Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 30 part 12/14

Or at least by 'entering the tomb' we ought to understand entering some enclosure of a low wall, by which it is credible that the place was then fenced off in some space before the rock, which, being hewn out, had been made the place of burial; so that they saw him sitting on the right in that same space, whom Matthew says was sitting upon the stone which by the earthquake he had rolled back from the door of the tomb, that is, from the place of the sepulchre, which had been dug out in the rock. Again it can be asked how Mark says: Concerning the very hour also at which the women came to the tomb, a question arises not to be despised. For while Matthew says:

'Now late on the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre,' what does Mark mean when he says: 'and very early on the first day of the week they came to the tomb, the sun being now risen'? In which indeed he does not disagree with the other two, that is, Luke and John. For what Luke says, 'very early in the morning,' and John, 'in the morning while it was yet dark,' this is understood to be what Mark says, 'very early, the sun being now risen,' that is, when the sky in the eastern quarter was already whitening, which certainly does not happen except by the nearness of the rising sun; for that brightness is his, which is wont to be called by the name of dawn. Therefore it is not contrary to him who says, 'while it was yet dark.'

For as the day rises, whatever remains of darkness is the more thinned out, the more the light rises. Nor is what he says, 'very early,' to be taken as though the sun itself were already seen above the earth, but rather as we are wont to say to those to whom we wish to signify that something is to be done earlier.

For when we say 'early,' lest they think we mean when the sun is already conspicuous above the earth, we for the most part add to this 'very early,' so that they may understand that which is called the time even of dawning. Although this too is customary: that after the cock's crow often repeated, when men have begun to conjecture that day is now approaching, they say 'it is now morning'; and when, after this word, they have observed, and have seen the sky reddening or whitening, the sun being now near, that is, now coming from close at hand into these parts, they add — those who were saying 'it is morning' — and say 'it is very early morning.'

But what does it matter, so long as, whether in this way or in that, we understand nothing else by Mark's 'early' than what Luke called 'daybreak,' and this 'very early' than what he called 'very early daybreak,' and what John called 'morning while it was yet dark, but the sun rising,' that is, by his rising now beginning to illumine the sky? How then Matthew agrees with these three — Matthew who says neither 'daybreak' nor 'morning,' but 'late on the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week' — must be more attentively investigated. For by the first part of the night, which is evening, Matthew wished to signify the night itself, at the end of which night the women came to the tomb.

And the reason is understood why he so named that same night: because in the evening it was now lawful to bring spices, the sabbath being of course over. Therefore, since they were hindered on the sabbath from doing it earlier, he named the night from that time at which it began to be lawful for them to do it, at whatever time of that same night they wished. Thus then it was said, 'in the evening of the sabbath,' as if it were said 'in the night of the sabbath,' that is, in the night which follows the day of the sabbath. And his very words sufficiently indicate this. For he says: 'Now in the evening of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week' — which cannot be, if we understand only the first little part of the night, that is, only the beginning of night, to be signified by the word 'evening';

for the very beginning does not dawn toward the first day of the week, but rather the night itself, which begins to be terminated by the light. For the end of the first part of the night is the beginning of the second part, but the light is the end of the whole night. Whence it cannot be said, 'evening dawning toward the first day of the week,' unless by the name of 'evening' the night itself be understood, which the light terminates. And it is a usual mode of speaking in divine Scripture to name the whole from a part. Therefore by the 'evening' he signified the night, whose extremity is daybreak. For at daybreak those women came to the tomb; and thereby they came on that night which was signified by the name of 'evening.' For the whole was signified by that name, as I said; and therefore, at whatever part of that night they had come, they would certainly have come on that night;

since therefore they came in the last part of that night, they without doubt came on that night. But 'in the evening, as it dawns toward the first day of the week,' cannot be understood except as that whole night: therefore they came in that evening who came on that same night, and they came on that same night who came, though in the extreme part of that night. For even the very three days in which the Lord died and rose again cannot rightly be understood except by this mode of speaking, by which the whole is wont to be named from a part. For he himself says: 'For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man also be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.'

But the times are reckoned, whether from when he gave up the spirit or from when he was buried, and it does not come out clearly unless we take the middle day, that is, the whole sabbath as a whole day, that is, with its night, but understand those days which stood at the extremities, that is, the day of preparation and the first day of the week, which we call the Lord's Day, as the whole from a part. For what does it help that certain men, hemmed in by these straits, and not knowing that this mode of expression, that is, the whole from a part, avails very much in resolving questions of the Holy Scriptures, wished to count as night those three hours from the sixth to the ninth in which the sun was darkened, and as day the other three hours in which it was again restored to the earth, that is, from the ninth until its setting?

For there follows the night of the coming sabbath. Which, reckoned with its day, will now make two nights and two days; but further, after the sabbath there follows the night of the first day of the week, that is, of the dawning Lord's Day, in which the Lord then rose again; there will therefore be two nights and two days and one night — even if the whole could be understood, and we did not show that that daybreak is its extreme part; wherefore, even with those six hours counted in, of which for three the sun was darkened and for three it shone, the reckoning of three days and three nights will not stand. It remains therefore,

that by that most usual scriptural mode of speaking, by which the whole is understood from a part, we find the last day to be the time of the preparation, in which the Lord was crucified and buried, and from that very extreme part we take the whole day with its night, which had already elapsed; but the middle, that is, the day of the sabbath, not from a part but entirely as a whole; and again the third from its first part, that is, from its night the whole with its daytime; and thus there will be a period of three days, just as those eight days after which he went up onto the mountain. Attending to the middle ones of these entire, Matthew and Mark said 'after six days,' which Luke said 'after eight days.' Now let us see the rest, how they agree with Matthew.

For Luke most plainly says that two angels were seen by the women who came to the tomb, of whom we had understood single ones to be mentioned by two, one by Matthew, that is, the one who sat outside the tomb upon the stone, the other by Mark, that is, the one who sat inside the tomb on the right. But Luke narrates thus: '...to the dead? The stone taken away from the tomb. Because they have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid him.' In one single narrative, insofar as the Lord shall help us, let us arrange how these things could have been done. On the first day of the week at daybreak, as all agree, there was a coming to the tomb.

That had already happened which Matthew alone mentions concerning the earthquake and the rolled-away stone and the guards struck with terror, so that in some part they lay as if dead. But there came, as John says, Mary Magdalene, doubtless more fervent in love than the other women who had ministered to the Lord, so that not undeservedly John mentioned her alone, being silent about those who were with her, as the others testify. She came therefore and saw the stone taken away from the tomb, and, before she inspected anything more carefully, not doubting that the body of Jesus had been carried off from there, she ran, as the same John says, and announced it to Peter and to John himself. For he is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

But they began to run to the tomb, and John, running ahead, stooped down and saw the linen cloths lying, yet did not enter; but Peter, following, entered into the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin which had been over his head, not lying with the linen cloths but wrapped up in a place by itself. Then John also entered and saw likewise and believed what Mary had said, that the Lord had been taken away from the tomb. For as yet he did not know the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. The disciples therefore went away again to themselves. But Mary stood outside at the tomb weeping, that is, before that place of the rock sepulchre, but nevertheless within that space which they had already entered;

for there was a garden there, as the same John mentions. Then they saw the angel sitting on the right upon the stone rolled away from the tomb, concerning which angel Matthew and Mark narrate. Then he said to them: '...of sinful men, and be crucified, and rise again on the third day.' And they remembered his words. After these things Mary turned back. 'Do not fear, go, announce to my brethren that they go into Galilee; there they shall see me.' They had been instructed, and this word was spread abroad among the Jews even to this present day. XXV.

Now, after the resurrection, how the Lord appeared to the disciples must be considered, not only that from this matter too the agreement of the four evangelists may shine forth, but also that they may be in concord with the Apostle Paul, who speaks of this matter in the first Epistle to the Corinthians thus: '...angels.' But Matthew says that he met them as they were returning from the tomb. Mark too says that he was first seen by Mary Magdalene, as John also does; but how he was seen by her, he does not say. This is explained by John. Luke, however, not only is silent, as I have said, that he appeared to the women, but also says that two, of whom one was Cleopas, spoke such things with him before they recognized him.

as though the women had announced that they had seen nothing else than angels, who said that he was alive. For thus he narrates: 'Behold, two of them were going that same day to a village which was at a distance of sixty stadia from Jerusalem, named Emmaus.' They crucified him. He saw the stone torn away from the tomb; and afterward these things happened concerning the vision of the angels and of the Lord himself, who had appeared twice in number to the women, once at the tomb and again meeting them as they returned from the tomb. But this was before he had been seen by those two on the road, of whom one was Cleopas. For Cleopas too, speaking with the Lord whom he did not yet recognize, did not say that Peter had gone to the tomb;

but he says, 'certain of us went to the tomb, and found it even as the women had said,' which he too is understood to have said in recapitulating — namely, that which the women first announced to Peter and John concerning the Lord's body having been carried away. And by this, since Luke himself said that Peter ran to the tomb, and himself reported that Cleopas said that certain of them had gone to the tomb, he is understood to bear witness to John, that two had gone to the tomb; but he mentioned Peter alone at first, because Mary had first announced it to him.

Likewise it may cause difficulty that the same Luke says Peter, not entering but stooping down, saw only the linen cloths and departed marvelling, while John says that he himself rather saw thus — that is, that disciple whom Jesus loved did not enter into the tomb, where he had come first, but, when he had stooped down, saw the linen cloths lying; yet he also says that he himself afterward entered. So Peter too must be understood first to have seen while stooping down, which Luke mentions and John passes over; but afterward to have entered — yet to have entered nonetheless before John entered, so that all may be found to have spoken the truth without any contradiction.

The order therefore of events, such as could have been, how the Lord — apart from the fact that he had already spoken to the women — was seen also by the male disciples, must be woven together and demonstrated according to the testimonies not only of the four evangelists but also of the Apostle Paul. Of all the men, therefore, he is understood to have appeared first to Peter — at least of all those whom the four evangelists and the Apostle Paul mentioned. But if he appeared to any of them before Peter, which all passed over in silence, who would dare either to say or to deny it? For Paul did not say, 'he appeared first to Cephas,' but he says, 'he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, afterward he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once.'

But it is not apparent which twelve, just as neither which five hundred. For it can be that these twelve, I know not which, were from the crowd of disciples. For those whom he called apostles he would say were not twelve but eleven, as some manuscripts also have — which I believe troubled men emended, thinking it was said of those twelve apostles who, Judas being now dead, were eleven.

But whether those manuscripts which have 'eleven' are the more accurate, or whether the Apostle Paul wishes some other twelve to be understood, or whether he wished that sacred number to stand even in eleven — because the number twelve in them was so mystical that no other could be substituted in the place of Judas except another, that is, Matthias, to preserve the sacrament of the same number — whichever of these it be, nothing arises therefrom which may seem to contradict the truth or any of these most truthful narrators. Yet it is probably believed that, after he appeared to Peter, he then appeared to these two, of whom one was Cleopas. Concerning whom Luke narrates the whole, while Mark briefly touches it thus:

their eyes were held — not because the Truth deceived, but because they themselves were unable to perceive the truth and were supposing something other than the reality — lest anyone think that he has recognized Christ if he is not a partaker of his body, that is, of the Church, whose unity the Apostle commends in the sacrament of bread, saying: 'We who are many are one bread, one body'; so that, when he handed them the blessed bread, their eyes were opened and they recognized him — opened indeed to the knowledge of him, the impediment by which they were held being of course removed, so that they should not recognize him. For they were not walking with closed eyes; but there was something in them by which they were not permitted to recognize what they saw, which indeed a mist and some moisture are wont to produce.

not because the Lord could not transform his flesh, so that his appearance were truly another, not the one they were accustomed to behold — seeing that even before his passion he was transfigured on the mountain, so that his face shone like the sun (for he makes what body he wills out of any body whatsoever, a true one out of a true one, who made true wine out of true water) — but he had not so done when he appeared to those two in another appearance. For he did not appear as he was to them whose eyes were held, that they should not recognize him. Yet not unfittingly do we take this impediment in their eyes to have been from Satan, that Jesus should not be recognized;

but nevertheless permission was granted by Christ up to the sacrament of bread, so that, the unity of his body being partaken, the impediment of the enemy might be understood to be removed, that Christ might be recognized. For it must be believed that these are the very ones concerning whom Mark also narrates, because he says that they went and announced it to the rest, just as Luke says that they, rising up that same hour, returned to Jerusalem and found the eleven gathered together, and those who were with them, saying that the Lord had truly risen and had appeared to Simon; and that then they too related what had been done on the road, and how they recognized him in the breaking of bread. Now therefore there was already a report that Jesus had risen — a report made by those women and by Simon Peter, to whom he had already appeared;

for these two found them speaking of this, to whom they came in Jerusalem. And so it can be that out of fear they at first did not wish to say on the road that they had heard he had risen, when they said only that angels had been seen by the women; for, not knowing with whom they were speaking, they might reasonably be anxious, lest, by casually boasting anywhere of Christ's resurrection, they should fall into the hands of the Jews. But as to what Mark says: 'they announced it to the rest, and they did not believe them' — while Luke says that they were already speaking there that the Lord had truly risen and appeared to Simon — what is to be understood except that there were some there who were unwilling to believe this?

But to whom is it not clear that Mark passed over those things which Luke unfolded in his narrating — that is, the things which Jesus spoke with them before they recognized him, and how they recognized him in the breaking of bread? Since indeed, as soon as he had said that he appeared in another form to those going into the countryside, he immediately joined: 'and they, going, announced it to the rest, and they did not believe them' — as if they could announce him whom they had not recognized, or those to whom he had appeared in another form could recognize him. How therefore they recognized him, that they might be able to announce him, Mark without doubt passed over.

This is therefore to be committed to memory, so that we may accustom ourselves to notice the evangelists' manner of thus passing over the things they do not mention and joining together the things they do mention, so that to those who have no practice in this consideration no error arises especially from any other source, whereby they might think that they do not agree with one another. Luke therefore continues and says: 'thy hand, and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but faithful.' Their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen him risen. How therefore at the last — as if they no longer saw him after that? For that is the last time in which the apostles saw the Lord on earth, when he ascended into heaven, which took place on the fortieth day after his resurrection.

Was he then going to reproach them because they had not believed those who had seen him risen, when now they themselves too, after the resurrection, had so often seen him — and above all on the very day of his resurrection, that is, on the first day of the week, already toward night, as Luke and John relate? It remains therefore that we understand the same day of his resurrection, that is, the first day of the week, when after daybreak Mary and the other women with her saw him, when Peter also did, when those two also did, of whom one was Cleopas.

whom the same Mark also seems to mention, when already toward night those eleven, apart from Thomas, and those who were with them — when these too related to them what they had seen — now Mark too in his manner wished briefly to mention it, and therefore said 'at the last,' because on that day this was the last thing, night-time now beginning, after those from the village, where they had recognized him in the breaking of bread, returned to Jerusalem and found, as Luke says, those eleven and those who were with them now conversing about the Lord's resurrection and that he had been seen by Peter; to whom they too related what had been done on the road, and how they recognized him in the breaking of bread.

But there were certainly some there who did not believe, whence what Mark says is true: 'and they did not believe them.' To these therefore, now reclining as Mark says, and still speaking of it as Luke says, the Lord stood in the midst of them and said to them: 'Peace be with you,' as Luke and John relate. But the doors were shut when he entered to them, which John alone mentions. And so among the words of the Lord, which Luke and John said he then spoke to the disciples, there is interposed also that reproach of which Mark speaks, that they had not believed those who had seen him risen.

But this again causes difficulty: how Mark says he appeared to the eleven as they reclined, if that time is of the Lord's Day, now at the beginning of night, which Luke and John recall. For John plainly says that the apostle Thomas was not then with them, whom we believe to have gone out from there before the Lord entered to them, after those two, returning from the village, had conversed with the eleven themselves, as is found in Luke. But Luke in his narrative gives room whereby it may be understood that, while these things were being spoken, Thomas first went out from there, and afterward the Lord entered. But Mark, who says: 'at the last, as those eleven reclined, he appeared,' compels us to confess that Thomas too was there.

Unless perhaps, although one was absent, he nevertheless wished to call them 'eleven,' because that same apostolic fellowship was then designated by this number, before Matthias was substituted into the place of Judas. Or if it is harsh to take it thus, then let us take it thus: that after his many demonstrations by which through forty days he was presented to the disciples, he appeared also 'at the last' as those eleven reclined, that is, on the very fortieth day, and because he was now about to ascend from them into heaven.

He wished on that day especially to reproach them with this, that they had not believed those who had seen him risen before they themselves saw him, whereas surely after his ascension, when those men were preaching the gospel, even the Gentiles were destined to believe what they had not seen. After that reproach, the same Mark goes on and speaks of signs. When therefore he says, 'And the Lord indeed, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven,' he seems clearly enough to show that Jesus had this last discourse with them while on earth, although he does not seem to restrict it entirely to that point. For he does not say 'after he had spoken these things to them,' but only:

'after he had spoken to them.' Hence he allows, if necessity should compel it, that this was not the last discourse nor the last day on which he was present with them on earth, but that what is said—'after he had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven'—may be able to refer to all the things he spoke with them throughout all those days.

But because the things we have said above rather persuade us that this was the last day, rather than that we should understand the eleven who, in Thomas's absence, were ten, therefore after this discourse which Mark records—and after the further words consequently added, whether of the disciples or of the Lord himself, which are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles—we must believe that the Lord was taken up into heaven, namely on the fortieth day after the day of his resurrection.

John, however, although he confesses that he passed over many things which Jesus did, nevertheless wished also to record a third appearance which Jesus made to the disciples after his resurrection, at the Sea of Tiberias—namely to seven disciples: Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others whom he did not name expressly—while they were fishing, when at his command, casting their nets on the right side, they drew up great fishes, a hundred and fifty-three; when also he asked Peter three times whether he was loved by him, and entrusted to him the feeding of his sheep, and foretold Peter's own passion; and concerning John himself he said, 'So I wish him to remain, until I come.'

At this point John brought his gospel to a close. Now, then, we must inquire when he was first seen by the disciples in Galilee, since this event which John narrates as the third also took place in Galilee, at the Sea of Tiberias—as anyone easily sees who recalls that miracle of the five loaves, which the same John begins to narrate thus: 'After these things Jesus went away across the Sea of Galilee, which is of Tiberias.' But where can it be thought that he ought first to have been seen by the disciples after the resurrection, except in Galilee, if we recall the words of that angel who, according to Matthew, speaks thus to the women coming to the tomb: 'and Peter, for he goes before you into Galilee; there you shall see him, as he told you'?

These words seem to sound as though Jesus was not going to show himself to the disciples after the resurrection except in Galilee. Yet even Mark himself did not record such an appearance, though he said that early on the first day of the week Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene, and that she announced it to the disciples who had been with him, as they mourned and wept, but that they did not believe; and that afterwards he appeared to two of them as they were going into the country, and that they told it to the rest—which happened, as Luke and John jointly attest, at Jerusalem on that same day of the resurrection, now at the beginning of night; then he comes to that manifestation of his which he calls the last, as the eleven were reclining at table; after this he says he was taken up into heaven.

This event we know took place on the Mount of Olives not far from Jerusalem. Nowhere, then, does Mark record the fulfilment of what he testifies was foretold by the angel. Matthew, however, says nothing else and records no other place at all, either before or afterward, where the disciples, after he had risen, saw the Lord, except in Galilee according to the angel's prediction. Finally, when he had reported what was said by the angel to the women, and, as they departed, had subjoined what was done concerning the guards bribed to lie, he goes on immediately, as though nothing else followed—since indeed it had been thus said by the angel: 'He is risen, and behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you shall see him,' so that nothing else seems to have needed to follow:

He says: the disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had appointed them, as it had been said: 'Behold, he goes before you into Galilee; there you shall see him.' For if Matthew himself had not said at all that the eleven disciples went into the mountain in Galilee, where Jesus had appointed them, and that they there saw and worshipped him, we should think that nothing of this prediction had been fulfilled to the letter, but that the whole had been foretold in a figurative sense—like that saying according to Luke: 'Behold, today and tomorrow I cast out demons and perform cures, and on the third day I am perfected,' which it is certain was not fulfilled to the letter. Likewise, if the angel had said: