Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Nicene Fathers Vol 06: 16.05.02 Harmony of Gospels Bk 3 Part 2
TOPIC: Nicene Fathers Vol 06 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 16.05.02 Harmony of Gospels Bk 3 Part 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Chapter VI.-Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which These Evangelists Give of What Happened When the Lord Was Led Away to the House of the High Priest, as Also of the Occurrences Which Took Place Within the Said House After He Was Conducted There in the Nighttime, and in Particular of the Incident of Peter's Denial.
19. In the line of Matthew's narrative we come next upon this statement: "And they that laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled."hyperlink We learn, however, from John that He was conducted first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.hyperlink On the other hand, Mark and Luke omit all mention of the name of the high priest.hyperlink Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For, as John informs us, there were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune and a cohort, and the servants of the Jews.hyperlink Then in Matthew we have these words: "But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end."hyperlink To this passage in the narrative Mark makes this addition: "And he warmed himself at the fire."hyperlink Luke also makes a statement which amounts to the same, thus: "Peter followed afar off: and when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them."hyperlink And John proceeds in these terms: "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple (namely, that other) was known unto the high priest, and went in (as John also tells us) with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter (as the same John adds) stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter."hyperlink For , the last fact we are thus indebted to John's narrative. And in this way we see how it came about that Peter also got inside, and was within the hall, as the other evangelists mention.hyperlink
20. Then Matthew's report goes on thus: "Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death, but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none."hyperlink Mark comes in here with the explanation, that "their witness agreed not together."hyperlink But, as Matthew continues, "At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days."hyperlink Mark states that there were also others who said, "We have heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. And therefore (as Mark also observes in the same passage) their witness did not agree together."hyperlink Then Matthew gives us the following relation: "And the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said."hyperlink Mark reports the same passage in different terms, only he omits to mention the fact that the high priest adjured Him. He makes it plain, however, that the two expressions ascribed to Jesus as the reply to the high priest,-namely, "Thou hast said," and, "I am,"hyperlink -really amount to the same. For, as the said Mark puts it, the narrative goes on thus: "And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."hyperlink This is just as Matthew also presents the passage, with the solitary exception that he does not say that Jesus replied in the phrase "I am." Again, Matthew goes on further in this strain: "Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? And they answered and said, He is guilty of death."hyperlink Mark's version of this is entirely to the same effect. So Matthew continues, "Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him, and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?"hyperlink Mark reports these things in like manner. He also mentions a further fact, namely, that they covered His face.hyperlink On these incidents we have likewise the testimony of Luke.
21. These things the Lord is understood to have passed through on to the early morning in the high priest's house, to which He was first conducted, and in which Peter was also tempted. With respect, however, to this temptation of Peter, which took place during the time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, the several evangelists do not present the same order in the recital of the circumstances. For Matthew and Mark first narrate the injuries offered to the Lord, and then this temptation of Peter. Luke, again, first describes Peter's temptation, and only after that the reproaches borne by the Lord; while John, on the other hand, first recounts part of Peter's temptation, then introduces some verses recording what the Lord had to bear, next appends a statement to the effect that the Lord was sent away thence (i.e. from Annas) to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at this point resumes and sums up the relation which he had commenced of Peter's temptation in the house to which he was first conducted, giving a full account of that incident, thereafter reverting to the succession of things befalling the Lord, and telling us how He was brought to Caiaphas.hyperlink
22. Accordingly, Matthew proceeds as follows: "Now Peter sat without in the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.And as he went out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew."hyperlink Such is Matthew's version. But we are also given to understand that after he had gone outside, and when he had now denied the Lord once, the first cock crew,-a fact which Matthew does not specify, but which is intimated by Mark.
23. But it was not when he was outside at the gate that he denied the Lord the second time. That took place after he had come back to the fire-place. There was no need, however, to mention the precise time at which he did thus return. Consequently Mark goes on with his narrative of the incident in these terms: "And he went out into the porch, and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. And he denied it again."hyperlink This is not the same maid, however, as the former one, but another, as Matthew tells us. Nay, we gather further that on the occasion of the second denial he was addressed by two parties, namely, by the maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also by another person who is noticed by Luke. For Luke's account runs in this style: "And Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied Him, saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after a little while, another saw him, and said, "Thou art also of them."hyperlink Now the clause, "And after a little while," which Luke introduces, covers the period during which [we may suppose that] Peter went out and the first cock crew. By this time, however, he had come in again; and thus we can understand the consistency of John's narrative, which informs us that he denied the Lord the second time as he stood by the fire. For in his version of Peter's first denial, John not only says nothing about the first crowing of the cock (which holds good of the other evangelists, too, with the exception of Mark), but also leaves unnoticed the fact that it was as he sat by the fire that the maid recognised him. For all that John says there is this, "Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not."hyperlink Then he brings in the statement which he deemed it right to make on the subject of what took place with Jesus in that same house. His record of this is to the following effect: "And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was cold. And they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself."hyperlink Here, therefore, we may suppose Peter to have gone out, and by this time to have come in again. For at first he was sitting by the fire; and after a space, as we gather, he had returned, and commenced to stand [by the hearth].
24. It may be, however, that some one will say to us: Peter had not actually gone out as yet, but had only risen with the purpose of going out. This may be the allegation of one who is of opinion that the second interrogation and denial took place when Peter was outside at the door. Let us therefore look at what follows in John's narrative. It is to this effect: "The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in thesynagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest."hyperlink This certainly shows us that Annas was high priest. For Jesus had not been sent to Caiaphas as yet, when the question was thus put to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so?" Mention is also made of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests by Luke at the beginning of his Gospel.hyperlink After these statements, John reverts to the account which he had previously begun of Peter's denial. Thus he brings us back to the house in which the incidents took place which he has recorded, and from which Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas, to whom He was being conducted at the commencement of this scene, as Matthew has informed us.hyperlink Moreover, it is in the way of a recapitulation that John records the matters regarding Peter which he has introduced at this point. Falling back upon his narration of that incident with the view of making up a complete account of the threefold denial, he proceeds thus: "And Simon stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not."hyperlink Here, therefore, we find that Peter's second denial occurred, not when he was at the door,but as he was standing by the fire. This, however, could not have been the case, had he notreturned by this time after having gone outside.For it is not that by this second occasion he had actually gone out, and that the other maid who is referred to saw him there outside; but the matter is put as if it was on his going out that she saw him; or, in other words, it was when he rose to go out that she observed him, and said to those who were there,-that is, to those who were gathered by the fire inside, within the court,-"This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth." Then we are to suppose that the man who had thus gone outside, on hearing thisassertion, came in again, and swore to those whowere now inimically disposed, "I do not know the man."hyperlink In like manner, Mark also says of this same maid, that "she began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them."hyperlink For this damsel was speaking not to Peter, but to those who had remained there when he went out. At the same time, she spoke in such a manner that he heard her words; whereupon he came back and stood again by the fire, and met their words with a negative. Then we have the statement made by John in these terms: "They said, Art not thou also one of his disciples?" We understand this question to have been addressed to him on his return as he stood there; and we also recognise the harmony in which this stands with the position that on this occasion Peter had to do not only with that other maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark in connection with this second denial, but also with that other person who is introduced by Luke. This is the reason why John uses the plural, "They said." The explanation then may be, that when the maid said to those who were with her in the court as he went out, "This is one of them," he heard her words and returned with the purpose of clearing himself, as it were, by a denial. Or, in accordance with the more probable theory, we may suppose that he did not catch what was said about him as he went out, and that on his return the maid and the other person who is introduced by Luke addressed him thus, "Art not thou also one of his disciples?" that he met them with a denial, "and said, I am not;" and further, that when this other person of whom Luke speaks insisted more pertinaciously, and said, "Surely thou art one of them," Peter answered thus, "Man, I am not." Still, when we compare together all the statements made by the several evangelists on this subject, we come clearly to the conclusion, that Peter's second denial took place, not when he was at the door, but when he was within, by the fire in the court. It becomes evident, therefore, that Matthew and Mark, who have told us how he went without, have left the fact of his return unnoticed simply with a view to brevity.
25. Accordingly, let us next examine into the consistency of the evangelists so far as the third denial is concerned, which we have previously instanced in the statement given by Matthew only. Mark then goes on with his version in these terms: "And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And immediately the second time the cock crew."hyperlink Luke, again, continues his narrative, relating the same incident in this fashion: "And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, Of a truth this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake the cock crew."hyperlink John follows with his account of Peter's third denial, which is thus given: "One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew."hyperlink Now what precise period of time is meant under the phrase, "a little after," which is employed by Matthew and Mark, is made clear by Luke, when he says, "And about the space of one hour after." John, however, conveys no intimation of this space of time. Again, with respect to the circumstance that Matthew and Mark use the plural number instead of the singular, and speak of the persons who were engaged with Peter, while Luke mentions only a single individual, and John, too, specifies but one, particularizing him further as kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off; we may easily explain it either by understanding Matthew and Mark to have adopted a familiar method of speech here in employing the plural number simply instead of the singular, or by supposing that one of the persons present-one who knew Peter and had seen him-took the lead in making the declaration, and that the rest, imitating his confidence, joined him in pressing the assertion upon Peter. If this is the case, then two of the evangelists have given the general statement, using simply the plural number; while the other two have preferred to particularize only the one special individual who played the chief part in the transaction. But, once more, Matthew affirms that the words, "Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee," were spoken to Peter himself. In like manner, John tells us that the question, "Did not I see thee in the garden with him?" was addressed directly to Peter. But Mark, on the other hand, gives us to understand that the sentence, "Surely he is one of them, for he is also a Galilaean," was what those who stood by said to each other about Peter. And, in the same way, Luke indicates that the declaration uttered by the other person, who said, "Of a truth, this fellow also was with him, for he is a Galilaean," was not addressed to Peter, but was made regarding Peter. These variations, however, may be explained either by understanding the evangelists, who speak of Peter as the person directly addressed, to have fairly reproduced the general sense, inasmuch as what was spoken about the man in his own presence was much the same as if it had been spoken immediately to him; or by supposing that both these methods of address were actually practised, and that the one has been noticed by the former evangelists, and the other by the latter. Moreover, we take the second cockcrowing to have occurred after the third denial, as Mark has expressly informed us.
26. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly."hyperlink Mark, again, gives it thus: "And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the cock crow twice thou shall deny me thrice. And he began to weep."hyperlink Luke's version is as follows: "And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out and wept bitterly."hyperlink John says nothing about Peter's recollection and weeping. Now, the statement made here by Luke, to the effect that "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter," is one which requires more careful consideration, with a view to its correct acceptance. For although there are also inner halls (or courts), so named, it was in the outer court (or hall) that Peter appeared on this occasion among the servants, who were warming themselves along with him at the fire. And it is not a credible supposition that Jesus was heard by the Jews in this place, so that we might also understand the look referred to have been a look with the bodily eye. For Matthew presents us first with this narrative: "Then did they spit in His face and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?"hyperlink And then he follows this up immediately with the paragraph about Peter: "Now Peter sat without in the palace."hyperlink He would not, however, have used this latter expression, had it not been the case that the things previously alluded to were done to the Lord inside the house. And, indeed, as we gather from Mark's version, these things took place not simply in the interior, but also in the upper parts of the house. For, after recording the said circumstances, Mark goes on thus: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace."hyperlink Thus, as Matthew's words, "Now Peter sat without in the palace," show us that the things previously mentioned took place inside the house, so Mark's words, "And as Peter was beneath in the palace," indicate that they were done not only in the interior, but in the upper parts of the house. But if this is the case, how could the Lord have looked on Peter with the actual glance of the bodily eye? These considerations bring me to the conclusion, that the look in question was one cast upon Peter from Heaven, the effect of which was to bring up before his mind the number of times he had now denied [his Master], and the declaration which the Lord had made to him prophetically, and in this way (the Lord thus looking mercifully upon himhyperlink ), to lead him to repent, and to weep salutary tears. The expression, therefore, will be a parallel to other modes of speech which we employ daily, as when we thus pray, "Lord, look upon me;" or as when, in reference to one who has been delivered by the divine mercy from some danger or trouble, we say that the "Lord looked upon him." In the Scriptures, also, we find such words as these: "Look upon me and hear me;hyperlink and "Return,hyperlink O Lord, and deliver my soul."hyperlink And, according to my judgment, a similar view is to be taken of the expression adopted here, when it is said that "the Lord turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord." Finally, we have to notice how, while it is the more usual practice with the evangelists to employ the name "Jesus" in preference to the word "Lord" in their narratives, Luke has used the latter term exclusively in the said sentence, saying expressly, "The `Lord' turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the `Lord:'" whereas Matthew and Mark have passed over this "look" in silence, and consequently have said that Peter remembered not the word of the "Lord," but the word of "Jesus." From this, therefore, we may gather that the "look" thus proceeding from Jesus was not one with the eyes of the human body, but a look cast from Heaven.hyperlink
Chapter VII.-Of the Thorough Harmony of the Evangelists in the Different Accounts of What Took Place in the Early Morning, Previous to the Delivery of Jesus to Pilate; And of the Question Touching the Passage Which is Quoted on the Subject of the Price Set Upon the Lord, and Which is Ascribed to Jeremiah by Matthew, Although No Such Paragraph is Found in the Writings of that Prophet.
27. Matthew next proceeds as follows: "When the morning was come, 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."hyperlink Mark's version is to the like effect: "And straightway in the morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried Him away, and delivered Him to Pilate."hyperlink Luke, again, after completing his account of Peter's denial, recapitulates what Jesus had to endure when it was now about daybreak, as it appears, and continues his narrative in the following connection: "And the men that held Jesus mocked Him, and smote Him; and when they had blindfolded Him, they struck Him on the face, and asked Him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against Him. And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people, and the chief priests, and the scribes came together, and led Him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And He said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe; and if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And He said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we further witness? For we ourselves have heard of His own mouth. And the whole multitude of them arose, and led Him unto Pilate."hyperlink Luke has thus recorded all these things. His statement contains certain facts which are also related by Matthew and Mark; namely, that the Lord was asked whether He was the Son of God, and that He made this reply, "I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." And we gather that these things took place when the day was now breaking, because Luke's expression is, "And as soon as it was day." Thus Luke's narrative is similar to those of the others, although he also introduces something which these others have left unnoticed. We gather further, that when it was yet night, the Lord faced the ordeal of the false witnesses,-a fact which is recorded briefly by Matthew and Mark, and which is passed over in silence by Luke, who, however, has told the story of what was done when the dawn was coming in. The former two-namely, Matthew and Mark-have given connected narratives of all that the Lord passed through until early morning. After that, however, they have reverted to the story of Peter's denial; on the conclusion of which they have come back upon the events of the early morning, and have introduced the other circumstances which remained for recital with a view to the completion of their account of what befell the Lord.hyperlink But up to this point they have given no account of the occurrences belonging specifically to the morning.hyperlink In like manner John, after recording what was done with the Lord as fully as he deemed requisite, and after telling also the whole story of Peter's denial, continues his narrative in these terms: "Then lead they Jesus to Caiaphas,hyperlink unto the hall of judgment. And it was early."hyperlink Here we might suppose either that there had been something imperatively requiring Caiaphas' presence in the hall of judgment, and that he was absent on the occasion when the other chief priests held an inquiry on the Lord; or else that the hall of judgment was in his house; and that yet from the beginning of this scene they had thus only been leading Jesus away to the personage in whose presence He was at last actually conducted. But as they brought the accused person in the character of one already convicted, and as it had previously approved itself to Caiaphas' judgment that Jesus should die, there was no further delay in delivering Him over to Pilate, with a view to His being put to death.hyperlink And thus it is that Matthew here relates what took place between Pilate and the Lord.
28. First, however, he makes a digression with the purpose of telling the story of Judas' end, which is related only by him. His account is in these terms: "Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, when he saw that He was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was valued, whom the children of Israelhyperlink did value, and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."hyperlink
29. Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it I was spoken "by the prophet." It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken "by the prophet, saying," which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah.hyperlink
30. How, then, is the matter to be explained, but by supposing that this has been done in accordance with the more secret counsel of that providence of God by which the minds of the evangelists were governed? For it may have been the case, that when Matthew was engaged in composing his Gospel, the word Jeremiah occurred to his mind, in accordance with a familiar experience, instead of Zechariah. Such an inaccuracy, however, he would most undoubtedly have corrected (having his attention called to it, as surely would have been the case, by some who might have read it while he was still alive in the flesh), had he not reflected that [perhaps] it was not without a purpose that the name of the one prophet had been suggested instead of the other in the process of recalling the circumstances (which process of recollection was also directed by the Holy Spirit), and that this might not have occurred to him had it not been the Lord's purpose to have it so written. If it is asked, however, why the Lord should have so determined it, there is this first and most serviceable reason, which deserves our most immediate consideration, namely, that some idea was thus conveyed of the marvellous manner in which all the holy prophets, speaking in one spirit, continued in perfect unison with each other in their utterances,-a circumstance certainly much more calculated to impress the mind than would have been the case had all the words of all these prophets been spoken by the mouth of a single individual. The same consideration might also fitly suggest the duty of accepting unhesitatingly whatever the Holy Spirit has given expression to through the agency of these prophets, and of looking upon their individual communications as also those of the whole body, and on their collective communications as also those of each separately. If, then, it is the case that words spoken by Jeremiah are really as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and, on the other hand, that words spoken by Zechariah are really as much Jeremiah's as they are Zechariah's, what necessity was there for Matthew to correct his text when he read over what he had written, and found that the one name had occurred to him instead of the other? Was it not rather the proper course for him to bow to the authority of the Holy Spirit, under whose guidance he certainly felt his mind to be placed in a more decided sense than is the case with us, and consequently to leave untouched what he had thus written, in accordance with the Lord's counsel and appointment, with the intent to give us to understand that the prophets maintain so complete a harmony with each other in the matter of their utterances that it becomes nothing absurd, but, in fact, a most consistent thing for us to credit Jeremiah with a sentence originally spoken by Zechariah?hyperlink For if, in these days of ours, a person, desiring to bring under our notice the words of a certain individual, happens to mention the name of another by whom the words were not actually uttered,hyperlink but who at the same time is the most intimate friend and associate of the man by whom they were really spoken; and if forthwith recollecting that he has given the one name instead of the other, he recovers himself and corrects the mistake, but does it nevertheless in some such way as this, "After all, what I said was not amiss;" what would we take to be meant by this, but just that there subsists so perfect a unison of sentiment between the two parties-that is to say, the man whose words the individual in question intended to repeat, and the second person whose name occurred to him at the time instead of that of the other-that it comes much to the same thing to represent the words to have been spoken by the former as to say that they were uttered by the latter? How much more, then, is this a usage which might well be understood and most particularly commended to our attention in the case of the holy prophets, so that we might accept the books composed by the whole series of them, as if they formed but a single book written by one author, in which no discrepancy with regard to the subjects dealt with should be supposed to exist, as none would be found, and in which there would be a more remarkable example of consistency and veracity than would have been the case had a single individual, even the most learned, been the enunciator of all these sayings? Therefore, while there are those, whether unbelievers or merely ignorant men, who endeavour to find an argument here to help them in demonstrating a want of harmony between the holy evangelists, men of faith and learning, on the other hand, ought rather to bring this into the service of proving the unity which characterizes the holy prophets.hyperlink
31. I have also another reason (the fuller discussion of which must be reserved, I think, for another opportunity, in order to prevent the present discourse from extending to larger limits than may be allowed by the necessity which rests upon us to bring this work to a conclusion) to offer in explanation of the fact that the name of Jeremiah has been permitted, or rather directed, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, to stand in this passage instead of that of Zechariah. It is stated in Jeremiah that he bought a field from the son of his brother, and paid him money for it. That sum of money is not given, indeed, under the name of the particular price which is found in Zechariah, namely, thirty pieces of silver; but, on the other hand, there is no mention of the buying of the field in Zechariah. Now, it is evident that the evangelist has interpreted the prophecy which speaks of the thirty pieces of silver as something which has received its fulfilment only in the Lord's case, so that it is made to stand for the price set upon Him. But again, that the words which were uttered by Jeremiah on the subject of the purchase of the field have also a bearing upon the same matter, may have been mystically signified by the selection thus made in introducing [into the evangelical narrative] the name of Jeremiah, who spoke of the purchase of the field, instead of that of Zechariah, to whom we are indebted for the notice of the thirty pieces of silver. In this way, on perusing first the Gospel, and finding the name of Jeremiah there, and then, again, on perusing Jeremiah, and failing there to discover the passage about the thirty pieces of silver, but seeing at the same time the section about the purchase of the field, the reader would be taught to compare the two paragraphs together, and get at the real meaning of the prophecy, and learn how it also stands in relation to this fulfilment of prophecy which was exhibited in the instance of our Lord. For [it is also to be remarked that] Matthew makes the following addition to the passage cited, namely, "Whom the children of Israel did value; and gave them the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." Now, these words are not to be found either in Zechariah or in Jeremiah. Hence we must rather take them to have been inserted with a nice and mystical meaning by the evangelist, on his own responsibility,-the Lord having given him to understand, by revelation, that a prophecy of the said tenor had a real reference to this occurrence, which took place in connection with the price set upon Christ. Moreover, in Jeremiah, the evidence of the purchase of the field is ordered to be cast into an earthen vessel. Inlike manner, we find in the Gospel that the money paid for the Lord was used for the purchase of a potter's field, which field also was to be employed as a burying-place for strangers. And it may be that all this was significant of the permanence of the repose of those who sojourn like strangers in this present world, and are buried with Christ by baptism. For the Lord also declared to Jeremiah, that the said purchase of the field was expressive of the fact that in that land [of Judaea] there would be a remnant of the people delivered from their captivity.hyperlink I judged it proper to give some sort of sketchhyperlink of these things, as I was calling attention to the kind of significance which a really careful and painstaking study should look for in these testimonies of the prophets, when they are reduced to a unity and compared with the evangelical narrative. These, then, are the statements which Matthew has introduced with reference to the traitor Judas.
Chapter VIII.-Of the Absence of Any Discrepancies in the Accounts Which the Evangelists Give of What Took Place in Pilate's Presence.
32. He next proceeds as follows: "And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus saith unto him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And He answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him. But when he was set down on the judgment-seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. But the governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? And they said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. The governor said to them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. Then released he Barabbas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to them to be crucified."hyperlink These are the things which Matthew has reported to have been done to the Lord by Pilate.
33. Mark also presents an almost entire identity with the above, both in language and in subject. The words, however, in which Pilate replied to the people when they asked him to release one prisoner according to the custom of the feast, are reported by this evangelist as follows: "But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?"hyperlink On the other hand, Matthew gives them thus: "Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" There need be no difficulty in the circumstance that Matthew says nothing about the people having requested that one should be released unto them. But it may fairly be asked, what were the words which Pilate actually uttered, whether these reported by Matthew, or those recited by Mark. For there seems to be some difference between these two forms of expression, namely, "Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?" and, "Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" Nevertheless, as they were in the habit of calling their kings "anointed ones,"hyperlink and one might use the one term or the other,hyperlink it is evident that what Pilate asked them was whether they would have the King of the Jews, that is, the Christ, released unto them. And it matters nothing to the real identity in meaning that Mark, desiring simply to relate what concerned the Lord Himself, has not mentioned Barabbas here. For, in the report which he gives of their reply, he indicates with sufficient clearness who the person was whom they asked to have released unto them. His version is this: "But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them." Then he proceeds to add the sentence, "And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I should do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?" This makes it plain enough now, that in speaking of the King of the Jews, Mark meant to express the very sense which Matthew intended to convey by using the term "Christ." For kings were not called "anointed ones"hyperlink except among the Jews; and the form which Matthew gives to the words in question is this, "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?" So Mark continues, "And they cried out again, Crucify him:" which appears thus in Matthew, "They all say unto him, Let him be crucified." Again Mark goes on, "Then Pilate said unto them Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him." Matthew has not recorded this passage; but he has introduced the statement, "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made," and has also informed us how he washed his hands before the people with the view of declaring himself innocent of the blood of that just person (a circumstance not reported by Mark and the others). And thus he has also shown us with all due plainness how the governor dealt with the people with the intention of securing His release. This has been briefly referred to by Mark, when he tells us that Pilate said, "Why, what evil hath he done?" And thereupon Mark also concludes his account of what took place between Pilate and the Lord in these terms: "And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged Him, to be crucified." The above is Mark's recital of what occurred in presence of the governor.hyperlink
34. Luke gives the following version of what took place in presence of Pilate: "And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king."hyperlink The previous two evangelists have not recorded these words, although they do mention the fact that these parties accused Him. Luke is thus the one who has specified the terms of the false accusations which were brought against Him. On the other hand, he does not state that Pilate said to Him, "Answerest thou nothing? behold, how many things they witness against thee." Instead of introducing these sentences, Luke goes on to relate other matters which are also reported by these two. Thus he continues: "And Pilate asked Him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And He answered him and said, Thou sayest." Matthew and Mark have likewise inserted this fact, previous to the statement that Jesus was taken to task for not answering His accusers. The truth, however, is not at all affected by the order in which Luke has narrated these things; and as little is it affected by the mere circumstance that one writer passes over some incident without notice, which another expressly specifies. We have an instance in what follows; namely, "Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man. And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. But when Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilean. And as soon as he knew that He belonged unto Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see Him of a long season, because he had heard many things of Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him. Then he questioned with Him in many words; but He answered him nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him. And Herod with his men of war set Him at nought, and mocked Him, and arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him again to Pilate. And the same day Herod and Pilate were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves."hyperlink All these things are related by Luke alone, namely, the fact that the Lord was sent by Pilate to Herod, and the account of what took place on that occasion. At the same time, among the statements which he makes in this passage, there are some bearing a resemblance to matters which may be found reported by the other evangelists in connection with different portions of their narrations. But the immediate object of these others, however, was to recount simply the various things which were done in Pilate's presence on to the time when the Lord was delivered over to be crucified. In accordance with his own plan, however, Luke makes the above digression with the view of telling what occurred with Herod; and after that he reverts to the history of what took place in the governor's presence. Thus he now continues as follows: "And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him."hyperlink Here we notice that he has omitted to mention how Pilate asked the Lord what answer He had to make to His accusers. Thereafter he proceeds in these terms: "No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him: and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him and release him. For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast. And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas; who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison. Pilate, therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him and let him go. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified; and the voices of themhyperlink prevailed."hyperlink The repeated effort which Pilate, in his desire to accomplish the release of Jesus, thus made to gain the people's consent, is satisfactorily attested by Matthew, although in a very few words, when he says, "But when Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made." For he would not have made such a statement at all, had not Pilate exerted himself earnestly in that direction, although at the same time he has not told us how often he made such attempts to rescue Jesus from their fury. Accordingly, Luke concludes his report of what took place in the governor's presence in this fashion: "And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required. And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will."hyperlink
35. Let us next take the account of these same incidents-that is to say, those in which Pilate was engaged-as it is presented by John. He proceeds thus: "And they themselves went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee."hyperlink We must look into this passage in order to show that it contains nothing inconsistent with Luke's version, which states that certain charges were brought against Him, and also specifies their terms. For Luke's words are these: "And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a king." On the other hand, according to the paragraph which I have now cited from John, the Jews seem to have been unwilling to state any specific accusations, when Pilate asked them, "What accusation bring ye against this man?" For their reply was, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee;" the purport of which was, that he should accept their authority, cease to inquire what fault was alleged against Him, and believe Him guilty for the simple reason that He had been [reckoned] worthy of being delivered up by them to him. This being the case, then, we ought to suppose that both these versions report words which were actually said, both the one before us at present, and the one given by Luke. For among the multitude of sayings and replies which passed between the parties, these writers have made their own selections as far as their judgment allowed them to go, and each of them has introduced into his narrative just what he considered sufficient. It is also true that John himself mentions certain charges which were alleged against Him, and which we shall find in their proper connections. Here, then, he proceeds thus: "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews, therefore, said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death; that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?"hyperlink This again may seem not to harmonize with what is recorded by the others,-namely, "Jesus answered, Thou sayest,"-unless it is made clear in what follows that the one thing was said as well as the other. Hence he gives us to understand that the matters which he records next are [not to be regarded as] things never actually uttered by the Lord, but are rather to be considered things which have been passed over in silence by the other evangelists. Mark, therefore, what remains of his narrative. It proceeds thus: "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king."hyperlink Behold, here is the point at which he comes to that which the other evangelists have reported. And then he goes on, the Lord being still the speaker, to recite other matters which the rest have not recorded. His terms are these: "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no fault in him. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye, therefore, that I release unto you the King of the Jews? Then cried they all again, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. Then Pilate, therefore, took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe; and they came to Him and said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote Him with their hands. Pilate went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."hyperlink This may fit in with what Luke reports to have been stated in the accusation brought by the Jews,-namely, "We found this fellow perverting our nation,"-so that we might append here the reason given for it, "Because he made himself the Son of God." John then goes on in the following strain: "When Pilate, therefore, heard that saying, he was the more afraid, and went again into the judgment-hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto Him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. From thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar."hyperlink This may very well agree with what Luke records in connection with the said accusation brought by the Jews. For after the words, "We found this fellow perverting our nation," he has added the clause, "And forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king." This will also offer a solution for the difficulty previously referred to, namely, the occasion which might seem to be given for supposing John to have indicated that no specific charge was laid by the Jews against the Lord, when they answered and said unto him, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee." John then continues in the following strain: "When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King? But they cried out, Away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified."hyperlink The above is John's version of what was done by Pilate.hyperlink
Footnotes
60 Matt. xxvi. 57.
61 John xviii. 13.
62 Mark xiv. 53; Luke xxii. 54.
63 John xviii. 12.
64 Matt. xxvi. 58.
65 Mark xiv. 54.
66 Luke xxii. 54, 55.
67 John xviii. 15-18.
68 [It is implied here that the denials of Peter took place in the house of Annas, and also that Matthew and Mark, in their account of the night examination, refer to the same event described by John (xviii. 19-23). The objection to this is found in the explicit statement of Matthew (xxvi. 57) in regard to Caiaphas.-R.]
69 Matt. xxvi. 59, 60.
70 Mark xiv. 56.
71 Matt. xxvi. 61.
72 Mark xiv. 57-59.
73 Matt. xxvi. 62-64.
74 Mark xiv. 62.
75 Mark xiv. 62.
76 Matt. xxvi. 65, 66.
77 Matt. xxvi. 67, 68.
78 Mark xiv. 65.
79 [The evangelists indicate three distinct episodes of recognition and denial, but do not refer to the same facts in detail. This Augustin seems to apprehend.-R.]
80 Matt. xxvi. 69-74.
81 Mark xiv. 68-70.
82 Luke xxii. 54-58.
83 John xviii. 17.
84 John xviii. 18.
85 John xviii. 19-24.
86 Luke iii. 2.
87 Matt. xxviii. 57. [See note on § 19. Augustin's Latin text in John xviii. 24, et misit eum, etc., agrees in tense with the Greek. The Authorized Version incorrectly renders, "Now Annas had sent," etc. The Revised Version has, "Annas therefore sent," The theory of two distinct night examinations (before Annas first, and then before Caiphas) agrees best with the literal sense. Both may have occupied parts of the same house.-R.]
88 John xviii. 25.
89 Matt. xxviii. 71.
90 Mark xiv. 69.