Augustin Harm. Gospels 278


154. Matthew, then, continuing his narrative from the point up to which we had concluded its examination, proceeds in the following terms: “Then assembled together the chief priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him: but they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on His head as He sat at meat;” and so on down to the words, “there shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial of her.”550 The scene with the woman and the costly ointment at Bethany we have now to consider, as it is thus detailed. For although Lc records an incident resembling this, and although the name which he assigns to the person in whose house the Lord was supping might also suggest an identity between the two narratives (for Lc likewise names the host “Simon”), still, since there is nothing either in nature or in the customs of men to make the case an incredible one, that as one man may have two names, two men may with all the greater likelihood have one and the same name, it is more reasonable to believe that the Simon in whose house [it is thus supposed, according to Luke’s version, that] this scene at Bethany took place, was a different person from the Simon [named by Matthew]. For Luke, again, does not specify Bethany as the place where the incident which he records happened. And although it is true that he in no way particularizes the town or village in which that occurrence took place, still his narrative does not seem to deal with the same locality. Consequently, my opinion is, that there is but one interpretation to be put upon the matter. That is not, however, to suppose that the woman who appears in Matthew was an entirely different person from the woman who approached the feet of Jesus on that occasion in the character of a sinner, and kissed them, and washed them with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment, in reference to whose case Jesus also made use of the parable of the two debtors, and said that her sins, which were many, were forgiven her because she loved much. But my theory is, that it was the same Mary who did this deed on two separate occasions, the one being that which Lc has put on record, when she approached Him first of all in that remarkable humility, and with those tears, and obtained the forgiveness of her sins.551 For John, too, although he has not given the kind of recital which Lc has left us of the circumstances connected with that incident, has at least mentioned the fact, in commending the same Mary to our notice, when he has just begun to tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, and before his narrative brings the Lord to Bethany itself. The history which he offers us of that transaction proceeds thus: “Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary; and her sister Martha. It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.”552 By this statement Jn attests what Lc has told us when he records a scene of this nature in the house of a certain Pharisee, whose name was Simon. Here, then, we see that Mary had acted in this way before that time. And what she did a second time in Bethany is a different matter, which does not belong to Luke’s narrative, but is related by three of the evangelists in concert, namely, John, Matthew, and Mark.553

155. Let us therefore notice how harmony is maintained here between these three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and John, regarding whom there is no doubt that they record the self-same occurrence at Bethany, on occasion of which the disciples also, as all three mention, murmured against the woman, ostensibly on the ground of the waste of the very precious ointment. Now the further fact that Matthew and Mc tell us that it was the Lord’s head on which the ointment was poured, while Jn says it was His feet, can be shown to involve no contradiction, if we apply the principle which we have already expounded in dealing with the scene of the feeding of the multitudes with the five loaves. For as there was one writer who, in giving his account of that incident, did not fail to specify that the people sat down at once by fifties and by hundreds, although another spoke only of the fifties, no contradiction could be supposed to emerge. There might indeed have seemed to be some difficulty, if the one evangelist had referred only to the hundreds, and the other only to the fifties; and yet, even in that case, the correct finding should have been to the effect that they were seated both by fifties and by hundreds. And this example ought to have made it plain to us, as I pressed it upon my readers in discussing that section, that even where the several evangelists introduce only the one fact each, we should take the case to have been really, that both things were elements in the actual occurrence.554 In the same way, our conclusion with regard to the passage now before us should be, that the woman poured the ointment not only upon the Lord’s head, but also on His feet. It is true that some person may possibly be found absurd and artful enough to argue, that because Mc states that the ointment was poured out only after the alabaster vase was broken there could not have remained in the shattered vessel anything with which she could anoint His feet. But while a person of that character, in his endeavours to disprove the veracity of the Gospel, may contend that the vase was broken, in a manner making it impossible that any portion of the contents could have been left in it, how much better and more accordant with piety must the position of a very different individual appear, whose aim will be to uphold the truthfulness of the Gospel, and who may therefore contend that the vessel was not broken in a manner involving the total outpouring of the ointment! Moreover, if that calumniator is so persistently blinded as to attempt to shatter the harmony of the evangelists on this subject of the shattering of the vase,555 he should rather accept the alternative, that the [Lord’s] feet were anointed before the vessel itself was broken, and that it thus remained whole, and filled with ointment sufficient for the anointing also of the head, when, by the breakage referred to, the entire contents were discharged. For we allow that there is a due regard to the several parts of our nature when the act commences with the head, but [we may also say that] an equally natural order is preserved when we ascend from the feet to the head.

156. The other matters belonging to this incident do not seem to me to raise any question really involving a difficulty. There is the circumstance that the other evangelists mention how the disciples murmured about the [wasteful] outpouring of the precious ointment, whereas Jn states that Judas was the person who thus expressed himself, and tells us, in explanation of the fact, that “he was a thief.” But I think it is evident that this same Judas was the person referred to under the [general] name of the disciples, the plural number being used here instead of the singular, in accordance with that mode of speech of which we have already introduced an explanation in the case of Philip and the miracle of the five loaves.556 It may also be understood in this way, that the other disciples either felt as Judas felt, or spoke as he did, or were brought over to that view of the matter by what Judas said, and that Matthew and Mc consequently have expressed in word what was really the mind of the whole company; but that Judas spoke as he did just because he was a thief, whereas what prompted the rest was their care for the poor; and further, that Jn has chosen to record the utterance of such sentiments only in the instance of that one [among the disciples] whose habit of acting the thief he believed it right to bring out in connection with this occasion).


157. Matthew proceeds thus: “Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas [of] Scarioth, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver;” and so on down to the words, “And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they made ready the passover.”557 Nothing in this section can be supposed to stand in any contradiction with the versions of Mc and Luke, who record this same passage in a similar manner.558 For as regards the statement given by Matthew in these terms, “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand: I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples,”559 it just indicates the person whom Mc and Lc name the “goodman of the house,”560 or the “master of the house,”561 in which the dining-room was shown them where they were to make ready the passover. And Matthew has expressed this by simply bringing in the phrase, “to such a man,” as a brief explanation introduced by himself with the view of succinctly giving us to understand who the person referred to was. For if he had said that the Lord addressed them in words like these: “Go into the city, and say unto him [or “it “],562 The Master saith, My time is at hand, I will keep the passover at thy house,” it might have been supposed that the terms were intended to be directed to the city itself. For this reason, therefore, Matthew has inserted the statement, that the Lord bade them go “to such a man,” not, however, as a statement made by the Lord, whose instructions he was recording, but simply as one volunteered by himself, with the view of avoiding the necessity of narrating the whole at length, when it seemed to him that this was all that required to be mentioned in order to bring out with sufficient accuracy what was really meant by the person who gave the order. For who can fail to see that no one naturally speaks to others in such an indefinite fashion as this, “Go ye to such a man”? If, again, the words had been, “Go ye to any one whatsoever,” or “to any one you please,”563 the mode of expression might have been correct enough, but the person to whom the disciples were sent would have been left uncertain: whereas Mc and Lc present him as a certain definitely indicated individual, although they pass over his name in silence. The Lord Himself, we may be sure, knew to what person it was that He despatched them. And in order that those also whom He was thus sending might be able to discover the individual meant, He gave them, before they set out, a particular sign which they were to follow,—namely, the appearance of a man bearing a pitcher or a vessel of water,—and told them, that if they went after him, they would reach the house which He intended. Hence, seeing that it was not competent here to employ the phraseology,” Go to any one you please,” which is indeed legitimate enough, so far as the demands of linguistic propriety are concerned, but which an accurate statement of the matter dealt with here renders inadmissible in this passage, with how much less warrant could an expression like this have been used here (by the speaker Himself), “Go to such a man,” which the usage of correct language can never admit at all? But it is manifest that the disciples were sent by the Lord, plainly, not to any man they pleased, but to “such a man,” that is to say, to a certain definite individual. And that is a thing which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, could quite rightly have related to us, by putting it in this way: “He sent them to such a man,564 in order to say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house.” He might also have expressed it thus: “He sent them to such a man, saying, Go, say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house.” And thus it is that, after giving us the words actually spoken by the Lord Himself, namely, “Go into the city,” he has introduced this addition of his own, “to such a man,” which he does, however, not as if the Lord had thus expressed Himself, but simply with the view of giving us to understand, although the name is left unrecorded, that there was a particular person in the city to whom the Lord’s disciples were sent, in order to make ready the passover. Thus, too, after the two [or three] words brought in that manner as an explanation of his own, he takes up again the order of the words as they were uttered by the Lord Himself, namely, “And say unto him, The Master saith.” And if you ask now “to whom” they were to say this, the correct reply is given [at once] in these terms, To that particular man to whom the evangelist has given us to understand that the Lord sent them, when, speaking in His own person, he introduced the clause, “to such a man.” The clause thus inserted may indeed contain a rather unusual mode of expression, but still it is a perfectly legitimate phraseology when it is thus understood. Or it may be, that in the Hebrew language, in which Matthew is reported to have written, there is some peculiar usage which might make it entirely accordant with the laws of correct expression, even were the whole taken to have been spoken by the Lord Himself. Whether that is the case, those who understand that tongue may decide. Even in the Latin language itself, indeed, this kind of expression might also be used, in terms like these: “Go into the city to such a man as may be indicated by a person who shall meet you carrying a pitcher of water.” If the instructions were conveyed in such words as these, they could be acted upon without any ambiguity. Or again, if the terms were anything like these, “Go into the city to such a man, who resides in this or the other place, in such and such a house,” then the note thus given of the place and the designation of the house would make it quite possible to understand the commission delivered, and to execute it. But when these instructions, and all others of a similar order, are left entirely untold, the person who in such circumstances uses this kind of address, “Go to such a man, and say unto him,” cannot possibly be listened to intelligently for this obvious reason, that when he employs the terms, “to such a man,” he intends a certain particular individual to be understood by them, and yet offers us no hint by which he may be identified. But if we are to suppose that the clause referred to is one introduced as an explanation by the evangelist himself, [we may find that] the requirements of brevity will render the expression somewhat obscure, without, however, making it incorrect. Moreover, as to the fact, that where Mc speaks of a pitcher565 of water, Lc mentions a vessel,566 the simple explanation is, that the one has used a word indicative of the kind of vessel, and the other a term indicative of its capacity, while both evangelists have nevertheless preserved the real meaning actually intended.

158. Matthew proceeds thus: “Now when the even was Come, He sat down with the twelve disciples; and as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?” and so on, down to where we read, “Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.”567 In what we have now presented for consideration here, the other three evangelists,568 who also record such matters, offer nothing calculated to raise any question of serious difficulty.569

32 (Mt 4,1, 2.
33 (
Ac 1,3 Ac 1,
34 (Mt 28,20 Mt 28,
35 (Za 14,4).
36 (Gn 12,1, 2.
37 (Mt 1,17 Mt 1,
38 [It is more probable that David should be reckoned twice, in making out the series. Augustin passes over the more serious difficulty arising from the omissions in the genealogy given by Matthew. These omissions, however, show that the evangelist had some purpose in his use of the number “fourteen.” Of any design to emphasize the number “forty” there is no evidence.—R.]
39 Praeparatio Dei.
40 (Jn 1,29 Jn 1,
41 (Rm 8,3). [Comp. Revised Version margin.—R.]
42 Ut de peccato damnaret peccatum in carne). [Revised Version, “And as an offering for sin,” etc.—R.]
43 (2S 12,1-14.
44 Expiavit.
45 In his Retractations (ii. 16) Augustin refers to this sentence in order to chronicle a correction. He tells us that, instead of saying that “Lc carries the genealogy upwards to the same David through Nathan, by which prophet God took away his sin,” he should have said “by a prophet of which name,” etc., because although the name was the same, the progenitor was a different person from the prophet Nathan.
46 (1Co 6,17 1Co 6,
47 (Mt 18,22). [Augustin apparently follows the rendering: “seventy times and seven” (see (Revised Version margin), accepted by Meyer and many others. His whole argument turns upon the presence of the number “eleven” as a factor.—R.]
48 Transgressio, overstepping.
49 (Ex 26,7 Ex 26,
50 (Lc 3,22 Lc 3,
51 [The omission of “Jesus” is an early variation of the Latin text of the Gospel.—R.]
52 (Mt 1,18 Mt 1,
53 Gratia plena). [Comp. Revised Version margin.—R.]
54 Quae cum vidisset. Others read audisset, heard). [The better Greek Mss. omit the clause. The variation in the Latin text here was probably due to the later gloss of the scribes.—R.]
55 Various editions insert ex te, of thee; but the words are omitted in three Vatican Mss., and most of the Gallican. See Migne’s note). [Omitted in the Greek text, according to the best authorities.—R.]
56 (Lc 1,26-34). [Ver. 34 is differently rendered in the text of the Revised Version. The Latin of Augustin would perhaps admit of the same sense, but is more naturally explained as above.—R.]
57 Vocabitur. The Mss. give vocabunt, they shall call; one Ms. gives vocabis, thou shalt call). [The proper reading is probably vocabunt; at all events, this accords with the Greek text. The variations can be accounted for by the presence of vocabitur and vocabis in previous part of the paragraph.—R.]
58 [The best Greek Mss. read “a son” in Mt 1,23. In Luke ii. 7 “first-born” occurs.—R.]
59 (Mt 1,19-21.
60 (Mt 2,1-3.
61 (Mt 2,12).
62 (Mt 1,18 Lc 1,5). [In this extended citation from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Latin text given by Augustin is in many cases, more closely reproduced in the Revised Version than in the Authorized. The translator has, as usual, taken the language of the latter, except in a few places, where the difference seemed more important and striking.—R.]
63 Perfectum).
64 [Tacens; the fair equivalent of the original Greek phrase properly rendered “silent’” in the Revised Version.—R.]
65 Gratia plena).
66 [Compare above on § 14.—R.]
67 Vocatur.
68 Beata quae credidisti.
69 Fecit.
70 Undertaken—suscepit.
71 (Lc 1,5-36.
72 (Mt 1,18). [The discovery of Mary’s condition probably occurred, as the order of Augustin implies, after the return of Mary from the visit to Elizabeth. But it is altogether uncertain whether it preceded the birth of Jn the Baptist.—R.]
73 (Mt 1,18-25). [The last clause of ver. 25 is omitted here, but given in §14. Possibly the variation was intentional.—R.]
74 (Lc 1,57 Lc 1,
75 Cognati.
76 [Vocabunt, “would have called,” answering to the Greek imperfect of arrested action.—R.]
77 In remissionem).
78 Describeretur, registered. [Revised Version, “should be enrolled.”—R.]
79 Descriptio prima [This is now the accepted sense of the phrase in Lc 2,2; Comp. Revised Version.—R.]
80 Reading praeside Syriae Syrino; in some Mss. it is a praeside, etc., and sub praeside also occurs.
81 Profiterentur, to make their declaration.
82 Profiteretur, make his declaration.
83 Hominibus bonae voluntatis.[Comp Revised Version.—R.]
84 Cognoverunt.
85 (Lc 1,57-ii. 21.
86 (Mt 2,1). [It is here assumed that the visit of the Magi preceded the presentation in the temple. But this order cannot be positively established. The two events must be placed near together. In chap. 11,Augustin implies that there was an interval of some length. The traditional date of the Epiphany (Jan. 6) is clearly too early, since it assumes an interval of twenty-seven days.—R.]
87 Invenerunt.
88 (Mt 2,1-12).
89 (Lc 2,22 Lc 2,
90 Responsum acceperat).
91 Peter ejus et mater.[“Joseph” was early substituted. Augustin follows the text now accepted on the authority of the best Greek Mss.—R.]
92 Confitebatur, made acknowledgment.
93 Reading redemptionem Jerusalem; for which some editions gave redemptionem Israel.
94 (Lc 2,22-39.
95 (Mt 2,13 Mt 2,
96 [The briefer reading, here accepted, is more correctly rendered in the Revised Version.—R.]
97 (Mt 2,13-23.
98 (Lc 2,40 Lc 2,
99 Parentes ejus). [“Joseph and His mother” is the later reading, followed in the Authorized Version.—R.]
100 In his quae Patris mei sunt.[Comp. Revised Version.—R.]
101 Reading, with the Mss., conservabat omnia verba haec in corde suo. Some editions insert conferens, pondering them.
102 Aetate). [So Revised Version margin.—R.]
103 (Lc 2,40-52).
104 (Mt 3,1 Mt 3,
105 In Isaia propheta). [So the Greek text, according to the best Mss. Comp. Revised Version—R.]
106 Angelum.
107 (Mc 1,1-4.
108 Aetate.
109 (Lc 3,1, 2.
110 (Jn 1,6 Jn 1,
111 (Mt 3,1 Mt 3,
112 (Mc 1,4 Mc 1,
113 (Lc 3,1-3.
114 (Lc 2,42-50.
115 Juvenilis aetas. For juvenilis aetas, the Mss. give regularly juvenalis aetas.
116 Coaevi.
117 Ferme).
118 (Lc 3,1-21.
119 Puerum.
120 (Mt 2,19, 20).
121 (Lc 2,4 Lc 2,
122 [Compare note on the relative position of the visit of the Magi and the presentation in the temple, § 17.—R.]
123 (Lc 2,22-39.
124 (Mt 2,3-16.
125 (Mt 3,1-3.
126 (Mc 1,3 Lc 3,4 Lc 3,
127 (Jn 1,23 Jn 1,
128 Reading solet quippe esse talis locutio, etc. Some codices give solet quippe esse quasi de aliis locutio = a mode of speech as if other persons were meant.
129 Invenit.
130 (Mt 9,9 Mt 9,
131 (Jn 21,24 Jn 21,
132 (Mt 9,6, 16,27.
133 (Jn 5,25 Jn 5,
134 (Lc 24,46).
135 (Jn 1,23 Jn 1,
136 (Mt 3,4-12.
137 Greek and Latin Bibles now, however, add the word Holy in Luke). [The variation does not occur in early Greek Mss.—R.]
138 (Mt 3,3-12; Mc 1,6-8; Luke iii. 7-17.
139 Perhibet.
140 (Jn 1,15).
141 Dispensato.
142 Or, as abiding by the same truth—in eadem veritate constitisse approbamus).
143 Dimisit eum.
144 (Mt iii 13-l5; Mc 1,9 Luke iii. Lc 21 Jn 1,32-34.
145 In quo mihi complacui—well pleased with myself.
146 In te complacui.
147 In te complacuit mihi. Matt. iii. 16, 17; Mc 1,10, 11; Lc 3,22). [The Greek Mss., of most weight, show no variation between Mc and Luke in the last clause.—R.]
148 In quo mihi complacui—as it = in whom I am well pleased with myself.
149 In te complacui.
150 In te complacuit mihi).
151 In te placitum meum constitui, hoc est, per te gerere quod mihi placet). [Greek aorist points to a past act; hence “set my good pleasure” is a better rendering of the verb, in all three accounts, than “am well pleased.”—R.]
152 (Ps 2,7 Ps 2,
153 (Jn 1,33 Jn 1,
154 (Mt 3,14 Mt 3,
155 (Lc 1,41 Lc 1,
156 Reliquit.
157 (Mt 4,1-11.
158 (Mc 1,12, 13; Lc 4,1-13).
159 (Mt 4,12 Mt 4,
160 (Mc 1,14 Lc 4,14 Lc 4,
161 (Jn 1,39, etc.
162 (Jn 2,1-11.
163 [The interval between the temptation and the return to Galilee, referred to by the Synoptists, was at least nine months: possibly more than a year. Augustin implies, in § 42, that this journey was a different one.—R.]
164 (Mt 16,18 Mt 16,
165 (Jn 1,42 Jn 1,
166 (Mt 4,13, 7,29; Mc i. 16-31; Lc 4,31-39.
167 (Mt 8,14, 15.
168 [There is here a partial recognition of the fact, now widely received, that the order of Mc is the most exact. No harmony can be successfully constructed on the order of Matthew.—R.]
169 (Lc 5,10 Lc 5,
170 (Mt 4,10 Mc 1,17 Mc 1,
171 (Mt 4,13-23; Mc 1,16-20; Lc 5,1-11; Jn 1,35-44.
172 (Jn 2,1, 2.
173 (Ac 22,3 Ac 22,
174 (Jn 2,12 Jn 2,
175 (Mt 4,13 Mt 4,
176 (Mt 4,18 Mt 4,
177 (Mt 4,18-22, 9,9; Mc i. 16-20, 2,14; Lc 5,1-11; Jn 1,35-44).
178 (Jn 1,42 Jn 1,
179 (Mc 3,17 Mc 3,
180 Turba.
181 (Lc 6,17 Lc 6,
182 (Lc 5,1-11.
183 (Jn 21,3 Jn 21,
184 (Jn 2,13, 3,22-24.
185 (Mt 4,12 Mt 4,
186 (Mc 1,14 Mc 1,
187 (Lc 4,13, 14).
188 (Jn 4,1-3.
189 (Mc 1,39 Mc 1,
190 (Mc 1,40 Mc 1,
191 (Mt 8,1, 2.
192 (Lc 5,12, 13). [It seems altogether more probable that the healing of the leper occurred, before the Sermon on the Mount, at the time indicated by Luke.—R.]
193 (Mt 5,3 Mt 5,
194 (Lc 6,20).
195 (Mt 4,25, etc.
196 Various Mss. and editions insert et before the Tyri = both of Tyre, although it is wanting in the Greek.
197 Qui vexabantur a spiritibus immundis curabantur.
198 (Lc 6,12-20.
199 [The explanation suggested in § 47 is altogether more probable.—R.]
200 Turbae, multitudes.
201 (Mt 7,28 Mt 7,
202 (Mt 8,1, 2).
203 (Mt 8,5-13.
204 (Lc 7,1-10.
205 [But see note on § 44.—R.]
206 (Mt 8,5, 6.
207 (Lc 7,3-7.
208 Accessisse, approaching.
209 Accessisse, come to.
210 Parum accessit vel multum accessit.
211 Perventio, arrival.
212 Reachers, comers at.
213 Ambitionis arte.
214 Perventio.
215 Coming at—accessus).
216 Accedite ad eum et illuminamini. Ps 34,5.
217 (Lc 7,42-48.
218 (Mt 8,14, 15.
219 Cf. what is said above (chap. xix. 43) as to the note of time implied in the statement (Mc 1,39), that He preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils). [The order of Mc is probably correct.—R.]
220 (Lc 4,38, 39.
221 Referring, apparently, to the casting out of the unclean spirit (Mc 1,23, etc.; Lc 4,33, etc)..
222 (1Co 12,11).
223 (Mt 8,16-18.
224 (Mc 1,31-35.
225 Diluculum, dawn.
226 Occidisset.
227 (Lc 4,40-42.
228 (Mt 8,18 Mt 8,
229 (Mt 8,19-22).
230 (Lc 9,57 Lc 9,
231 (Lc 9,61 Lc 9,
232 Septuaginta duo Lc 10,1. [An early variation in the Greek text; comp. Revised Version margin.—R.]
233 (Mt 8,23-ix. 1.
234 (Mc 4,36 Lc 8,22-37.
235 (Mt 8,16 Mt 8,
236 (Mc 4,40). [The variations in the Greek text are numerous. Augustin gives necdum, which represents the rending followed in the Revised Version.—R.]
237 (Lc 8,25 Lc 8,
238 (Mt 8,25 Mt 8,
239 (Mc 4,38 Mc 4,
240 (Lc 8,24 Lc 8,
241 (Mt 8,27 Mt 8,
242 Quis putas est iste).
243 (Mc 4,41). [The Greek text in Mc and Lc has nothing corresponding to “thinkest thou.” The Authorized Version, given above, has an unnecessary variation; “that,” “that,” “for.” The Greek particle is the same, and Augustin gives quia three times.—R.]
244 Quis putas hic est.
245 Mari.
246 Qualis est hic.
247 Or, the devils—daemonum.
248 Circa montem). [The correct Greek text is rendered “on the mountain side” in the Revised Version.—R.]
249 In monte.
250 (Mt 9,1-8.
251 Loquebatur verbum). [“Was speaking the word” is probably the meaning.—R.]
252 (Mc 2,1-12.
253 Et ipse sedebat docens.
254 (Lc 5,17-26.
255 Or, state—civitate.
256 Or,state—civitas.
257 Civitatibus.
258 Civitas, city.
259 (Ps lxxxvii. 3.
260 (Is 5,7 Jr 3,20 Ez iii. Ez 4
261 [The true solution of the difficulty is simple. Our Lord had already left Nazareth and made Capernaum His headquarters (comp. Lc 4,30, 31). But Augustin identifies that incident with a subsequent visit to Nazareth (see (ch. xlii)..—R.]
262 (Mt 9,9 Mt 9,
263 (Mc 2,13, 14.
264 (Lc 5,27, 28.
265 (Lc 6,13). [This fact shows that the order of Matthew is not chronological. Indeed, as Augustin goes on, he is led more and more to accept the order of the other evangelists.—R.]
266 (Mt 9,10-17.
267 (Mc 2,15 Mc 2,
268 (Lc 5,27-29.
269 (Mt 9,11 Mt 9,
270 (Mc 2,16 Mc 2,
271 (Lc 5,30 Lc 5,
272 Non utique magistrum eorum nolens illic intelligi, with most Mss. The reading volens occurs in some = not meaning their Master to be referred to, he intimates, etc.
273 (Lc 5,32 Lc 5,
274 Omitting in paenitentiam = unto repentance). [These words should be omitted in Matthew and Mark, according to the Greek Mss. Revised Version.—R.]
275 (Mt 9,14 Mt 9,
276 Pharisaei, not Pharisaeorum). [So the Greek text.—R.]
277 Or, as Augustin’s reasoning implies that he understood it, were fastingerant jejunates). [So Revised Version.—R.]
278 Pharisaeorum.
279 (Mc 2,18 Mc 2,
280 (Lc 5,33 Lc 5,
281 Filios nuptiarum.
282 Filios sponsi.
283 Animalibus).
284 (Mt 9,18-26.
285 (Mc 5,21-43.
286 [The events can be arranged in the order of Mark, with the exception of the passage, chap. 2,15-22. This must be placed, as Augustin says, after the return from “the country of the Gerasenes.” Comp. § 89.—R.]
287 (Lc 8,40-56.
288 [This is one of the rare cases where the order of Matthew is more exact than that of Mc and Luke. But the former evangelist has dislocated a long series of events in the same connection. See above.—R.]
289 Conscindis.
290 (Lc 8,50 Lc 8,
291 (Mc 9,24 Mc 9,
292 Mulier.
293 Mulieres.
294 Eam, her.
295 (Gn 2,22 Gn 2,
296 Mulieres.
297 (Nb 31,18 Nb 31,
298 (Ga 2,4).
299 [The curious variation, in text noted above was probably due to the scribe’s confounding the “damsel” with the “woman” who had just been spoken of.—R.]
300 (Mt 9,27-34). [The view of Augustin is that now generally accepted by harmonists.—R.]
301 (Mc 10,46-52; Lc 18,35-43.
302 Regnum evangelii.
303 Vexati et jacentes.
304 The Mss. read ejicias; some editions have mittat, send.
305 (Mt 9,35-x. 42.
306 In circuitu docens.
307 (Mc 6,6-11.
308 Virtutes.
309 (Mt 13,54).
310 (Lc 9,1-6.
311 The Ratisbon edition and nineteen Mss. read alio nomine, by another name instead of alio loco.—Migne.
312 In five Mss. Lebdaeum, Lebdeus, is given instead of Lebbeus, but wrongly, as appears from the Greek text of Mt 10,3.—Migne. [The Vulgate (Mt 10,3) reads Thaddaeus, now accepted by critical editors; so Revised Version. The Authorized Version follows a composite reading (with two early uncials and Syriac versions): “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.” A harmonistic gloss—R.]
313 (Mc 6,8). [In Mt 10,10, Luke ix. 3, the later authorities substitute the plural “staves,” probably to avoid the seeming discrepancy. The better sustained reading in both passages is “staff.”—R.]
314 (Jc 1,13 Jc 1,
315 (Dt 13,3 Dt 13,
316 Judicii. Jn 5,29.
317 Discerne.
318 (Ps 43,1 Ps 43,
319 Pueri.
320 Parvuli estote ut sensibus perfecti sitis. 1Co 14,20.
321 (1Co 3,18 1Co 3,
322 (Ga 6,2-5.
323 [Augustin fails to notice that the word “burden” represents different Greek words in Ga 6,2-5. His argument here resembles the method of modern expositors who explain the discrepancies of the Authorized Version without consulting the original.—R.]
324 (1Co 4,21).
325 (1Co 9,7 1Co 9,
326 (1Co 9,11, 12.
327 (1Th 2,9 1Th 2,
328 In templo operantur.
329 (1Co 9,13-15.
330 6 [Ut securi non possiderent.—R.]
331 (Mt 6,3 Mt 6,
332 (Mt 11,1-19.
333 (Lc 7,18-35.
334 [The order of Lc seems to be more exact. Mt xii., xiii, must be distributed through an earlier part of the history.—R.]
335 (Mt 11,20-24).
336 (Lc 9,3, 10,4). [The view of Augustin is now generally accepted. The occasions when the sayings were uttered are distinguished in the accounts of Matthew and Lc —R.]
337 Confiteor tibi). [Comp. Revised Version.—R.]
338 (Mt 11,25-30.
339 Spiritu sancto.
340 (Lc 10,21 Lc 10,
341 (Mt 12,1-8.
342 (Mc 2,23-28; Lc 6,1-5.
343 [Clearly the Sabbath controversies must be placed before the Sermon on the Mount, as indicated by the order of Mc and Luke.—R.]
344 (Mt 12,9-13.
345 (Mc 3,1-5; Lc 6,6-10).
346 (Mt 12,10-12.
347 (Mc 3,4 Lc 6,9 Lc 6,
348 (Mt 12,14-21). [Sperabunt, “hope,” as in Revised Version.—R.]
349 (Mc 3,7-12.
350 (Lc 6,12 Lc 6,
351 [’I’he Sermon on the Mount was delivered during the withdrawal here referred to.—R.]
352 (Mt 12,22 Mt 12,
353 (Lc 11,14).
354 (Mt 12,23-37.
355 (Mc 3,22-30.
356 (Lc 11,14-26.
357 (Mt 12,38 Mt 12,
358 (Lc 11,16-37.
359 (Lc 11,27 Lc 11,
360 (Mt 5,-vii).
361 (Lc 11,37 Lc 11,
362 (Mt 12,46-50.
363 (Mc 3,31-35.
364 (Lc 8,19 Lc 8,
365 (Lc 8,22 Lc 8,
366 (Mt 13,1-52).
367 (Mc 4,1-34.
368 (Lc 8,22 Lc 8,
369 [The discourse in parables must be placed before the voyage to the country of the Gadarenes; comp. Mc 4,36, and Augustin remark in § 89.—R.]
370 Three Mss., however, give in synagoga eorum—in their synagogue—as in our version.
371 (Mt 13,53-58.
372 (Mc 4,35, 5,17; Lc viii. 22-37). [On the variations in the name, see critical editions of Greek text. Comp. Revised Version. The Latin versions generally read “Gerasenes” in all three accounts.—R.]
373 (Mt 8,23-34.
374 (Jn 6,42 Jn 6,
375 (Mc 6,1-6).
376 1 Lc 4,23.
377 2 Lc 4,13-23.
378 3 [The question of the identity of the visits to Nazareth is still an open one. But there are some points ignored by Augustin which indicate that Lc refers to an earlier visit.—R.]
379 4 Mt 14,1, 2.
380 5 Mc 6,14-16.
381 6 Dicebant: so that the reading eŸlegon is followed instead of eŸlegen in Mc 6,14). [Westcott and Hort give the plural in their text, following the Vatican codex and some other authorities.—R.]
382 (Lc 9,7-9.
383 [Augustin gives the reading followed in the Revised Version (“Jn whom I beheaded, he is risen”). The translator gives the words of the Authorized Version.—R.]
384 (Mt 14,3-12.
385 (Mc 6,17-29.
386 (Jn 2,1, 12, 3,22-24.
387 The reading in the Mss. and in Migne’s text is, quis autem non putet qui minus in his litteris eruditus est; for which some give, quis autem non putet nisi qui minus, etc.
388 (Lc 3,15-21).
389 (Mt 4,12 Mc 1,14 Mc 1,
390 (Mt 14,1, 2; Mc 6,14-16.
391 (Mt 14,13, 14.
392 (Lc 9,9 Lc 9,
393 (Mc 6,30-44.
394 (Lc 3,20 Lc 3,
395 (Lc 9,10-17.
396 (Jn 4,3, 5, 43-54).
397 [Augustin here passes over one of the most difficult questions in connection with the Gospel history. The length of our Lord’s ministry turns upon the feast referred to in Jn 5,If it was passover, then Jn refers to four passovers; and our Lord’s ministry extended over three years and a few weeks. If some other feast is meant, the ministry covered but two years and a few weeks.—R.]
398 (Jn 5,-vi. 13.
399 (Mt 14,15-21.
400 (Mc 6,34-44; Lc 9,12-17.
401 (Jn 6,5-13).
402 (Mt 14,16 Mt 14,
403 (Jn 6,7 Jn 6,
404 (Mc 6,37).
405 (Mt 14,23-33.
406 (Mc 6,47-54.
407 (Jn 6,15-21.
408 Reading in monte fuisse cum eisdem turbis quas de quinque panibus pavit. According to Migne, this is the reading of several Mss. of the better class; some twelve other Mss. give in monte fuisse cum easdem turbas, etc. = “He was on a mountain when He fed,” etc. Some editions have also in montem fugisse cum easdem, etc. = “He departed to a mountain when He fed,” etc.
409 (Ph 3,21).
410 [The difficulty in regard to the course of the ship did not suggest itself to Augustin, nor does he allude to the position Bethsaida. Lc 9,10 seems to place it on one side of the lake and Mc 6,45 on the other. A contrary wind would blow them across the lake, unless they were trying to get to some point on the eastern shore; from which shore they certainly started, after the feeding of the five thousand.—R.]
411 (Lc 9,17, 18.
412 (Mt 14,34-xv. 20.
413 (Jn 6,22-72).
414 (Mt 15,21-28.
415 (Mc 7,24-30.
416 (Mt 15,29-38.
417 (Mc 7,31-viii. 9).
418 Cophinis.
419 Sportis.
420 See above, chap. xlvi.
421 (Mt 15,39-xvi. 4.
422 (Mt 12,38 Mt 12,
423 (Mc 8,10-12).
424 [“Magdala,” as the Authorized Version reads in Matthew, is poorly supported, and was probably substituted by some ignorant scribe for “Magadan” (comp. Revised Version). In Mc 8,10, however, the reading “Dalmanutha” is well attested. Augustin refers to Latin codices.—R.]
425 (Mt 16,5-12.
426 (Mc 8,13-21.
427 Some editions omit the me in quem me dicum, etc., and make it = Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
428 (Mt 16,13-19.
429 (Mc 8,22-29.
430 (Lc 9,18-20.
431 Adopting, with the Ratisbon Mss., eum movet qui nunquam oravit in via. Another reading is, eum movet qui putat nunquam, etc. = a difficulty to the man who thinks He never prayed on the way.
432 (Jn 1,42 Jn 1,
433 (Mc 3,16-19.
434 (Mt 16,20-23.
435 (Mt 16,24-27.
436 (Mc 8,34-38.
437 (Lc 9,25, 26.
438 The text gives, eadem tamen sententiarum veritate simillimus. Another reading is, sententiam veritate simillimo).
439 (Mt 16,28-xvii. 9; Mc viii. 39-ix. 9; Lc 9,27-36.
440 [Dum discederent. The Revised Version correctly renders the Greek: “as they were parting.”—R.]
441 (Mt 17,10-13.
442 (Mc 9,10-12.
443 Venisset.
444 (Mt 17,14-20.
445 (Mc 9,16-28; Lc 9,38-45.
446 (Mt 17,21, 22.
447 (Mc 9,29-31; Lc 9,44, 45).
448 (Mt 17,23-27.
449 (Mt xviii.
450 (Mc 9,33-49.
451 (Lc 9,46-48.
452 (Jn 20,23 Jn 20,
453 (Mt 16,19 Mt 16,
454 [Augustin entirely ignores the most perplexing problem in the Gospel history, namely, the proper distribution of the matter peculiar to Lc and John, at this point in the narrative. The passages are: Lc 9,51-xviii. 14 and Jn 7,2-xi. 54. These events cover about six months, but Matthew and Mc omit all reference to them. The difficulty is all the greater, since Lc inserts in his narrative many things that evidently belong to an earlier period (e.g., chaps. 11,14-xiii. 19). There are also peculiar difficulties connected with the chronology of John x. and xi.—R.]
455 (Mt 19,1-12).
456 (Gn 2,24 Gn 2,
457 (Mt 19,13-xx. 16.
458 (Mc 10,13-31).
459 (Lc 9,46-51.
460 [Compare note on § 120.—R.]
461 (Lc 18,18-30.
462 The Latin version is followed here. In Mt 19,17, where the English version gives, “Why callest thou me good?” the Vulgate has, Quid me interrigas de bono? [The Revised Version text agrees with the Vulgate (in Matthew), following the most ancient Greek Mss. But the same authorities read “Master” instead of “good Master,” differing from the Vulgate. Augustin accepts the latter reading.—R.]
463 (Mt 20,17-28.
464 (Lc 18,31-35.
465 (Lc 22,24-27.
466 (Mt 20,29-34).
467 (Mc 10,46-52.
468 See chap. 24,§ 56.
469 (Mc 5,22-43.
470 (Lc 18,35-43.
471 [Various other solutions are suggested. Comp. Robinson’s Greek Harmony, rev. ed. pp. 234, 235.—R.]
472 (Mt 21,1-9.
473 (Mc 11,1-10.
474 (Lc 19,1-38.
475 See above, chap. 46,§ 98).
476 (Jn 12,14, 15.
477 [The reference here is to the story of Aristeas, to the effect that the translators, though separated, produced identical versions. Compare translator’s remark in Introductory Notice.—R.]
478 Reading quae dicenda est, sermonibus per quos dicenda. The Ratisbon edition and twelve Mss. give in both instances discenda = to be learned, instead of dicenda = to be expressed. See Migne.
479 (Mt 21,10-13; Mc 11,15-17; Lc 19,45, 46; Jn 2,1-17).
480 Unam.
481 (Mt 21,14-22.
482 Consequenter.
483 Aiia die.
484 (Mc 11,11-17.
485 (Mt 21,17 Mt 21,
486  Mc 11,20, 21).
487 [The explanation of Augustin is still accepted by many. But the order of Mc may be followed without any difficulty. The long discourses occurred on the third day, and the blasted condition of the fig-tree was first noticed on the morning of that day; these are the main points.—R.]
488 (Mt 21,23-27.
489 (Mc 11,27-33; Lc 19,47-xx. 8.
490 [The order of occurrences during this day of public controversy in the temple presents few difficulties. It was probably the Tuesday of Passion Week. The day of the month is in dispute because of the still mooted question, whether our Lord ate the last passover at the regular time or one day earlier.—R.]
491 (Mt 21,28-44.
492 (Mc 12,1-11; Lc 20,9-18.
493 (Lc 20,15-17).
494 (Jn 11,49-51.
495 (Ps 118,26 Mt 21,9 Mt 21,
496 Keeping quia veritas est, for which the reading qui veritas est = “who is the truth,” also occurs.
497 (Jn 4,1 Jn 4,
498 (1Co 15,6 1Co 15,
499 Aiunt illi).
500 Aiunt illi.
501 That is to say, the aiunt illi is the rendering for levgousin aujtw`). [This reading of the Greek text is abundantly attested.—R.]
502 Liberi eritis.
503 (Jn 8,31-37.
504 (Mt 21,45-xxii. 14.
505 (Lc 14,16-24.
506 (Mc 12,12 Lc 20,19).
507 (Mt 22,15-33.
508 (Mc 12,13-27; Lc 20,20-40.
509 (Mt 22,34-40.
510 Another but evidently faulty reading is sometimes found here,—namely, Lucas autem hoc tacet et in fine Marcus, etc. = whereas Lc says nothing about that, and Mc tells us, etc.
511 Minorabitur. Si 19,4.
512 (Lc 10,25-37.
513 (Lc 10,29).
514 (Mt 22,41-46.
515 (Mc 12,35-37.
516 (Lc 20,41-44.
517 (Mt xxiii.
518 (Mt 12,39-46).
519 (Lc 11,29-39.
520 (Lc 11,40-52.
521 In Mt xxiii.
522 (Mt 23,39 Mt 23,
523 (Mt 21,9 Mt 21,
524 (Lc 13,31-35.
525 In claritate).
526 (Mt 24,1, 2. According to Migne, certain codices add here the clause, “when the disciples were asking the Lord privately what was the sign of His coming.”
527 (Mc 12,41-xiii. 2.
528 (Lc 20,16-xxi. 6.
529 [Many harmonists insert at this point the events narrated in Jn 12,20-50. Augustin does not express an opinion in regard to this passage.—R.]
530 (Mt 24,3-xxv. 46; Mc xiii. 4-37; Lc 21,7-36).
531 (Mt 24,14 Mt 24,
532 (Mc 13,10 Mc 13,
533 (Mt 24,15 Mt 24,
534 (Mc 13,14). [The Greek text of Mark, according to the best authorities, does not contain the phrase “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” Augustin also omits the clause, but the Edinburgh edition inserts it, following the Authorized Version. It has therefore been stricken out in this edition.—R.]
535 (Lc 21,20 Lc 21,
536 (Mt 24,16-18.
537 (Lc 21,21).
538 (Lc 21,34-36.
539 (Mt 26,1, 2 [It cannot be determined with certainty how much time is to be included in the phrase “after two days.” Moreover, the difficulty in regard to the time of the Last Supper affects this question, to some extent at least.—R.]
540 (Mc 14,1 Lc 22,1 Lc 22,
541 (Jn 11,55, 12,1, 13,1).
542 (Jn 12,1 Jn 12,
543 (Jn 11,55 Jn 11,
544 Ubi fuerat Lazarus mortuus quem suscitavit Jesus.
545 (Jn 12,1, 2.
546 (Mt 26,2-5, 14, etc).
547 Dicebant enim.
548 (Mc 14,1, 2, 10.
549 [This view is rejected by Dr. Robinson in his Harmony, but accepted by many commentators. See Robinson’s Greek Harmony, rev. ed. pp. 236-238.—R.]
550 (Mt 26,3-13.
551 (Lc 7,36-50). [This identification of Mary of Bethany with the woman spoken of by Lc is part of the process by which the latter is assumed to be Mary Magdalene. The occasions were different, and it is far more likely that there were two women, neither of them Mary Magdalene.—R.]
552 (Jn 11,1, 2). [John’s language is more properly referred to what was well known among Christians when he wrote, than to what had occurred before the sickness of Lazarus.—R.]
553 (Jn 12,1-8; Mt 26,3-13; Mc 14,3-9.
554 See above, chap. 46,§ 98.
555 De alabastro fracto frangere conetur.
556 See above, § 96).
557 (Mt 26,14-19.
558 (Mc 14,10-16; Lc 22,3-13.
559 (Mt 26,18 Mt 26,
560 Patrem familias.
561 Dominum domus.
562 Ite in civitatem et dicite ei. Turning on the identity of form retained by the Latin pronoun in all the genders of the dative case, this, of course, cannot be precisely represented in English.
563 Ad quemcunque aut ad quemlibet.
564 Ad quendam).
565 Lagenam, bottle.
566 Amphoram, large measure.
567 (Mt 26,20-25.
568 (Mc 14,17-21; Lc 22,14-23; Jn 13,21-27.
569 [No notice is taken by Augustin, in this treatise, of the most serious difficulty connected with the narratives of the Lord’s Supper; namely, that of the day of the month on which it was instituted. The Synoptists distinctly declare that our Lord ate the passover supper with His disciples at the regular time (Mt 26,17 Mc 14,12 Lc 22,7), but some passages in Jn (xiii. 1, 27-30; 18,28; 19,31) seem to indicate that the proper time of its observance had not yet come. Hence many commentators think that the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, one day before the regular time of the paschal supper.—R.]

Augustin Harm. Gospels 278