The Harmony of the Gospels.

” 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. 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. ” Mark comes in here with the explanation, that “their witness agreed not together. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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,” —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. ” 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. ” 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? ” Mark reports these things in like manner. He also mentions a further fact, namely, that they covered His face. 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. 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. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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 the synagogue, 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. ” 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. 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. 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.

” 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 not returned 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 this assertion, came in again, and swore to those who were now inimically disposed, “I do not know the man. ” 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. ” 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 Galilæan. 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. ” 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 Galilæan. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake the cock crew. ” 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. ” 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 Galilæan,” 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 Galilæan,” 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. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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 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? ” And then he follows this up immediately with the paragraph about Peter: “Now Peter sat without in the palace. ” 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. ” 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 him ), 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;” and “Return, O Lord, and deliver my soul. ” 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. 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. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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. But up to this point they have given no account of the occurrences belonging specifically to the morning. 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, unto the hall of judgment. And it was early. ” 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. 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 Israel did value, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me. ” 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 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. 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? 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, 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. 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. In like 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 Judæa] there would be a remnant of the people delivered from their captivity. I judged it proper to give some sort of sketch 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. ” 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? ” 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,” and one might use the one term or the other, 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” 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. 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 Cæsar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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 them prevailed. ” 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. ” 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. ” 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 Cæsar, 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? ” 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. ” 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. ” 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 Cæsar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Cæsar. ” 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 Cæsar, 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 Cæsar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. ” The above is John’s version of what was done by Pilate. Chapter IX. —Of the Mockery Which He Sustained at the Hands of Pilate’s Cohort, and of the Harmony Subsisting Among the Three Evangelists Who Report that Scene, Namely, Matthew, Mark, and John. 36.

We have now reached the point at which we may study the Lord’s passion, strictly so called, as it is presented in the narrative of these four evangelists. Matthew commences his account as follows: “Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto Him the whole band of soldiers. And they stripped Him, and put on Him a scarlet robe. And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon His head, and a reed in His right hand: and they bowed the knee before Him, and mocked Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! ” At the same stage in the narrative, Mark delivers himself thus: “And the soldiers led Him away into the hall called Prætorium; and they called together the whole band. And they clothed Him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it on His head, and began to salute Him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote Him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon Him, and, bowing their knees, worshipped Him. ” Here, therefore, we perceive that while Matthew tells us how they “put on Him a scarlet robe,” Mark speaks of purple, with which He was clothed. The explanation may be that the said scarlet robe was employed instead of the royal purple by these scoffers. There is also a certain red-coloured purple which resembles scarlet very closely. And it may also be the case that Mark has noticed the purple which the robe contained, although it was properly scarlet. Luke has left this without mention. On the other hand, previous to stating how Pilate delivered Him up to be crucified, John has introduced the following passage: “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 said, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote Him with their hands. ” This makes it evident that Matthew and Mark have reported this incident in the way of a recapitulation, and that it did not actually take place after Pilate had delivered Him up to be crucified. For John informs us distinctly enough that these things took place when He yet was with Pilate. Hence we conclude that the other evangelists have introduced the occurrence at that particular point, just because, having previously passed it by, they recollected it there. This is also borne out by what Matthew proceeds next to relate. He continues thus: “And they spit upon Him, and took the reed, and smote Him on the head. And after that they had mocked Him, they took the robe off from Him, and put His own raiment on Him, and led Him away to crucify Him. ” Here we are given to understand that the taking the robe off Him and the clothing Him with His own raiment were done at the close, when He was being led away. This is given by Mark, as follows: “And when they had mocked Him, they took off the purple from Him, and put His own clothes on Him. ” Chapter X. —Of the Method in Which We Can Reconcile the Statement Which is Made by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to the Effect that Another Person Was Pressed into the Service of Carrying the Cross of Jesus, with that Given by John, Who Says that Jesus Bore It Himself. 37.

Matthew, accordingly, goes on with his narrative in these terms: “And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear His cross. ” In like manner, Mark says: “And they led Him out to be crucified. And they compelled one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear His cross. ” Luke’s version is also to this effect: “And as they led Him away, they laid hold upon one Simon a Cyrenian, coming out of the country; and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus. ” On the other hand, John records the matter as follows: “And they took Jesus, and led Him away. And He bearing His cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha; where they crucified Him. ” From all this we understand that Jesus was carrying the cross Himself as He went forth into the place mentioned. But on the way the said Simon, who is named by the other three evangelists, was pressed into the service, and got the cross to carry for the rest of the course until the spot was reached. Thus we find that both circumstances really took place; namely, first the one noticed by John, and thereafter the one instanced by the other three. Chapter XI. —Of the Consistency of Matthew’s Version with that of Mark in the Account of the Potion Offered Him to Drink, Which is Introduced Before the Narrative of His Crucifixion. 38. Matthew then proceeds in these terms: “And they came unto a place called Golgotha; that is to say, a place of a skull. ” So far as the place is concerned, they are most unmistakeably at one. The same Matthew next adds, “and they gave Him wine to drink, mingled with gall; and when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink. ” This is given by Mark as follows: “And they gave Him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; and He received it not. ” Here we may understand Matthew to have conveyed the same sense as Mark, when he speaks of the wine being “mingled with gall. ” For the gall is mentioned with a view to express the bitterness of the potion. And wine mingled with myrrh is remarkable for its bitterness. The fact may also be that gall and myrrh together made the wine exceedingly bitter. Again, when Mark says that “He received it not,” we understand the phrase to denote that He did not receive it so as actually to drink it. He did taste it, however, as Matthew certifies. Thus Mark’s words, “He received it not,” convey the same meaning as Matthew’s version, “He would not drink. ” The former, however, has said nothing about His tasting the potion. Chapter XII. —Of the Concord Preserved Among All the Four Evangelists on the Subject of the Parting of His Raiment. 39. Matthew goes on thus: “And after they crucified Him, they parted His garments, casting lots: and sitting down, they watched Him. ” Mark reports the same incident, as follows: “And crucifying Him, they parted His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. ” In like manner Luke says: “And they parted His raiment, and cast lots. And the people stood beholding. ” The occurrence is thus recorded briefly by the first three.

But John gives us a more detailed narrative of the method in which the act was gone about. His version runs thus: “Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also His coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the Scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments, and for my vesture they did cast lots. ” Chapter XIII. —Of the Hour of the Lord’s Passion, and of the Question Concerning the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Mark and John in the Article of the “Third” Hour and the “Sixth. ” 40. Matthew continues thus: “And they set up over His head His accusation written, ‘This is Jesus the King of the Jews. ’” Mark, on the other hand, before making any such statement, inserts these words: “And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him. ” For he subjoins these terms immediately after he has told us about the parting of the garments. This, then, is a matter which we must consider with special care, lest any serious error emerge. For there are some who entertain the idea that the Lord was certainly crucified at the third hour; and that thereafter, from the sixth hour on to the ninth, the darkness covered the land. According to this theory, we should have to understand three hours to have passed between the time when He was crucified and the time when the darkness occurred. And this view might certainly be held with all due warrant, were it not that John has stated that it was about the sixth hour when Pilate sat down on the judgment-seat, in a place that is called the Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. For his version goes on in this manner: “And as 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, away with him! crucify him! Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. ” If Jesus, therefore, was delivered up to the Jews to be crucified when it was about the sixth hour, and when Pilate was then sitting upon the judgment-seat, how could He have been crucified at the third hour, as some have been led to suppose, in consequence of a misinterpretation of the words of Mark? 41. First, then, let us consider what the hour really is at which He can have been crucified; and then we shall see how it happens that Mark has reported Him to have been crucified at the third hour. Now it was about the sixth hour when Pilate, who was sitting, as has been stated, at the time upon the judgment-seat, delivered Him up to be crucified. The expression is not that it was the sixth hour fully, but only that it was about the sixth hour; that is to say, the fifth hour was entirely gone, and so much of the sixth hour had also been entered upon. These writers, however, could not naturally use such phraseologies as the fifth hour and a quarter, or the fifth hour and a third, or the fifth hour and a half or anything of that kind.

For the Scriptures have the well-known habit of dealing simply with the round numbers, without mention of fractions, especially in matters of time. We have an example of this in the case of the “eight days,” after which, as they tell us, He went up into a mountain, —a space which is given by Matthew and Mark as “six days after,” because they look simply at the days between the one from which the reckoning commences and the one with which it closes. This is particularly to be kept in view when we notice how measured the terms are which John employs here. For he says not “the sixth hour,” but “about the sixth hour. ” And yet, even had he not expressed himself in that way, but had stated merely that it was the sixth hour, it would still be competent for us to interpret the phrase in accordance with the method of speech with which we are, as I said, familiar in Scripture, namely, the use of the round numbers. And thus we could still take the sense quite fairly to be that, on the comple tion of the fifth hour and the commencement of the sixth, those matters were going on which are recorded in connection with the Lord’s crucifixion, until, on the close of the sixth hour, and when He was hanging on the cross, the darkness occurred which is attested by three of the evangelists, namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 42. In due order, let us now inquire how it is that Mark, after telling us that they parted His garments when they were crucifying Him, casting lots upon them what every man should take, has appended this statement, “And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him. ” Now here he had already made the declaration, “And crucifying Him, they parted His garments;” and the other evangelists also certify that, when He was crucified, they parted His garments. If, therefore, it was Mark’s design to specify the time at which the incident took place, it would have been enough for him to say simply, “And it was the third hour. ” What reason, then, can be assigned for his having added these words, “And they crucified Him,” but that, under the summary statement thus inserted, he intended significantly to suggest something which might be found a subject for consideration, when the Scripture in question was read in times in which the whole Church knew perfectly well what hour it was at which the Lord was hanged upon the tree, and the means were possessed for either correcting the writer’s error or confuting his want of truth? But, inasmuch as he was quite aware of the fact that the Lord was suspended [on the cross] by the soldiers, and not by the Jews, as John most plainly affirms, his hidden object [in bringing in the said clause] was to convey the idea that those parties who cried out that He should be crucified were the Lord’s real crucifiers, rather than the men who simply discharged their service to their chief in accordance with their duty. We understand, accordingly, that it was the third hour when the Jews cried out that the Lord should be crucified. And thus it is intimated most truly that these persons did really crucify Christ at the time when they cried out.

All the more, too, did this merit notice, because they were unwilling to have the appearance of having done the deed themselves, and with that view delivered Him up unto Pilate, as their words indicate clearly enough in the report given by John. For, after stating how Pilate said to them, “What accusation bring ye against this man? ” his version proceeds thus: “They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. 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. ” Consequently, what they were especially unwilling to have the appearance of doing, that Mark here shows that they actually did do at the third hour. For he judged most truly that the Lord’s murderer was rather the tongue of the Jews than the hand of the soldiers. 43. Moreover, if any one alleges that it was not the third hour when the Jews cried out for the first time in the terms referred to, he simply displays himself most insanely to be an enemy to the Gospel; unless perchance he can prove himself able to produce some new solution of the problem. For he cannot possibly establish the position that it was not the third hour at the period alluded to. And, consequently, we surely ought rather to credit a veracious evangelist than the contentious suspicions of men. But you may ask, How can you prove that it was the third hour? I answer, Because I believe the evangelists; and if you also believe them, show me how the Lord can have been crucified both at the sixth hour and at the third. For, to make a frank acknowledgment, we cannot get over the statement of the sixth hour in John’s narrative; and Mark records the third hour: and, therefore, if both of us accept the testimony of these writers, show me any other way in which both these notes of time can be taken as literally correct. If you can do so, I shall most cheerfully acquiesce. For what I prize is not my own opinion, but the truth of the Gospel. And I could wish, indeed, that more methods of clearing up this problem might be discovered by others. Until that be done, however, join me, if it please you, in taking advantage of the solution which I have propounded. For if no explanation can be found, this one will suffice of itself. But if another can be devised, when it is unfolded, we shall make our choice. Only don’t consider it an inevitable conclusion that any one of all the four evangelists has stated what is false, or has fallen into error in a position of authority at once so elevated and so holy. 44. Again, if any one affirms his ability to prove it not to have been the third hour when the Jews cried out in the terms in question, because, after Mark’s statement to this effect, “And Pilate answered, and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?

And they cried out again, Crucify him,” we find no further details introduced into the narrative of the same evangelist, but are led on at once to the statement, that the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be crucified—an act which John mentions to have taken place about the sixth hour;—I repeat, if any one adduces such an argument, let him understand that many things have been passed by without record here, which occurred in the interval when Pilate was engaged in looking out for some means by which he could rescue Jesus from the Jews, and was exerting himself most strenuously by every means in his power to withstand their maddened desires. For Matthew says, “Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do, then, with Jesus, which is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified. ” Then we affirm it to have been the third hour. And when the same Matthew goes on to add the sentence, “But when Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made,” we understand that a period of two hours had passed, during the attempts made by Pilate to effect the release of Jesus, and the tumults raised by the Jews in their efforts to defeat him, and that the sixth hour had then commenced, previous to the close of which those things took place which are related as happening between the time when Pilate delivered up the Lord and the oncoming of the darkness. Once more, as regards what Matthew records above,—namely, “And 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,” —we remark, that Pilate really took his seat upon the tribunal at a later point, but that, among the earlier incidents which Matthew was recounting, the account given of Pilate’s wife came into his mind, and he decided on inserting it in this particular connection, with the view of preparing us for understanding how Pilate had an especially urgent reason for wishing, even on to the last, not to deliver Him up to the Jews. 45. Luke, again, after mentioning how Pilate said, “I will therefore chastise him and let him go,” tells us that the whole multitude then cried out, “Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas. ” But perhaps they had not yet exclaimed, “Crucify him! ” For Luke next proceeds thus: “Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them. But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him! ” This is understood to have been at the third hour. Luke then continues in these terms: “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 them prevailed. ” Here, then, this evangelist also makes it quite evident that there was a great tumult. With sufficient accuracy for the purposes of my inquiry into the truth, we can further gather how long the interval was after which he spoke to them in these terms, “Why, what evil hath he done?

” And when he adds thereafter, “They were instant with loud voices, requiring that He might be crucified, and the voices of them prevailed,” who can fail to perceive that this clamour was made just because they saw that Pilate was unwilling to deliver the Lord up to them? And, inasmuch as he was exceedingly reluctant to give Him up, he did not certainly yield at present in a moment, but in reality two hours and something more were passed by him in that state of hesitancy. 46. Interrogate John in like manner, and see how strong this hesitancy was on Pilate’s part, and how he shrank from so shameful a service. For this evangelist records these incidents much more fully, although even he certainly does not mention all the occurrences which took up these two hours and part of the sixth hour. After telling us how Pilate scourged Jesus, and allowed the robe to be put on Him in derision by the soldiers, and suffered Him to be subjected to ill-treatment and many acts of mockery (all of which was permitted by Pilate, as I believe, really with the view of mitigating their fury and keeping them from persevering in their maddened desire for His death), John continues his account in the following manner: “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! ” The object of this was, that they might gaze upon that spectacle of ignominy and be appeased. But the evangelist proceeds again: “When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him! ” It was then the third hour, as we maintain. Mark also what follows: “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. 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. ” Now, when it is said here that “Pilate sought to release Him,” how long a space of time may we suppose to have been spent in that effort, and how many things may have been omitted here among the sayings which were uttered by Pilate, or the contradictions which were raised by the Jews, until these Jews gave expression to the words which moved him, and made him yield? For the writer goes on thus: “But the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar. 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, about the sixth hour.

” Thus, then, between that exclamation of the Jews when they first cried out, “Crucify him,” at which period it was the third hour, and this moment when he sat down on the judgment-seat, two hours had passed, which had been taken up with Pilate’s attempts to delay matters and the tumults raised by the Jews; and by this time the fifth hour was quite spent, and so much of the sixth hour had been entered. Then the narrative goes on thus: “He saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him! crucify him! ” But not even now was Pilate so overcome by the apprehension of their bringing a charge against himself as to be very ready to yield. For his wife had sent to him when he was sitting at this time upon the judgment-seat,—an incident which Matthew, who is the only one that records it, has given by anticipation, introducing it before he comes to its proper place (according to the order of time) in his narrative, and bringing it in at another point which he judged opportune. In this way, Pilate, still continuing his efforts to prevent further advances, said then to them, “Shall I crucify your king? ” Thereupon “the chief priests answered, We have no king but Cæsar. Then delivered he Him therefore unto them to be crucified. ” And in the time that passed when He was on the way, and when He was crucified along with the two robbers, and when His garments were parted and the possession of His coat was decided by lot, and the various deeds of contumely were done to Him (for, while these different things were going on, gibes were also cast at Him), the sixth hour was fully spent, and the darkness came on, which is mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 47. Let such impious pertinacity therefore perish, and let it be believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified at once at the third hour by the voice of the Jews, and at the sixth by the hands of the soldiers. For during these tumults on the part of the Jews, and these agitations on the side of Pilate, upwards of two hours elapsed from the time when they burst out with the cry, “Crucify Him. ” But again, even Mark, who studies brevity above all the other evangelists, has been pleased to give a concise indication of Pilate’s desire and of his efforts to save the Lord’s life. For, after giving us this statement, “And they cried again, Crucify him” (in which he gives us to understand that they had cried out before this, when they asked that Barabbas might be released to them), he has appended these words: “Then Pilate continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? ” Thus by one short sentence he has given us an idea of matters which took a long time for their transaction. At the same time, however, keeping in view the correct apprehension of his meaning, he does not say, “Then Pilate said unto them,” but expresses himself thus: “Then Pilate continued to say unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? ” For, if his phrase had been “ said ,” we might have understood him to mean that such words were uttered only once. But, by adopting the terms, “ continued to say ,” he has made it clear enough to the intelligent that Pilate spoke repeatedly, and in a number of ways.

Let us therefore consider how briefly Mark has expressed this as compared with Matthew, how briefly Matthew as compared with Luke, how briefly Luke as compared with John, while at the same time each of these writers has introduced now one thing and now another peculiar to himself. In fine, let us also consider how brief is even the narrative given by John himself, as compared with the number of things which took place, and the space of time occupied by their occurrence. And let us give up the madness of opposition, and believe that two hours, and something more, may quite well have passed in the interval referred to. 48. If any one, however, asserts that if this was the real state of the case, Mark might have mentioned the third hour explicitly at the point at which it really was the third hour, namely, when the voices of the Jews were lifted up demanding that the Lord should be crucified; and, further, that he might have told us plainly there that those vociferators did really crucify Him at that time,—such a reasoner is simply imposing laws upon the historians of truth in his own overweening pride. For he might as well maintain that if he were himself to be a narrator of these occurrences, they ought all to be recorded just in the same way and the same order by all other writers as they have been recorded by himself. Let him therefore be content to reckon his own notion inferior to that of Mark the evangelist, who has judged it right to insert the statement just at the point at which it was suggested to him by divine inspiration. For the recollections of those historians have been ruled by the hand of Him who rules the waters, as it is written, according to His own good pleasure. For the human memory moves through a variety of thoughts, and it is not in any man’s power to regulate either the subject which comes into his mind or the time of its suggestion. Seeing, then, that those holy and truthful men, in this matter of the order of their narrations, committed the casualties of their recollections (if such a phrase may be used) to the direction of the hidden power of God, to whom nothing is casual, it does not become any mere man, in his low estate, removed far from the vision of God, and sojourning distantly from Him, to say, “This ought to have been introduced here;” for he is utterly ignorant of the reason which led God to will its being inserted in the place it occupies. The word of an apostle is to this effect: “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. ” And again he says: “To the one indeed we are the savour of life unto life; to the other, the savour of death unto death;” and adds immediately, “And who is sufficient for these things? ” —that is to say, who is sufficient to comprehend how righteously that is done? The Lord Himself expresses the same when He says, “I am come that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind. ” For it is in the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God that it comes to pass that of the same lump one vessel is made unto honour, and another unto dishonour. And to flesh and blood it is said, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

” Who, then, knows the mind of the Lord in the matter now under consideration? or who hath been His counsellor, where He has in such wise ruled the hearts of these evangelists in their recollections, and has raised them to so commanding a position of authority in the sublime edifice of His Church, that those very things which are capable of presenting the appearance of contradictions in them become the means by which many are made blind, deservedly given over to the lusts of their own heart, and to a reprobate mind; and by which also many are exercised in the thorough cultivation of a pious understanding, in accordance with the hidden righteousness of the Almighty? For the language of a prophet in speaking to the Lord is this: “Thy thoughts are exceeding deep. An inconsiderate man will not know, and a foolish man will not understand these things. ” 49. Moreover, I request and admonish those who read the statement which, with the help of the Lord, has thus been elaborated by us, to bear in mind this discourse, which I have thought it needful to introduce in the present connection, in every similar difficulty which may be raised in such inquiries, so that there may be no necessity for repeating the same thing over and over again. Besides, any one who is willing to clear himself of the hardness of impiety, and to give his attention to the subject, will easily perceive how opportune the place is in which Mark has inserted this notice of the third hour, so that every one may there be led to bethink himself of an hour at which the Jews really crucified the Lord, although they sought to transfer the burden of the crime to the Romans, whether to the leaders among them or to the soldiers, [as we see] when we come here upon the record of what was done by the soldiers in the discharge of their duty. For this writer says here, “And crucifying Him, they parted His garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. ” And to whom can this refer but to the soldiers, as is made manifest in John’s narrative? Thus, lest any one should leave the Jews out of account, and make the conception of so great a crime lie against those soldiers, Mark gives us here the statement, “And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him,”—his object being to have those Jews rather discovered to be the real crucifiers, who will be found by the careful investigator in a position making it quite possible for them to have cried out for the Lord’s crucifixion at the third hour, while he observes that what was done by the soldiers took place at the sixth hour. 50. At the same time, however, there are not wanting persons who would have the time of the preparation—which is referred to by John, when he says, “And it was the preparation of the passover, about the sixth hour”—understood under this third hour of the day, which was also the period at which Pilate sat down upon the judgment-seat. In this way the completion of the said third hour would appear to be the time when He was crucified, and when He was now hanging on the tree. Other three hours must then be supposed to have passed, at the end of which He gave up the ghost.

According to this idea, too, the darkness would have commenced with the hour at which He died—that is to say, the sixth hour of the day—and have lasted until the ninth. For these persons affirm that the preparation of the passover of the Jews was indeed on the day which was followed by the day of the Sabbath, because the days of unleavened bread began with the said Sabbath; but that, nevertheless, the true passover, which was being realized in the Lord’s passion, the passover not of the Jews, but of the Christians, began to be prepared—that is, to have its parasceue —from the ninth hour of the night onwards, inasmuch as the Lord was then being prepared for being put to death by the Jews. For the term parasceue means by interpretation “preparation. ” Between the said ninth hour of the night, therefore, and His crucifixion, the period occurs which is called by John the sixth hour of the parasceue , and by Mark the third hour of the day; so that, according to this view, Mark has not introduced by way of recapitulation into his record the hour at which the Jews cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him,” but has expressly mentioned the third hour as the hour at which the Lord was nailed to the tree. What believer would not receive this solution of the problem with favour, were it only possible to find some point [in the narrative of incidents] in connection with the said ninth hour, at which we could suppose, in due consistency with other circumstances, the parasceue of our passover—that is to say, the preparation of the death of Christ—to have commenced. For, if we say that it began at the time when the Lord was apprehended by the Jews, it was still but the first parts of the night. If we hold that it was at the time when He was conducted to the house of Caiaphas’ father-in-law, where He was also heard by the chief priests, the cock had not crowed at all as yet, as we gather from Peter’s denial, which took place only when the cock was heard. Again, if we suppose it was at the time when He was delivered up to Pilate, we have in the plainest terms the statement of Scripture, to the effect that by this time it was morning. Consequently, it only remains for us to understand that this parasceue of the passover—that is to say, the preparation for the death of the Lord—commenced at the period when all the chief priests, in whose presence He was first heard, answered and said, “He is guilty of death,” an utterance which we find reported both by Matthew and by Mark; so that they are taken to have introduced, in the form of a recapitulation, at a later stage, facts relating to the denial of Peter, which in point of historical order had taken place at an earlier point. And it is nothing unreasonable to conjecture, that the time at which, as I have said, they pronounced Him guilty of death, may very well have been the ninth hour of the night, between which time and the hour at which Pilate sat down on the judgment-seat there came in this sixth hour, as it is called—not, however, the sixth hour of the day, but that of the parasceue —that is to say, the preparation for the sacrifice of the Lord, which is the true passover.

And, on this theory, the Lord was suspended on the tree when the sixth hour of the same parasceue was completed, which occurred at the completion of the third hour of the day. We may make our choice, therefore, between this view and the other, which supposes Mark to have introduced the third hour by way of reminiscence, and to have had it especially in view, in mentioning the hour there, to suggest the fact of the condemnation brought upon the Jews in the matter of the Lord’s crucifixion, in so far as they are understood to have been in a position to raise the clamour for His crucifixion to such an effect that we may hold them to have been the persons who actually crucified Him, rather than the men by whose hands He was suspended on the tree; just as the centurion, already referred to, approached the Lord in a more genuine sense than could be said of those friends whom He sent [on the matter-of-fact mission]. But whichever of these two views we adopt, unquestionably a solution is found for this problem on the subject of the hour of the Lord’s passion, which is most remarkably apt at once to excite the impudence of the contentious and to agitate the inexperience of the weak. Chapter XIV. —Of the Harmony Preserved Among All the Evangelists on the Subject of the Two Robbers Who Were Crucified Along with Him. 51. Matthew continues his narrative in the following terms: “Then were there two robbers crucified with Him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. ” Mark and Luke give it also in a similar form. Neither does John raise any question of difficulty, although he has made no mention of those robbers. For he says, “And two other with Him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. ” But there would have been a contradiction if John had spoken of these others as innocent, while the former evangelists called them robbers. Chapter XV. —Of the Consistency of the Accounts Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke on the Subject of the Parties Who Insulted the Lord. 52. Matthew goes on in the following strain: “And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. ” Mark’s statement agrees with this almost to the letter. Then Matthew continues thus: “Likewise also the chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save: if he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now, if He will: for he said, I am the Son of God. ” Mark and Luke, although they report the words differently, nevertheless agree in conveying the same meaning, although the one passes without notice something which the other mentions. For they are both really at one on the subject of the chief priests, giving us to understand that they insulted the Lord when He was crucified. The only difference is, that Mark does not specify the elders, while Luke, who has instanced the rulers, has not added the designation “of the priests,” and thus has rather comprehended the whole body of the leading men under the general designation; so that we may fairly take both the scribes and the elders to be included in his description. Chapter XVI.

—Of the Derision Ascribed to the Robbers, and of the Question Regarding the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and Luke on the Other, When the Last-Named Evangelist States that One of the Two Mocked Him, and that the Other Believed on Him. 53. Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: “The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth. ” Mark is quite in harmony with Matthew here, giving the same statement in different words. On the other hand, Luke may be thought to contradict this, unless we be careful not to forget a certain mode of speech which is sufficiently familiar. For Luke’s narrative runs thus: “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. ” And then the same writer proceeds to introduce into the same context the following recital: “But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise. ” The question then is, how we can reconcile either Matthew’s report, “The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth,” or Mark’s, namely, “And they that were crucified with Him reviled Him,” with Luke’s testimony, which is to the effect that one of them reviled Christ, but that the other arrested him and believed on the Lord. The explanation will be, that Matthew and Mark, presenting a concise version of the passage under review, have employed the plural number instead of the singular; as is the case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we find the statement given in the plural form, that “they stopped the mouths of lions,” while Daniel alone is understood to be referred to. Again, the plural number is adopted where it is said that they “were sawn asunder,” while that manner of death is reported only of Isaiah. In the same way, when it is said in the Psalm, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together,” etc. , the plural number is employed instead of the singular, according to the exposition given of the passage in the Acts of the Apostles. For those who have made use of the testimony of the said Psalm in that book take the kings to refer to Herod, and the princes to Pilate. But further, inasmuch as the pagans are in the habit of bringing such slanderous charges against the Gospel, I would ask them to consider how their own writers have spoken of Phaedras and Medeas and Clytemnestras, when there really was but a single individual reputed under each of these names. And what is more common, for example, than for a person to say, “The rustics also behave insolently to me,” even although it should only be one that acted rudely? In short, no real discrepancy would be created by the restriction of Luke’s report to one of the two robbers, unless the other evangelists had declared expressly that “both” the malefactors reviled the Lord; for in that case it would not be possible for us to suppose only one individual intended under the plural number.