble anyone who has not forgotten so many things said and explained similarly above. For both expressions run together to one meaning. Nor is it in any way contrary that one passed over “man” and another said it. More could be thought different in that Luke does not say the centurion said, “He was the Son of God,” but, “He was righteous.” But we ought either to understand that both were said by the centurion and the others recorded one, Luke the other; or perhaps that Luke wanted to express the centurion's meaning, in what sense he called Jesus the Son of God. For perhaps the centurion had not understood him as the only-begotten, equal to the Father, but had called him the Son of God because he believed him righteous, as many righteous men are called sons of God. As for Luke himself also saying, “And the centurion, seeing what had happened,” he included under that general term all the things that were wonderfully done at that hour, as if recording one wonderful event, of which all those miracles were as it were members and parts. Further, as to Matthew adding those who were with the centurion, while the others were silent about this, to whom is it not clear by the best-known rule that it is not contrary when one says what another passes over? And as to Matthew saying, “They were greatly afraid,” whereas Luke did not say “he was afraid” but “he glorified God,” who does not understand that by fearing he glorified?

Matthew continues: “And there were many women there, watching from afar, 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.” Mark thus: “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; when he was in Galilee they followed him and ministered to him; and many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.” Between these I see nothing that could be thought contradictory. For what difference does it make to the truth that they both named some women and each named others? Luke too composes his narrative thus: “And all the crowd of those who had gathered for this sight, seeing what had happened, returned beating their breasts. And all his acquaintances stood at a distance, and the women who had followed him from Galilee, seeing these things.” Hence he agrees well enough with the two before about the presence of the women, although he names none of them. About the crowd too, which had gathered and, seeing what was done, beat their breasts and returned, he agrees with Matthew, although he attached separately, “And the centurion and those who were with him.” So he alone is found to have spoken of his acquaintances who stood at a distance. For John too recorded the presence of the women before the Lord gave up his spirit, narrating thus: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus, then, saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing by, 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 home.” In this matter, had not Matthew and Luke too named Mary Magdalene most plainly, we could say that some women were at a distance and others beside the cross. For none of them besides John recorded the Lord's mother. Now, then, how is the same Mary Magdalene understood both to have stood at a distance with other women, as Matthew and Luke say, and to have been beside the cross, as John says, unless they were at such a distance that they could be called both “near,” because they were present within his sight, and “at a distance” in comparison with the crowd standing around more closely with the centurion and the soldiers? We can also understand that the women who were present together with the Lord's mother, after he had entrusted her to the disciple, had already begun to move away so as to free themselves from the press of the crowd and watch the rest of what was done from farther off; so that the other evangelists, who recorded them after the Lord's death, recorded them as already standing at a distance.

Matthew continues: “When evening had come, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who himself also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered the body to be given.” Mark thus: “And when evening had already come, since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea came, a noble councillor, who was himself also waiting for the kingdom of God, and he boldly went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered whether he was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he had learned it from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.” Luke thus: “And behold, a man named Joseph, who was a councillor, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deeds), from Arimathea, a city of Judea, who himself also was waiting for the kingdom of God; he went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.” John, however, after narrating the breaking of the legs of those crucified with the Lord and the piercing of the Lord's side with a lance, all of which he alone told, joins on also about Joseph, agreeing with the others, narrating thus: “After these things Joseph of Arimathea (because he was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews) asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus. And Pilate permitted it. So he came and took away the body of Jesus.” In this nothing stands out in which any of them seems to conflict with any other. But someone might perhaps ask how John himself does not disagree with himself, testifying with the others that Joseph asked for the body of Jesus, and alone saying that he was a secret disciple of the Lord for fear of the Jews. For it rightly troubles us why he who was a secret disciple out of fear dared to ask for his body, which none of those who followed him openly would dare. But it must be understood that he did this with the confidence of his rank, by which he was able to go in to Pilate on familiar terms; and in that last duty, of performing the funeral, he cared less about the Jews, although in listening to the Lord he usually avoided their hostility.

Matthew continues: “And Joseph, having taken the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away.” Mark thus: “And Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking him down he wrapped him in the linen cloth and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock, and he rolled a stone to the door of the tomb.” Luke thus: “And taking it down, he wrapped it in a linen cloth and laid him in a hewn tomb, in which no one had yet been laid.” From these three no question of disagreement can arise. John, however, records that the Lord's burial was attended to not by Joseph alone but also by Nicodemus. For, beginning next with Nicodemus, he narrates thus: “And Nicodemus also came, who had first come to Jesus by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.” Then he goes on, adding Joseph himself, and says: “So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the custom of the Jews to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. There, then, because of the Jews' Preparation, since the tomb was near, they laid Jesus.” Nor does anything here conflict for those who understand rightly. For those who were silent about Nicodemus did not assert that the Lord was buried by Joseph alone, although they made mention of him only; nor, because they said that Joseph wrapped him in one linen cloth, did they forbid us to understand that other linen cloths too could have been brought by Nicodemus and added, so that John told the truth that he was wrapped not in one linen cloth but in linen cloths. Although, also on account of the face cloth that was put on his head and the bands with which the whole body was bound, since all were of linen, even if there was one sheet there, it could most truly be said, “They bound him in linen cloths”; for things woven of linen are called “linens” in general.

Matthew continues: “And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the tomb.” Mark says this thus: “And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where he was laid.” Hence it is clear that they in no way disagree in this.

Matthew continues: “On the next day, which is after the Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered before Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember that that deceiver said while he was still alive, After three days I will rise. Order, then, the tomb to be guarded until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him and say to the people, He has risen from the dead, and the last error will be worse than the first.’ Pilate said to them, ‘You have a guard; go, guard it as you know how.’ And they went and made the tomb secure, sealing the stone, with the guards.” Matthew alone narrates this, and none of the others narrates anything that seems contrary to it.

Then the same Matthew continues and says: “Now on the evening of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming up he rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning and his garments like snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But 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.’” Mark agrees with this. But it can trouble someone how, according to Matthew, the angel was sitting on the stone rolled back from the tomb (for Mark says that as they entered the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and were amazed), unless we understand either that Matthew was silent about that angel whom they saw on entering, and Mark about the one whom they saw outside sitting on the stone; so that they saw two and heard separately from two what the angels said about Jesus, first from the one they saw outside sitting on the stone, then from the one they saw sitting on the right as they entered the tomb, to which they were urged to go in by the words of the one sitting outside, who said, “Come and see the place where the Lord lay”; coming there, as was said, and entering, they saw the one about whom Matthew is silent but Mark speaks, sitting on the right, from whom they heard similar things. Or certainly we should understand them entering “into the tomb” as into some enclosure of a wall, by which it is credible the place was then protected, in some space in front of the rock by whose cutting the place of burial had been made; so that in that same space they saw sitting on the right the one whom Matthew says was sitting on the stone, which he had rolled away by the earthquake from the door of the tomb, that is, from the place of the grave which had been dug out in the rock. Likewise it can be asked how Mark says: “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,” whereas Matthew says, “And they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, running to tell his disciples,” unless we understand that they did not dare to say anything to the angels themselves, that is, to answer what they had heard from them, or certainly to the guards whom they saw lying there. For the joy that Matthew records does not conflict with the fear that Mark speaks of. For we ought to understand that both arose in their minds even if Matthew himself did not speak of fear; but since he too says, “And they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy,” he does not allow any question to remain on this matter.

About the very hour at which the women came to the tomb, too, a question not to be despised arises. For since Matthew says, “Now on the evening of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb,” what is it that Mark says, “And very early on the first day of the week they come to the tomb, the sun having now risen”? In this he does not differ from the other two, that is, Luke and John. For what Luke says, “at early dawn,” and John, “early, while it was still dark,” Mark is understood to say by “very early, the sun having now risen,” that is, when the sky was already growing white in the eastern quarter, which certainly happens only from the nearness of the rising sun; for that brightness, which is usually called by the name of dawn, belongs to it. Therefore he does not conflict with the one who says, “while it was still dark.” For as day rises, some remnants of darkness thin out the more, the more the light rises. Nor is “very early” to be taken as if the sun itself were already seen above the earth, but rather as we usually say to those to whom we want to signify that something is to be done earlier. For when we have said “early,” lest they think we mean when the sun is already visible above the earth, we often add “very early” for this purpose, so that they may understand that which is also called the whitening of the sky. Although this too is customary: that after the cock has crowed often, when people have begun to guess that day is drawing near, they say, “It is early now,” and when after this word they look and see the sky reddening or whitening as the sun is now rising, that is, already coming near to these parts, those who said, “It is early,” add, “It is very early.” But what difference does it make, so long as, in this way or that, we understand Mark to have called “early” nothing else than what Luke called “dawn,” and “very early” what Luke called “at early dawn,” and what John called “early, while it was still dark,” but with the sun rising, that is, beginning by its rising to light up the sky? How, then, Matthew agrees with these three, who says neither “dawn” nor “early,” but “on the evening of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” must be investigated more attentively. For by the first part of the night, which is evening, Matthew meant to signify the night itself, at the end of which the women came to the tomb. And he is understood to have called that night so for this reason: that from evening, the Sabbath being over, it was already lawful to bring spices. So, since they were prevented by the Sabbath from doing it earlier, he named the night from the time at which it began to be lawful for them to do it, at whatever time of that night they wished. So, then, “on the evening of the Sabbath” was said as if it were said, “on the night of the Sabbath,” that is, on the night that follows the Sabbath day. His very words show this clearly enough. For he says, “Now on the evening of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” which cannot be, if we understand by the word “evening” only the first small part of the night, that is, only the beginning of the night; for it is not the beginning itself that dawns toward the first day of the week, but the night itself, which begins to end in light. 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. Hence one cannot say “evening dawning toward the first day of the week” unless by the name of evening the night itself is understood, which light ends. And it is a customary manner of speaking of the divine Scripture to put the whole for a part. By “evening,” then, he signified the night, whose end is dawn. For at dawn those women came to the tomb; and so they came on that night which is signified by the name of evening. For the whole of it is signified by that name, as I said; and therefore, in whatever part of that night they had come, they would certainly have come on that night. Since, then, they came in the last part of that night, they undoubtedly came on that night. And “the evening that dawns toward the first day of the week” can only be understood as that whole night. Those, then, came on that evening who came on that night, and those came on that night who came, though in its last part, on that night itself.

For the very three days in which the Lord died and rose again cannot be rightly understood except by this manner of speaking, by which the whole is usually put for a part. For he himself says, “For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.” But whether the time is counted from when he gave up his spirit or from when he was buried, it does not come out clearly unless we take the middle day, that is, the Sabbath, as a whole day, that is, with its night, and understand those that placed it in the middle, that is, the Preparation and the first day of the week, which we call the Lord's day, as the whole for a part. For what help is it that some, pressed by these difficulties and not knowing that this manner of speech, that is, the whole for a part, is of the greatest value in solving the questions of the holy Scriptures, wanted to count as a night those three hours from the sixth to the ninth in which the sun was darkened, and as a day the other three hours in which it was given back again to the earth, that is, from the ninth until its setting? For there follows the night of the coming Sabbath; when this is counted with its day, there will now be two nights and two days. Then after the Sabbath follows the night of the first day of the week, that is, of the dawning Lord's day, in which the Lord then rose; so there will be two nights and two days and one night, even if the whole of it could be understood, and we did not show that that dawn is its last part. Therefore, even if those six hours are counted, in three of which the sun was darkened and in three of which it shone, the reckoning of three days and three nights will not hold. It remains, then, that by that most customary manner of speaking of the Scriptures, by which the whole is understood from a part, we find the first day in the time of the Preparation, in which the Lord was crucified and buried, and from that last part of it take the whole day with its night, which had already passed; the middle day, that is, the Sabbath, not as a part but entirely whole; and the third again from its first part, that is, from the night, the whole with its daytime; and so there will be three days, just as with those eight days after which he went up the mountain, of which Matthew and Mark, looking at the whole days in between, said “after six days,” where Luke said “after eight days.”

Now let us see how the rest agree with Matthew. For Luke says most plainly that two angels were seen by the women who came to the tomb, of whom we had understood one each to be recorded by the two, one by Matthew, that is, the one who sat on the stone outside the tomb, the other by Mark, that is, the one who sat on the right inside the tomb. But Luke narrates thus: “And it was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was dawning. And the women who had come with him from Galilee followed and 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 bringing the spices they had prepared, and they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, and going in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. And it happened, while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood beside them in shining clothing. 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 that 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 told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.” How, then, were single angels seen sitting, one according to Matthew outside on the stone and another according to Mark inside on the right, when according to Luke two stood beside them, although they said similar things? We can indeed still understand that one angel was seen by the women according to both Matthew and Mark, as we said above, so that we take them as having entered “into the tomb,” namely into some space protected by a wall, so that one could enter in front of that rocky place of the grave; and that there they saw an angel sitting on the stone rolled away from the tomb, as Matthew says, so that this is the “sitting on the right” that Mark says; then, inside, while they were looking at the place where the Lord's body had lain, two other angels were seen by them standing, as Luke says, who spoke similar things to encourage their minds and build up their faith.

But let us also see what John says, whether and how it agrees with these. John, then, narrates thus: “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early, while it was still dark, to the tomb, and she saw the stone 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 laid him.’ So Peter went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the tomb. And the two were running together, and that other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came first to the tomb. And stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying there, yet 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 face cloth, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had come first to the tomb, also went in, and he saw and believed. For they did not yet know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their homes. But Mary was standing outside at the tomb, weeping. As she wept, she stooped down and looked into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. They said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ She said to them, ‘Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.’ When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?’ She, thinking that he was the gardener, said to him, ‘Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid 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, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ Mary Magdalene came announcing to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord,’ and that he had said these things to her.” In this narrative of John, the day or time at which they came to the tomb agrees with the others; that two angels were seen also agrees with Luke; but that Luke says the angels were seen standing and John sitting, and the other things the others do not say, how they can here be understood not to disagree with the others, and in what order they were done, unless carefully considered, can seem contradictory.