If the cause of this difference likewise be inquired, why so great an authority as the Septuagint translation should in many places differ from that truth which is found in the Hebrew codices, I think nothing more probable occurs than that those Seventy translated by the same Spirit by which the very things they translated had been spoken—a thing confirmed from that very marvelous agreement of theirs which is celebrated.
Therefore they too, by varying somewhat in expression and yet not departing from the same will of God, whose those sayings were and whom the words ought to serve, wished to demonstrate nothing else than this very thing which we now marvel at in the concordant diversity, so to speak, of the four Evangelists—by which it is shown to us that there is no lie if anyone narrates something in a manner so diverse that he does not depart from the will of Him with whom there must be agreement and consent.
To know this is useful even for morals, for the sake of guarding against and judging falsehoods, and useful for faith itself, lest we suppose that truth is fortified as it were by consecrated sounds, as though God commended to us the words, which are to be spoken for its sake, in the same way as the thing itself; whereas rather the thing which is to be learned is to be preferred to the words through which it is to be learned, so much so that we ought not to seek these words at all if we could know it without them, just as God knows it and His angels in Him. There follows Matthew and says: that He drove out the sellers from the temple with little cords. From which it is evident that this was done by the Lord not once but again; but that first one was recorded by John, this last by the other three. LXVIII. There follows Matthew:
'And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.' This Mark also says consequently, but does not keep the same order. For first, that Matthew said He entered the temple and cast out those selling and buying—this Mark does not record, but says that, having looked round upon all things, when it was already evening, He went out to Bethany with the twelve, and that on another day, as they were going out from Bethany, He was hungry and said to the fig tree what Matthew too records. And the same Mark subjoins that He came to Jerusalem, and when He had entered the temple, He cast out those selling and buying, as though it had been done on the second day, not the first. But because Matthew connects it thus:
'And leaving them, He went forth out of the city into Bethany,' from which he records that as He returned into the city in the morning He cursed the tree—it is more probably believed that Matthew himself rather kept the order of time concerning the sellers and buyers cast out of the temple. For when he says, 'And leaving them, He went forth,' who can be understood as those He left, except those with whom He had been speaking above, who were indignant that the children cried out, 'Hosanna to the Son of David'? Mark therefore passed over what was done on the first day, when He entered the temple, and inserted it by recollection when he had said that He found nothing on the fig tree but leaves—which was done on the second day, as both testify.
But that the disciples marveled that the tree had withered, and that the Lord answered them concerning faith and concerning a mountain to be removed into the sea, he says was not on the very second day, on which He said to the tree, 'Let no one ever eat fruit of you any more forever,' but on the third day. For on that very second day the same Mark recorded the sellers cast out of the temple, which he had passed over as done on the first day. On that very second day, then, he says that, evening being come, He went out of the city, and that as He passed by in the morning the disciples saw the fig tree withered from the roots, and Peter, remembering, said to Him, 'Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which You cursed has withered'; then He answered concerning the power of faith. But Matthew, as though all this had been done on the second day—that is, both the saying to the tree,
'Let fruit never be born of you forever,' and that it withered immediately, and that, the disciples seeing and marveling at this, that answer about the power of faith was given. Hence it is understood that Mark indeed recorded on the second day what he had passed over as done on the first—namely the sellers and buyers cast out of the temple—but Matthew, when he had recorded what was done on the other day concerning the cursed tree, when in the morning He was returning from Bethany into the city, passed over the things which Mark recorded: that He came into the city and went out in the evening and in the morning; that as they passed by the disciples marveled that the tree was withered;
and to that which was done on the second day, on which the tree was cursed, he joined that which was done on the third day, that the disciples marveled at its withering and heard from the Lord about the power of faith—thus joining these things together in such a way that, unless we are compelled by Mark's narrative to attend to where and what Matthew passed over, it cannot be recognized. When therefore Matthew had said: 'may fruit never be born forever; and immediately the fig tree withered,' passing over the other things belonging to the same day, he at once subjoined—he had passed over the fact that He went out to Bethany and was returning into the city, and what happened concerning the fig tree, and what was answered to the wondering disciples about the power of faith—and these things being passed over, he brought in, saying:
the vineyard. But as to what Matthew narrates after this concerning the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, who persecuted the servants sent to them and afterward killed the beloved son and cast him out of the vineyard—both those others too are not silent, keeping the same order; that is, after the Jews, being questioned about the baptism of John, said that they did not know, and He answered them: 'Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.' No question of any contradiction therefore arises here, except that Matthew, when he had said that the Lord questioned the Jews, gives their response, saying, 'God forbid.' For he narrates thus: 'the stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner?'
For he intimates this intention of the sentence, whether by 'Have you never read?' or 'Have you not read even this?' or 'What then is this that is written?' It remains, therefore, that we understand that among the people who were listening, some responded what Matthew records, saying, 'They say to Him: He will miserably destroy those wicked men and will let out his vineyard to other husbandmen'; but others responded that which Luke did not pass over, that is, 'God forbid.' To these, then, who had answered the Lord that first thing, those others answered, 'God forbid'; but the response of those to whom these reported it—'God forbid'—was for that reason attributed to the Lord both by Mark and by Luke, because, as I said, through them the very Truth spoke, whether through those who did not know, if they were wicked, as through Caiaphas, who, not knowing
what he said, being high priest, prophesied—or through those who knew and now understood and believed. For there too was even that multitude by whom the prophecy had already been fulfilled, when, meeting Him coming with great celebration, they cried out, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.' Nor let it disturb anyone that the same Matthew said that the chief priests and elders of the people approached the Lord and asked by what authority He did these things and who had given Him this authority, when in turn He questioned them about the baptism of John, whence it was, from heaven or from men; and when they answered that they did not know, He said, 'Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.' For thence He continued, speaking connectedly, and said:
'But what do you think? A man had two sons,' and so on—without the interposition of any thing or person, according to Matthew the discourse is woven together up to this point where the vineyard let out to husbandmen is mentioned. For it can be supposed that He spoke all these things to the chief priests and elders of the people, by whom He had been questioned about His authority. And if indeed these had asked while tempting Him and as enemies, they cannot be understood to be among those who had believed and had borne to the Lord that clear testimony from the prophet, who even now could have answered, not as those who did not know, but as those who believed: 'He will miserably destroy those wicked men and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen.'
This ought by no means to disturb us so as to make us suppose there were no believers in that multitude which was then hearing the Lord's parables. For the same Matthew for the sake of brevity was silent about what Luke does not pass over—namely, that this parable was spoken not to those alone who had questioned Him about His authority, but to the people. For thus he says: 'And He began to speak this parable to the people: A man planted a vineyard,' and so on. In this people, therefore, it must be understood that there could also have been those who were listening to Him in the same way as those to whom they had said, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord'; and that these very ones, or some of them, were those who answered, 'He will miserably destroy those wicked men and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen.'
Their response Mark and Luke attributed to the Lord not only for this reason, that He Himself said it—since it is truth, which often speaks even through the wicked and the ignorant, by a certain hidden prompting moving the mind of man, not by the merit of any holiness of his, but by the right of its own proper power—but also because they could have been such that not in vain, in the very body of the Lord,
already be reckoned as members, so that by their merit that voice might be attributed to Him whose members they were, since He had already baptized more than John and had crowds of disciples, as the Evangelists themselves often testify—and from among these too were those five hundred brethren to whom the Apostle Paul records that He was presented after the resurrection—especially since even according to the same Matthew it was not said thus: 'They say to Him:
'He will miserably destroy those wicked men,' such that in that which is set down, 'to Him,' the plural number must be taken, as though that response belonged to those who had craftily questioned Him about His authority; but it is said, 'they say to Him,' that is, to that very Lord Himself, in the singular pronoun, not the plural—which appears in the Greek copies without any scruple of ambiguity. There is a certain saying of the Lord in the Evangelist John, where what I say can be more easily understood: 'But you seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you.' He surely would not say to those who had already believed in Him, 'You seek to kill me,' to whom He had said, 'If you continue in my word, you shall be truly my disciples';
but because He had said this to those who had already believed in Him, while that present multitude, which had more enemies, was there—even though the Evangelist does not express who they were that answered—from this very fact, that they answered and that they then deserved to hear from Him what they did, it sufficiently appears which words are to be attributed to which persons. Just as, therefore, in this multitude according to John there were those who had already believed in the Law, and there were also those who were seeking to kill Him, so in that multitude of which we now speak there were those who had craftily questioned the Lord by what authority He did those things, and there were also those who had acclaimed, not craftily but faithfully, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.' And thus there were those who said:
'He will destroy them and will let out his vineyard to others.' This voice is rightly understood to have been also the Lord's own, whether on account of the truth or on account of the unity of His members with their Head. There were also those who said to such responders, 'God forbid,' because they understood that the parable was spoken against themselves. LXXI. There follows Matthew: they had. Concerning her who had married seven brothers succeeding one another, Mark and Luke likewise narrate, nor do they differ at all in the order.
After that parable about the hirers of the vineyard and about the Jews, against whom it was spoken, preparing snares—which all three recorded—these two, Mark and Luke, pass over the parable about those invited to the wedding, which Matthew alone inserted; and with him they now follow, these two narrating these two things, about the tribute of Caesar and about the woman of the seven husbands one by one, in altogether the same order, without any question of contradiction. LXXIII. There follows, then, Matthew and says: or at least let us not take that very temptation as evil, as of an enemy wishing to deceive, but rather as cautious, as of an unknown person wishing to test further. For not in vain is it written: 'He who is quick to believe is light of heart and shall be diminished.'
But Luke inserts something of the sort not in this order, but far elsewhere. Whether he is recalling this, or whether it is another with whom the Lord dealt similarly about these two commandments, is altogether uncertain. But hence it also rightly seems to be another, not only on account of the great difference of order, but because he too is said to have answered the Lord who questioned him, and in his response to have mentioned these two commandments; and when the Lord had said to him, 'Do this, and you shall live,' so that he might do that which he himself had answered was great in the Law, the Evangelist goes on to say: 'But he, wishing to justify himself, said: And who is my neighbor?' Then the Lord narrated about the one who was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among robbers.
Whence, because the aforesaid person was said to be tempting, and himself answered the two commandments, and after the Lord's admonition, 'Do this, and you shall live,' he is not commended as good, when it is said of him, 'But he, wishing to justify himself'—whereas this other, whom in a like order Matthew and Mark record, was so well commended that the Lord said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God'—it is more probably believed that this is another, not that one. There follows Matthew, saying: what Matthew narrates is to be taken, not as though it were said to those, but rather as said about those to those whom He wished to instruct. There follows Matthew, keeping thus the order of the narration: Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: The scribes and Pharisees have sat upon the seat of Moses;
a certain Pharisee, that He might dine at his house, and having entered He reclined. Certain of the Pharisees came, saying to Him: Go out and depart hence, for Herod wishes to kill You. For He suffered on that day which is the third from this day, since He at once says: 'I must walk today and tomorrow and the following day'—this indeed compels us to understand also mystically that which He says: 'You shall not see me, until it come to pass that you shall say: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord,' signifying this concerning that coming of His by which He is to come in glory; so that what He says, 'I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am consummated,' may be referred to His body, which is the Church.
For demons are cast out when, the ancestral superstitions being forsaken, the nations believe in Him; and cures are perfected when men live according to His precepts, after the devil and this world have been renounced, up to the end of the resurrection, by which, as by a third day, the Church shall be consummated—that is, it shall be perfected unto angelic fullness through the immortality of the body as well. Wherefore this order of Matthew must by no means be thought to have digressed into anything else;
but Luke is rather to be understood either to have anticipated the things that were done in Jerusalem and inserted them by recollection, before his narrative had brought the Lord to Jerusalem, or that, as He was now drawing near to that same city, He answered such things to those who were warning Him to beware of Herod, as Matthew says He spoke even to the crowds, when He had already arrived in Jerusalem and all those things had been accomplished which were narrated above. LXXVI. There follows Matthew and says: to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone which shall not be destroyed. Mark too records this in almost the same order, after some little digression made for this purpose, that he might record about the widow who cast two mites into the treasury—which Luke alone records along with him.
For even according to Mark, after the Lord had dealt with the Jews as to how they held Christ to be the Son of David, there are narrated those things which he says about being on guard against the Pharisees and their hypocrisy. This passage Matthew pursued most fully and narrated many things said there. And therefore, after that same passage, which Mark briefly touched upon and Matthew copiously expounded, Mark brought in nothing further, as I said, than the account of that widow, most poor and most abundant, and then subjoined the things by which he might again cohere with Matthew, speaking of the future overthrow of the temple. Luke too, after that matter about Christ, how He was the Son of David, records a few things about being on guard against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
Thence, like Mark, he proceeds to the widow who cast two mites into the treasury. Then he subjoins the account of the future overthrow of the temple, as do Matthew and Mark. There follows Matthew, saying: saying privately: Tell us, when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of Your coming and of the consummation of the age? 'First the gospel must be preached among all nations'—this signifies certainly 'first,' that is, 'before the consummation comes.' Likewise as to what Matthew says: they are written. It seems quite different, what those others said: 'and let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of the house,' and what this one says:
'and let those who are in the midst of it depart'—unless perhaps because there will be great confusion when so great a peril is imminent, those whom the siege had enclosed (which he signifies by saying 'those in the midst of it') will be upon the housetops, astonished and wishing to see what impends or by what way escape is to be made. But how does he say 'let them depart,' when above he said, 'But when you shall see Jerusalem surrounded by an army'? For that which follows, 'let those who are in the regions not enter into it,' seems to pertain to a fitting admonition; and it can be observed that those who are outside should not enter into it—but how should those who are in the midst of it depart from the army, the city being already surrounded?
Or is this what it means to be 'in the midst of it': that when the peril shall so press that one cannot escape for the temporal preservation of the present life, and since then the soul ought to be prepared and free, not occupied and oppressed by carnal desires—this is what is signified by what was said by the other two, 'on the housetop' or 'above the house'; so that what this one says, 'let them depart,' that is, let them not now be captured by desire of this life, but be prepared to migrate into another life, is what those two said, 'let him not go down to take anything out of the house,' that is, let him be inclined by no affection toward the flesh as though about to derive some advantage from it; and what this one says:
'let those who are in the regions not enter into it,' that is, let those who by a good purpose of heart have now been made outside of it not again with carnal desire long for it—this is what those said, 'and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his garment,' as though again to be wrapped up in cares from which he had been stripped. But as to what Matthew says: 'And pray that your flight be not in winter or on a Sabbath'—here Mark said part and left part unsaid: 'But pray,' he says, 'that these things happen not in winter.' Luke did not say this, but nevertheless he alone said something whereby he seems to me to have illustrated this very sentiment which by these was obscurely set down. For he says: they are ignorant of the spiritual Sabbath;
or if something else is to be understood in those words according to Matthew and Mark, Luke too may have said something else, provided nonetheless that no question of contradiction be raised. For we have not now undertaken to expound the Gospels, but to defend them from the calumnies of falsehood or deceit. But the other things which Matthew set down in this discourse in common with Mark have no question at all; and those things which he has in common with Luke, Luke set down not in this discourse whose order agrees with this one, but elsewhere either recalls such things and inserts them by anticipation, so that he mentions beforehand things which were said afterward by the Lord, or makes it understood that they were said twice by the Lord—both now according to Matthew and then according to himself. LXXVIII. There follows Matthew:
And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples... But this may seem to be a contradiction to those who examine it without sufficient care: namely, that Matthew and Mark, after saying that the Passover would come after two days, then go on to record that Jesus was in Bethany, where the story is told of that precious ointment; whereas John says that Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover, and is about to narrate the very same matter of the ointment. How then, according to those two, was the Passover to be after two days, when, after they have said this, they are found together with John at Bethany with that matter of the ointment which he too relates, while he himself says that the Passover was to come after six days?
But those who are troubled in this way fail to understand that Matthew and Mark placed that event at Bethany concerning the ointment by way of recapitulation—not after their announcement about the two days, but as already done beforehand, when there were still six days until the Passover. For neither of them, after he had said that the Passover would come after two days, so joined on the account of that event at Bethany as to say, 'After these things, when he was at Bethany.' Rather Matthew says, 'Now when Jesus was in Bethany,' and Mark, 'When he was at Bethany'—which is certainly understood to be even before those things were spoken which were said two days before the Passover.
As therefore is gathered from John's narrative, six days before the Passover he came to Bethany; there took place that banquet where mention is made of the precious ointment; from there he came to Jerusalem, sitting upon a young ass. Then afterward are enacted those things which they relate as done at Jerusalem after this coming of his. From that day, then, on which he came to Bethany and that matter of the ointment took place, up to the day on which all these things were done and said, we understand—even though the evangelists do not mention it—that four days were spent, so that the day might arrive which the two defined as two days before the Passover. But Luke, when he says:
'The feast of unleavened bread drew near'—he did not expressly state the two days, but this nearness which he mentioned we ought to understand within that very interval of two days. John, however, when he says, 'The Passover of the Jews was at hand,' does not mean by this the two days, but the six days before the Passover. Accordingly, after he had mentioned certain things following this saying, then, wishing to show how near he had said the Passover to be, he says: 'Jesus therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised. And they made him a supper there.' This is that which Matthew and Mark record by way of recapitulation, when they had already said that the Passover would come after two days.
By way of recapitulation, therefore, they return to that day at Bethany which was six days before the Passover, and they relate what John relates concerning the supper and the ointment, from which he was to come to Jerusalem, and, having accomplished there the things that are narrated, to arrive at the day which was two days before the Passover. From this point these two digressed, in order that by recapitulation they might record what had earlier been done at Bethany concerning the ointment; and this account being finished, they return again to the point from which they had digressed—that is, so that now the Lord's discourse may be narrated which he delivered two days before the Passover. For if we remove from the middle what was done at Bethany, which by digressing from the order they narrated by recalling and recapitulating, and weave the order itself together, then the discourse runs thus according to Matthew, as the Lord says:
The day before the Passover—which John spoke of when he narrated the event done at Bethany—and the two days before the Passover—which Matthew and Mark spoke of when, after this said by them, they recorded that very thing at Bethany which John related. LXXIX. Matthew continues from that point where we had ended the narrative under consideration, and says: this took place at Bethany. For neither does Luke say that the event he narrates was done at Bethany; and although he does not mention the city or the town where it happened, nevertheless his narrative does not seem to be occupied with the same place.
Accordingly I think nothing else is to be understood except this: it was not indeed a different woman who then, being a sinner, approached the feet of Jesus and kissed them and washed them with tears and wiped them with her hair and anointed them with ointment—to whom the Lord, using the parable of the two debtors, said that her many sins were forgiven, since she loved much—but it was the same Mary who did this twice: once, namely, as Luke narrates, when, first approaching with that humility and those tears, she earned the remission of her sins. For this too John, although he did not narrate how it was done as Luke did, nevertheless recalled by way of commending Mary herself, when he had already begun to speak of the raising of Lazarus, before he came to Bethany. This he narrates there thus:
Among these three, then—Matthew, Mark, and John—let us attend to how this may be reconciled; concerning them there is no doubt that they narrate the same event done at Bethany, where also the disciples, as all three record, murmured against the woman, as at the wasting of the most precious ointment. As for the fact, then, that Matthew and Mark say the Lord's head was drenched with that ointment, while John says his feet, that rule shows it to be no contradiction which we demonstrated when he fed the crowds with the five loaves.
For there, since there was one who recorded that they reclined both in fifties and in hundreds, while another said fifties, it could not seem contradictory; yet it could have seemed so if one had put down only hundreds, as another put fifties, and nevertheless both had to be found to have been done. By which example we ought to have been instructed, as I there admonished, to understand—even where the evangelists record single items—that both were done. Accordingly here too let us accept that the woman drenched not only the head but also the feet of the Lord. Unless perhaps, because Mark records that the alabaster flask was broken and the head drenched, someone is so absurd and captious as to deny that anything could have remained in the broken vessel with which she might also drench the feet.
But when such a one contends that it was broken in such a way that nothing was left in it, straining against the truth of the Gospel, how much better and more religiously will another contend that it was not broken in such a way as to pour out the whole, striving on behalf of the truth of the Gospel! But if that captious accuser is so obstinately blind that he tries to break the concord of the evangelists over a broken alabaster flask, let him first accept that the feet were drenched before it was broken, so that there remained intact that from which the head too might be drenched, where that breaking would pour out the whole. For we recognize that provision is made for us in due order from the head; but in due order we too ascend from the feet to the head.