ℹ️ This corpus has no morphological tagging. Glosses are matched by word form against a dictionary — a match does not prove it is the same word (an inflected form can coincide with another word’s lemma). Verify against the original and a specialist lexicon where precision matters.
ℹ️ The Chinese and English alongside are this site's own translation, made directly from the original text on this page (not the CUV or the WEB, which follow the Masoretic Text and a different textual tradition).
For the causes by which this could happen cannot be enumerated; yet no one is so inexperienced in human affairs as either to deny or to doubt that they could have been many and great. For to whose thought would it not occur how many other, more terrible things could have been reported to the king, whether true or false, so that he who had feared that the infant king would after some years oppose him or his sons, being agitated by the terrors of certain nearer, more pressing dangers, might occupy his mind, snatched away from that care, rather with other things to be guarded against in the immediate present?
So, to pass over these things, this I say: after the Magi reported nothing to Herod, he could have believed that they had been deceived by the sight of a false star, and that, after not finding him whom they had thought born, they were ashamed to return to him; and thus, with his fear removed, he rested from inquiring after and pursuing the boy. Therefore, when after his mother's purification they had come with him into Jerusalem, and those things had been done in the temple which are narrated by Luke, since the words of Simeon and Anna prophesying about him, once they began to be published abroad by those who had heard them, would recall the king's mind to its former intent, Joseph, warned in a dream, fled with the infant and his mother into Egypt.
Then, when these matters that had been done and said in the temple were divulged, Herod perceived that he had been mocked by the Magi, and thereafter, desiring to bring about Christ's death, he slew many infants, as Matthew narrates. XII. Matthew, then, continues concerning John thus: of Judea, and saying: repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. These words of John the others omitted. Now indeed as to what Matthew goes on to add: for this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight — it is ambiguously placed, and it is not clear whether Matthew himself recorded this in his own person, or, still following the words of John himself, added it, so that all this may be understood as spoken by John: repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; for this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, and the rest. For this ought not to trouble anyone, that he does not say 'for I am he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah,' but says 'for this is he who was spoken of.' For such a manner of speech is wont to belong even to the evangelists Matthew and John themselves. For Matthew too said: he found a man sitting at the customs, and did not say 'he found me'; and John:
this, he says, is the disciple who bears witness of these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true — he did not say 'I am' or 'my testimony is true.' The Lord himself too very often says 'the Son of Man' or 'the Son of God,' and does not say 'I'; and: it behooved, he says, Christ to suffer and to rise again on the third day — he does not say 'it behooved me to suffer.' Therefore John the Baptist too, when he had said: repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, could add concerning himself what follows: for this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, and the rest; so that after his words Matthew thus continues the narrative: and John himself had a garment of camel's hair, and the rest.
And if this is so, it is no wonder if, when he was asked what he said concerning himself, as John the evangelist narrates: I, he said, am the voice of one crying in the wilderness — just as he had already said in his exhortation that they should repent. But concerning his clothing and food Matthew continues thus, saying: and John himself had a garment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey. This Mark too says in almost the same number of words, but the other two are silent. Matthew therefore continues and says: and to the Sadducees coming to his baptism he said: offspring of vipers, who has shown you to flee from the wrath to come? And do not begin to say:
we have Abraham as our father — 'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.' The other (Luke) interposes the question of the crowds as to what they should do, and John answering them concerning good works as it were as the fruits of repentance — which Matthew omitted — then, as they were pondering in their hearts about him whether he himself were the Christ, he says that John answered: 'I indeed baptize you with water,' and did not say 'unto repentance.' Then Matthew: but he, he says, who is to come after me is mightier than I; but the other (Luke): there comes, he says, one mightier than I. Likewise Matthew: whose sandals, he says, I am not worthy to carry; but the other: the latchet of whose sandals I am not worthy to loose. Which Mark too says, while he is silent about the rest.
For after recording his dress and food, he (Mark) went on to say: he added 'with the Holy [Spirit],' just as Matthew said 'with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' To these three John the evangelist bears witness, when he says: John bears witness of him and cries out, saying: this was he of whom I said: he who comes after me was made before me, because he was before me. For thus he shows that he said this then, when they record that he said it, but that he repeated and recalled what he had already said, when he says: this was he of whom I said: he who comes after me.
If, therefore, it be asked which words John the Baptist rather spoke — whether those which Matthew or those which Luke records him to have said, or those which Mark, in the very few he set down as spoken by him, leaving the rest untold — he who prudently understands judges that no labor at all is to be spent on this: that the very meanings are what are necessary for the knowledge of the truth, in whatever words they may have been expressed. For that one keeps one order of words, another another, is by no means contrary. Nor is that contrary, if one says what another passes over. For as each remembered, and as it was in each one's heart to unfold the same meaning either more briefly or more fully, so it is manifest that they unfolded it.
And in this it sufficiently appears — which most pertains to the matter — that since the truth of the Gospel, proceeding from the Word of God, which above every creature remains eternal and unchangeable, has through a creature, dispensed by temporal signs and the tongues of men, obtained the highest summit of authority, we ought not to think that anyone lies if, when several who remember a matter they have heard or seen indicate the same thing yet not in the same manner nor in the same words; or whether the order of words be changed, or other words be brought forth in place of others which nevertheless have the same value; or whether something be said less fully, either because it did not occur to the one recalling, or because it can be understood from other things which are said; or whether, for the sake of narrating other matters which he resolved rather to tell, so that a fitting measure of time may suffice, each undertakes to explain something to himself not wholly but to touch it in part; or whether, to illuminate and make clear the meaning, he to whom the authority of narrating has been granted adds nothing indeed of the substance but something of the words; or whether, holding the matter well, he does not attain — though he attempt it — to enunciate faithfully and completely even the very words which he heard.
But whoever says that it certainly ought to have been granted to the evangelists, through the power of the Holy Spirit, that they should differ neither in the kind of words nor in the order nor in the number, does not understand that, the more greatly the authority of the evangelists excels, so much the more ought the confidence of other men speaking the truth to have been established through them; so that when several perchance narrate the same matter, none of them may rightly be accused of falsehood, if he has so differed from another that it can be defended even by the preceding example of the evangelists. For since it is not lawful either to think or to say that any one of the evangelists lied, so it will appear that neither did he lie to whom, in recalling, something of the sort has befallen such as is shown to have befallen them.
And the more it pertains to the best morals to beware of falsehood, so much the more ought we to be governed by so eminent an authority, lest we should think those to be falsehoods when we find the narratives of certain persons to vary among themselves as they have varied among the evangelists; and at the same time also — which most pertains to faithful doctrine — that we should understand that the truth to be sought or embraced is not so much of words as of things, since we approve that those who do not use the same manner of speech, when they do not differ in things and meanings, have stood in the same truth. What, then, in these matters which I have set forth as compared from the narratives of the evangelists, is to be thought contrary?
Is it that one said 'whose sandals I am not worthy to carry,' but others 'to loose the latchet of his sandal'? For not by words or by the order of words or by any kind of speech, but even by the matter itself it seems to be one thing to carry sandals and another to loose the latchet of a sandal. With reason, then, it can be asked what John said he was not worthy to do — whether to carry the sandals or to loose the latchet of the sandal. For if he said one of these two, he seems to have narrated truly who was able to narrate what he actually said; but he who said the other, though he did not lie, will certainly be thought either to have forgotten, or to have said one thing for another.
But it befits all falsehood to be absent from the evangelists — not only that which is uttered by lying, but also that which comes by forgetting. And so, if it pertains to the matter to understand something different from what was said 'to carry the sandals,' and something else from what was said 'to loose the latchet of the sandal,' what else would you rightly judge is to be accepted, except that John said both — whether the one at one time and the other at another, or in a single connected utterance? For he could so say 'whose sandal-latchet I am not worthy to loose, nor his sandals to carry,' so that one of the evangelists took from this the one part, and others the other, yet all narrated the truth.
But if John intended nothing, when he spoke concerning the Lord's sandals, except his (the Lord's) excellence and his own humility, then whichever of these he said — whether concerning the loosing of the latchet of the sandals or concerning the carrying of the sandals — he nevertheless held the same meaning; and whoever, even in his own words, expressed through the mention of sandals the same signification of humility, thereby did not stray from the same intent. A useful method, therefore, and one especially to be commended to memory, when we speak of the harmony of the evangelists, is this: that it is no falsehood when each one, even in saying something else which that other did not say of whom he narrates something, nevertheless unfolds that same intention of his which even he does who records his words.
For thus we learn wholesomely that nothing else is to be sought than what he who speaks intends. XIII. Matthew, then, continues and says: but Jesus answering said to him: suffer it now, for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him. The others too attest that Jesus came to John. But three record that he was baptized, yet are silent about what Matthew says that John said to the Lord, or that the Lord answered John. Then Matthew continues: in whom I am well pleased; if you ask which of these sounded forth in that voice, whichever you please is to be accepted, provided you understand that those who did not report the same manner of speech reported the same meaning.
Which diversity of expressions is useful also for this: that what is said in one way may not be understood too narrowly and interpreted otherwise than the matter stands. For as to what was said 'in whom I am well pleased,' if anyone should wish to understand it so that God seems to have been well pleased with himself in the Son, he is admonished by what was said 'in you I am well pleased.' If again from this one phrase anyone should understand that the Father was pleasing to men in the Son, he is admonished by what was said 'in you I am well pleased.'
From which it sufficiently appears that, whichever of the evangelists retained even the very words of the heavenly voice, the others varied the words in order to unfold the same meaning more familiarly, so that it may be understood that this was said by all as though it were said 'in you I have established my good pleasure,' that is, 'through you to accomplish what pleases me.' But as to that which some codices have, according to Luke, that this sounded forth in that voice which is written in the psalm: 'You are my Son, this day have I begotten you' — although it is reported not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices, nevertheless, if it can be confirmed by some copies worthy of credence, what else is to be understood except that both were sounded from heaven in whatever order of words?
But what is said according to John concerning the dove is narrated not as of when it was done, but the words of John the Baptist are reported as he recalls what he saw. In which it is asked how it was said: 'and I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water, he said to me: upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' For if he then knew him, when he saw the dove descending upon him, it must be asked how he said to him who came to be baptized: 'I ought rather to be baptized by you'; for he said this to him before the dove descended.
From which it appears that, although he already knew him — for he even leaped in his mother's womb when Mary came to Elizabeth — nevertheless he learned something in him which he did not yet know, by the descent of the dove: namely, that he himself baptized with the Holy Spirit by a certain proper and divine power, so that no man who had received baptism from God, even if he baptized someone, could say that what he transmitted was his own, or that the Holy Spirit was given by himself. Matthew continues and says: the tempter approaching said to him: if you are the Son of God, say that these stones become bread. That Andrew remained with him one day, and that then the name Peter was imposed, when before he was called Simon.
And likewise on the following day, as he (the Lord) now wished to go out into Galilee, he found Philip and said to him to follow him. Thence it came about that he narrated also concerning Nathanael. But on the third day, being situated in Galilee, he performed that miracle at Cana in the turning of water into wine. All of which things the other evangelists passed over, weaving into their narratives that Jesus returned into Galilee. Whence it is understood that some days were interposed, in which those things concerning the disciples were done which are interposed by John. But it is not contrary to that passage where Matthew narrates that the Lord said to Peter: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.'
For he is not to be understood as having received this name then, but rather at that time when John records it to have been said to him: 'You shall be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter'; so that the Lord afterward called him by this name, saying 'You are Peter.' For he does not say 'you shall be called Peter,' but 'you are Peter,' which had already been said to him before, 'you shall be called.' Then Matthew weaves the narrative and says: Capernaum by the sea, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali, and the rest, up to where the discourse is concluded which he delivered on the mountain. In which context of the narrative Mark attests to him concerning the calling of the disciples Peter and Andrew, and a little after James and John.
But whereas Matthew immediately joined the narrative of that lengthy discourse which he delivered on the mountain, after he had healed many and great crowds followed him, Mark interposed other things: that he taught them in the synagogue, and they were astonished at his teaching. Then he (Mark) himself said what Matthew too said after that lengthy discourse, that he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. He (Mark) also narrated concerning the man from whom the unclean spirit was cast out, then concerning Peter's mother-in-law — in these things Luke agrees with him — but Matthew narrated nothing concerning that demon; concerning Peter's mother-in-law, however, he was not silent, but later.
But in this passage which we are now considering, the same Matthew, after the calling of the disciples whom, while they were fishing, he commanded to follow him, narrates that he (Jesus) went about Galilee teaching in the synagogues and preaching the Gospel and healing every sickness, and, when crowds had been gathered to him, that he went up into the mountain and made use of that lengthy discourse. He therefore gives occasion to understand that those things were then done which Mark narrates after the choosing of the same disciples, when he went about Galilee and taught in their synagogues, and then also concerning Peter's mother-in-law; but that he (Matthew) afterward recorded what he had passed over, although he did not recall into the narrative all that had been passed over.
Indeed it may well trouble someone how John says that not in Galilee, but beside the Jordan, Andrew first followed the Lord together with another, whose name is not told; then that Peter received his name from him; thirdly that Philip was called to follow him. But the other three evangelists say that they were called from fishing, in a manner sufficiently consistent among themselves, especially Matthew and Mark. For Luke does not name Andrew, who nevertheless is understood to have been in that boat according to the narrative of Matthew and Mark, who briefly touch upon how it was done, which Luke more openly unfolded, recording there also the miracle concerning the catch of fish, and that the Lord first spoke to the crowds from that very boat.
This also seems to be a point of difference: that he records that it was said by the Lord to Peter alone, 'From now on you shall be catching men,' whereas the others relate that this was said to both brothers. But it could well be that this was first said to Peter, when he marvelled at the great multitude of fishes that had been caught, as Luke intimates, and afterwards to both, as those two record. That matter, then, which we spoke of concerning John must be carefully weighed; for it can be thought no small contradiction, since there is a great difference of places, of times, and of the calling itself. For if beside the Jordan, before Jesus had gone into Galilee, two followed him at the testimony of John the Baptist, one of whom was Andrew, who at once brought his own brother Simon to
the Lord — when he also received the name by which he should be called Peter — how then is it said by the other evangelists that he found them fishing in Galilee and called them to discipleship, unless it must be understood that they did not then see the Lord beside the Jordan in such a way as to cleave to him inseparably, but only came to know who he was, and, having marvelled, returned to their own affairs? For also at Cana of Galilee, when he had made wine from water, the same John says that his disciples believed in him. This he so narrates: as one calls the apostle Paul 'born at Tarsus of Cilicia' — for he was not then yet an apostle. So when we hear that the disciples of Christ were invited to the wedding, we must understand not that they were already disciples, but those who were to be disciples.
For indeed they were already Christ's disciples when these things were narrated and written down; and therefore, as one narrating past events, he spoke of them thus. But when the same John says, 'After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and there they remained not many days,' it is uncertain whether Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee had already attached themselves to him. For Matthew first narrates that he came and dwelt in Capernaum, and afterwards that he called them as they were fishing from their boats; but this one relates that his disciples came to Capernaum with him.
Or perhaps Matthew recapitulated what he had passed over, since he does not himself say, 'After this, walking beside the sea of Galilee he saw two brothers,' but without any distinction of subsequent time: 'And walking,' he says, 'beside the sea of Galilee he saw two brothers,' and so on? Accordingly it may be that he afterwards narrated, not what had happened afterwards, but what he had earlier passed over, so that they may be understood to have come with him to Capernaum, whither John says both he and his mother and his disciples came. Or rather, were they other disciples, just as Philip was already following him, whom he had so called as to say to him, 'Follow me'? For in what order all
the twelve apostles were called does not appear in the narratives of the evangelists, since indeed not only the order of the calling, but not even the calling itself of all is recorded — only that of Philip and Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee and Matthew the publican, who was also called Levi. Yet Peter alone received his name individually and first and singly. For the sons of Zebedee he did not name individually, but named both together 'sons of thunder.' Truly it must be noted that the evangelic and apostolic scripture calls not those twelve alone his disciples, but all who, believing in him, were being trained by his teaching for the kingdom of heaven.
Out of this multitude he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles, as Luke records. For he says a little after: 'And coming down with them he stood in a level place, and a crowd of his disciples, and a great multitude of people.' He would certainly not have called twelve men 'a crowd of disciples.' In other passages of the Scriptures too this plainly appears — that all who learned from him what pertained to eternal life were called his disciples.
It may be asked, however, how he called the fishermen from their boats two by two — first Peter and Andrew, then going on a little further, two others, the sons of Zebedee, as Matthew and Mark narrate — whereas Luke says that both their boats were filled with that great catch of fishes, and records that Peter's partners, James and John the sons of Zebedee, were called to help, since they could not draw out the nets that were full, and that they marvelled all together at the great multitude of fishes that had been caught; and though he had said to Peter alone, 'Fear not, from now on you shall be catching men,' yet they all together, when the boats had been brought to land, followed him.
Whence it must be understood that this happened first, which Luke intimates, and that they were not then called by the Lord, but that it was only foretold to Peter that he would catch men. And this was not said as though he would never catch fish again; for after the Lord's resurrection too we read that they went fishing. It was said, then, that thereafter he would catch men; it was not said that he would no longer catch fish. Hence there is room to understand that they returned to catching fish as was their custom, so that afterwards there might happen what Matthew and Mark narrate, when he called them two by two and himself commanded that they should follow him — first the two, Peter and Andrew, then the two others, the sons of Zebedee.
For then it was not with the boats drawn up to land as though with a concern to return, but they followed him as one calling and commanding them to follow. This too must be inquired into: how the evangelist John says that, before John the Baptist had been cast into prison, he went into Galilee. For after recording that at Cana of Galilee he made wine from water and went down to Capernaum with his mother and disciples, and there they remained not many days, he says that he then went up to Jerusalem for the Passover, and after these things came into the land of Judea with his disciples, and tarried there with them and baptized; where, following on, he says that he connected Galilee to his narratives — which happened after John was delivered up.
Concerning this his return into Galilee the evangelist John himself also speaks thus: that it may be understood that he whom Matthew records was then cleansed, when after that discourse the Lord came down from the mountain. For thus Matthew says: he set down certain things which this one did not say, and certain things too not in the same words, yet, the integrity of the truth being preserved, he expounded them in like manner. This could, as I said, most easily be believed, were it not disturbing that Matthew says this discourse was held by the Lord on the mountain as he sat, but Luke in a level place with the Lord standing. This diversity, then, makes it seem that the one was a different discourse from the other.
For what would prevent Christ from repeating elsewhere certain things which he had already said before, or from doing again certain things which he had already done before? It is here reasonably believed that these two discourses — the one of which Matthew inserted, the other Luke — are not separated by a long interval of time, from the fact that both before and after, both narrated certain similar or identical things, so that it may not absurdly be judged that their narratives, inserting these matters, were occupied with the same places and days. For Matthew says it thus, and Luke also narrating thus:
what Matthew inserted, Luke passed over in silence — that is, on the mountain — and then, when he had come down, in a level place he held another similar discourse, of which Matthew is silent but Luke is not silent, and each discourse was concluded in the same manner. But as to what Matthew, this discourse being ended, goes on to say:
that out of these he chose those twelve, then came down with them — not from the mountain, but from the very height of the mountain to a level place, that is, to some flat ground which was on the slope of the mountain and could hold many crowds, and there stood, until the crowds gathered to him; and afterwards, when he had sat down, his disciples came nearer, and thus, in the presence of them and the rest of the crowds, he held one discourse, which Matthew and Luke narrated in a different manner of narrating, but with the same truth of things and of the sentiments which both spoke.
For we have already forewarned — and it must spontaneously appear to each one, even without anyone forewarning — that if one passes over something which another says, this is not a contradiction; nor if one says something in another way, so long as the same truth of things and sentiments is set forth. So that what Matthew says, 'And when he had come down from the mountain,' may be understood at the same time also of that level place, which could have been on the slope of the mountain. Then Matthew narrates concerning the leper cleansed, which Mark and Luke likewise do. XX. After this Matthew follows and says: that. This concerning the centurion's servant Luke too records, not, as this one does, after the leper was cleansed — which he afterwards recalled and recorded — but after the end of that longer discourse, which he thus joins: