書信與論戰集（CSEL） 第 30 章 第 11/14 段

The things, then, that were done with the Lord through Pilate, Matthew narrates thus. And first he ran ahead to record the end of Judas the betrayer, which he alone narrated, saying thus: 'Having taken the pieces of silver, they said: It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood.' This is the reason: because several manuscripts contain the name of Jeremiah, and those who have more carefully examined the Gospel in the Greek copies report that they have found it so in the older Greek ones. There was no reason why this name should be added so as to create an error; but there was indeed a reason why it should be removed from certain manuscripts — namely that bold ignorance did this, being troubled by the difficulty that this testimony was not found in Jeremiah.

What then must we understand, except that this came about by the more secret counsel of God's providence, by which the minds of the evangelists were governed? For it could have happened that, in the mind of Matthew as he was writing the Gospel, Jeremiah occurred instead of Zechariah, as is wont to happen — a thing which nonetheless he would without any doubt have corrected, at least when admonished by others who, while he was still living in the flesh, were able to read this — had he not reflected that it was not in vain that one prophet's name instead of the other had occurred to his recollection, which was governed by the Holy Spirit, except that the Lord had so determined this to be written.

But why the Lord so determined it, that first and most useful reason ought most readily to be considered: that it was thereby also intimated that all the holy prophets, speaking by one Spirit, stand in such marvellous mutual agreement that this counts for far more than if all the words of all the prophets had been spoken by the one mouth of a single man; and that therefore whatever the Holy Spirit said through them ought to be received without doubt, each thing being the utterance of them all, and all things the utterance of each single one.

Since therefore both the things spoken through Jeremiah belong as much to Zechariah as to Jeremiah, and the things spoken through Zechariah belong as much to Jeremiah as to Zechariah, what need was there for Matthew to correct it, when, upon rereading what he had written, he found that one name instead of the other had occurred to him — rather than, following the authority of the Holy Spirit, by whom he most certainly perceived his mind to be governed more than we perceive, that he should leave it written thus, as by admonition the Lord had determined it for him: in order to shape our understanding that there is so great a concord among the prophets in their words, that it would be not absurd but most fitting for us to reckon even to Jeremiah what we find spoken through Zechariah?

For if today someone, wishing to cite the words of a certain person, should name another as their author — one who is nevertheless a most intimate friend and most closely bound in familiarity to the one whose words he wished to quote — and, immediately recollecting that he had named one instead of the other, should so collect and correct himself as nonetheless to say, 'I spoke rightly,' having in view nothing else but that there is so great a concord between the two (namely between the one whose words he wished to quote and the other whose name occurred to him instead of that one's) that this man's having said it is as good as if the other had said it: how much more ought this to be understood of the holy prophets, and most of all commended — that we should receive the books of them all as one book of a single author, in which no discrepancy of things should be believed (as none is found), and in which there is a greater constancy of truth than if one man, however learned, had spoken all those things?

Therefore the argument which either the unbelieving or the unlearned attempt to draw from this, as if to show a discord among the holy evangelists, this rather ought the faithful and learned to take up, to show the unity even of the holy prophets. There is another reason, which seems to me to require more careful treatment at another time, lest we extend our discourse further than the necessity of concluding this work demands — namely, why the name of Jeremiah in the testimony of Zechariah was thus permitted to remain, or rather was enjoined by the authority of the Holy Spirit.

There is in Jeremiah the passage that he bought a field from his cousin and gave him silver — not indeed under this name of a price which is set down in Zechariah, 'thirty pieces of silver'; yet the purchase of a field is not in Zechariah. But that the evangelist interpreted the prophecy about the thirty pieces of silver as fulfilled in what was just now accomplished concerning the Lord, so that this was His price, is manifest;

but that also that saying of Jeremiah about the field bought might mystically signify something pertaining to this, could hence be the reason: that here the name of Zechariah — who spoke of the thirty pieces of silver — was not set down, but that of Jeremiah, who spoke of the field bought; so that, the Gospel having been read and the name of Jeremiah found there, but Jeremiah having been read and the testimony about the thirty pieces of silver not found, yet the field bought being found — the reader might be admonished to compare both, and from that to extract the meaning of the prophecy, how it pertains to what was fulfilled in the Lord. For as to what Matthew appended to this testimony, when he says: '...King of the Jews? Jesus says to him: You say so.' 'You shall see.' 'They willed': 'The chief priests,' he says, 'stirred up the crowd, that he should rather release Barabbas to them.'

He goes on and says: they accused Him, saying, 'We found this man subverting our nation and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ a king.' Those two evangelists did not say this, although they did say that they were accusing Him. So this one disclosed also the very charges which they falsely brought against Him. But he was silent about what Pilate said to Him: 'Do you answer nothing? See in how many things they accuse you.' Yet plainly he goes on and states what they too said: that he was hearing many things about Him, and hoped to see some sign done by Him. 'Nothing worthy of death has been done by Him.' Now let us consider the same things according to John, that is, the things done through Pilate. Pilate:

'Take Him yourselves and judge Him according to your law.' The Jews therefore said to him: 'It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.' '...I came into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.' 'I find no cause in Him.' '...an evildoer, we would not have handed Him over to you.' John therefore continues and says: they led Him into the courtyard of the praetorium and call together the whole cohort — the place of Calvary, in Hebrew Golgotha. Matthew continues: this must be most carefully considered, lest it produce a great error.

For there are those who suppose that the Lord was indeed crucified at the third hour, but that from the sixth hour darkness came on until the ninth, so that three hours are understood to have been completed from the time He was crucified until the darkness fell. And this could indeed be most rightly understood, were it not that John says that at about the sixth hour Pilate sat on the judgment seat in the place called Lithostrotos, in Hebrew Gabbatha; for he goes on: 'Now it was the preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour. And he says to the Jews: Behold your king.' It had begun to be even of the sixth. But these people would never say 'the fifth and a quarter,' or 'the fifth and a third,' or 'the fifth and a half,' or anything of this kind.

For the Scriptures have this custom, that they put the whole for a part, especially in matters of time — as in the case of those eight days after which they say He went up onto the mountain, of whose intervening days Matthew and Mark, regarding the middle ones, said 'after six days.' Especially since John himself spoke so moderately that he did not say 'the sixth' but 'about the sixth.' And if he did not say it so, but merely said 'the sixth,' we could understand it in the way the Scriptures are wont to speak, as I said — the whole for a part — so that, the fifth having passed and the sixth being begun, these things were being done which are narrated in the crucifixion of our Lord, until, the sixth being completed, while He hung there, the darkness came on, to which three evangelists testify: Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Let us now ask, in consequence, why Mark, after he had recorded that those who crucified Him divided His garments, casting lots over them as to who should take what, went on to add: 'Now it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.' Surely he had already said: 'And crucifying Him they divided His garments.' So too the others testify that when He was crucified His garments were divided. If Mark wished to record the time of that event, it would suffice to say: 'Now it was the third hour.' Why did he add 'and they crucified Him,' unless because he wished, by recapitulating, to signify something which, when sought, would be found, since that very Scripture was being read in those times when it was known to all the churches

at what hour the Lord was suspended on the tree — whence either an error concerning this might be corrected or a falsehood refuted? But because he knew that the Lord was hung up by the soldiers, not by the Jews (as John most plainly says), he wished secretly to show that those who cried out that He should be crucified crucified Him more truly than those who, according to their office, rendered service to their chief. It is understood, then, that it was the third hour when the Jews cried out that the Lord should be crucified; and it is most truly shown that they crucified Him at the time when they cried out — especially because they were unwilling to appear to have done this themselves, and for that reason had handed Him over to Pilate, as their own words sufficiently indicate according to John. For when Pilate had said to them:

— Mark most truthfully shows that they especially did not wish to appear to have done this themselves, that they did it at the third hour, judging that the tongue of the Jews was more the slayer of the Lord than the hands of the soldiers. But whoever shall say that it was not the third hour when the Jews first cried this out, shows himself most insanely an enemy of the Gospel, unless perhaps he can resolve this same question otherwise; for he has no ground on which to prove that it was not then the third hour. And therefore the truthful evangelist is rather to be believed than the contentious suspicions of men. 'Whence,' he says, 'do you prove it was the third hour?' I answer: because I believe the evangelists. And if you too believe them, show how the Lord could be crucified both at the sixth hour and at the third.

For as to the sixth hour — to confess it — we are pressed by John's narrative, while Mark records the third; if each of us believes both, do you show otherwise how both could have come about, and I will most gladly assent. For I love not my own opinion, but the truth of the Gospel. And would that even more solutions to this question might be found by others! Until that happens, use this one with me, if it please you. For if no other solution can be found, this one alone will suffice; but if another can be found, when it has been demonstrated, we shall choose it. Only do not suppose it to follow that any one of the four evangelists lied, or erred at so great and so holy a summit of authority.

But if anyone shall say that he proves from this that it was not the third hour when the Jews cried this out — because, after the same Mark had said... [as though to establish beforehand] the very reason why Pilate, even at the last, was unwilling to hand Him over to the Jews. But Luke narrates, when Pilate had said... he narrates these things much more explicitly, although even he certainly does not tell all the things in which the two hours and something of the sixth flowed by. Nevertheless, when he had scourged Jesus and permitted Him to be ill-treated by the soldiers with a mocking robe and with many mockeries — I believe, in order at least in this way to mitigate their fury, lest they should press on to rage even unto death — 'Have I not power to release you?'

His wife had sent to him as he sat on the judgment seat — which Matthew anticipated, who recorded this alone, before he came to that point of the narrative, in order to set it there where he judged it opportune. And so Pilate, still trying whether he might accomplish anything, said to them: 'Shall I crucify your king?' The chief priests answered: 'We have no king but Caesar.' Now he briefly intimated what was long in the doing. Yet this evangelist too, mindful of what he wished to be understood, did not say 'But Pilate said to them,' but said: 'But Pilate was saying to them: Why, what evil has He done?' For if he were to say 'said,' we would understand it as said only once; but because he says 'was saying,'

'was saying,' he sufficiently intimated to the understanding that it was said in many ways and often, until the sixth hour began. Let us consider, then, how briefly Mark said this in comparison with Matthew; how briefly Matthew in comparison with Luke; how briefly Luke in comparison with John — while yet each recorded some things and others; and finally how briefly John himself in comparison with the things that were done and the delays that occurred while those things were being done. And, without the madness of resistance, let us believe that two hours and something of that interval could pass.

But whoever shall say that Mark could, if it were so, have said at that time that it was the third hour — at the time when it was the third hour, when the voice of the Jews concerning the crucifying of the Lord had sounded — and could also say that they then crucified Him themselves: he too arrogantly imposes laws upon the narrators of the truth. For thus he could say, if he himself were narrating these things, that they ought to have been narrated by all in the same manner and in the same order in which he narrated them. Let him therefore deign that his own counsel be surpassed by the counsel of Mark the evangelist, who judged that this was to be set in that place where it was suggested by divine inspiration. For their recollections were governed by the hand of Him who governs the water, as it is written, however it pleased Him.

For human memory flows through various thoughts, nor is it in anyone's power what and when something comes into his mind. Since, then, those holy and truthful men committed the seemingly fortuitous character of their recollections — for the sake of the order of narration — to the hidden power of God, to whom nothing is fortuitous, no man ought to say, being far cast away from the eyes of God and journeying far in a strange land: 'This thing, of which he is quite ignorant, ought to have been placed here.' Why God willed it to be placed in that place — for: 'And if our Gospel is veiled,' says the Apostle, 'it is veiled in those who are perishing'; and when he had said, 'To some we are the odor of life unto life, to others the odor of death unto death,' he added at once: 'And who is sufficient for these things?'

That is: who is sufficient to understand how justly it is done? Which the same Lord says: 'I came, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.' For this is that depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, by which He made out of the same lump one vessel unto honor, another unto dishonor; and it is said to flesh and blood: 'O man, who are you who would answer back to God?'

Who then, even in this matter, has known the understanding of the Lord, or who has been His counselor — wherein He so governed the hearts of the remembering evangelists and exalted them at the summit of the Church with so great a height of authority, that through these very things which can seem contrary in them, many might be blinded, being justly delivered up to the lusts of their heart and to a reprobate mind, and many might be exercised toward polishing a pious understanding according to the hidden justice of the Almighty? For the prophet says to the Lord: 'Thy thoughts are made exceeding deep'; the inquirer will find, when he shall have noticed that this thing which was done by the soldiers was done at the sixth hour. Although there are not lacking those who would have the preparation — which John recorded, saying:

'Now it was the preparation, about the sixth hour' — should be understood as the third hour of the day, in which Pilate sat on the judgment seat, so that this same third hour is seen to be completed when He was crucified, and, He now hanging on the tree, three other hours passed and He gave up His spirit, so that from that hour in which He died, that is, the sixth of the day, darkness might come on until the ninth. For they say that on that day, which the sabbath day followed, it was the preparation of the Jews' Passover, because from that same sabbath the unleavened bread would now begin; but nevertheless the true Passover, which was now being enacted in the Lord's passion — not of the Jews but of the Christians — began to be prepared, that is, to have its preparation, from the ninth hour of the night, in that the Lord was being prepared to be killed by the Jews.

For 'preparation' is interpreted as 'preparing.' From that ninth hour of the night, then, until His crucifixion, there falls the sixth hour of the preparation according to John, and the third hour of the day according to Mark — so that Mark did not recall and record by recapitulation that hour in which the Jews cried out 'Crucify, crucify,' but named precisely that third hour in which the Lord was fixed to the tree. What faithful person would not favor this solution of the question, if only some point of time can be conjectured from the ninth hour of the night, from which we may fittingly understand the preparation of our Passover — that is, the preparing of Christ's death — to have begun? For if we say that it began when the Lord was seized by the Jews, it was still the first parts of the night; if...

...when He was brought to the house of Caiaphas the father-in-law, where He was also heard by the chief priests — the cock had not yet crowed, which we gather from Peter's denial, which was made while it was already being heard; but if we say when He was handed over to Pilate, it is most plainly written that it was already morning. It remains, therefore, that we understand this preparation of the Passover — that is, the preparing of the Lord's death — to have begun when all the chief priests, before whom He was first heard, answered and said: 'He is guilty of death' (which is found in Matthew and Mark), so that by recapitulation they are understood to have spoken afterward about Peter's denial concerning what had been done before.

For it is not absurdly conjectured that at the time when, as I said, they pronounced Him guilty of death, it could have been the ninth hour of the night. From which hour until the hour when Pilate sat on the judgment seat there was, as it were, the sixth hour — not of the day, but of the preparation, that is, of the immolation of the Lord, which is the true Passover — so that, the sixth hour of that same preparation being full (which coincided with the full third hour of the day), the Lord was suspended on the tree.

Whether therefore this be chosen as the preferable understanding, or whether Mark recalled the third hour and wished to record it especially with reference to the condemnation of the Jews in the Lord's crucifixion — the hour at which they are understood to have been able to cry out that He should be crucified, so that we should take them rather to have crucified Him than those by whose hands He was suspended on the tree (just as that centurion approached the Lord more than those friends whom he sent): beyond doubt the question is resolved concerning the hour of the Lord's passion, which is wont especially both to rouse the impudence of the contentious and to disturb the ignorance of the weak. XIIII. Matthew continues and says: 'He saved others, Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him.'

'...when You come into Your kingdom.' Those who had been crucified there — and 'both' is not added — not only, if both had done it, could this be said, but even because one did it, it could by the customary manner of speech be signified through the plural number. Matthew continues and says: they said: 'Let be, let us see whether Elijah comes to free Him' — whence we understand that both that one and the rest said this. But Luke, before he narrated the robber's insult, recorded this about the vinegar thus: Jesus, with a loud voice, said: 'Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit,' and having said this He expired.

But John, just as he was silent about that first cry, 'Eli, Eli,' which Matthew and Mark reported, was silent also about this one, which Luke alone indicated; while those two indicated it under the name of 'a loud voice,' that is: 'Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit' — which Luke likewise testified that He said with a loud voice, that we might understand this to have been the loud voice which Matthew and Mark recorded. But John said what none of those three did — that He said 'It is finished' when He had received the vinegar, which we understand He said before that loud voice itself. For these are John's words: 'When therefore Jesus had received the vinegar, He said: It is finished; and bowing His head He handed over His spirit.'

Between that which He said, 'It is finished,' and that which he says, 'and bowing His head He handed over His spirit,' there was uttered that loud voice which this one was silent about, but the other three recorded. For this appears to be the order: that He should first say 'It is finished,' when that which had been prophesied about Him was accomplished in Him, and, as though waiting for this, He who assuredly would die when He willed, then, commending, handed over His spirit. But in whatever order anyone may judge it could have been said, this must be most greatly guarded against: that it seem to anyone that any one of the evangelists contradicts another, if he either was silent about what another said, or said what another was silent about. XVIIII. Matthew continues:

'Now he and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the things that were happening, feared greatly, saying: Truly this was the Son of God.' Mark thus: 'But the centurion who stood opposite, seeing that He had expired thus crying out, said: Truly this man was the Son of God.' Luke thus: 'But the centurion, seeing what had been done, glorified God, saying: Truly this man was righteous.' It is not contrary that Matthew says the centurion and those who were with him marveled at the sight of the earthquake, while Luke says he marveled at this — that having uttered that voice He had expired — showing what power He had over when He should die. For in this very fact, that the same Matthew not only said 'at the sight of the earthquake,' but also added:

By these things also which had come to pass, he showed that Luke had a full and proper place, so that he might say that the centurion marvelled at the Lord's very death, since this too is among those things which were then wondrously done. And yet, even if Matthew had not added that detail, it had to be understood that, since many wonders had been done and the centurion and those who were with him could marvel at them all, it was free for the narrators to record what each of them wished to say the centurion marvelled at; nor do they contradict one another when one says he marvelled at this and another at that, since he had marvelled at all of them. But as to the fact that one says the centurion said, 'Truly this was the Son of God,' while another says:

'Truly this man was the Son of God,' this will not disturb anyone to whom so many similar sayings, set forth and explained above, have not slipped from memory. For both forms of words converge upon a single meaning. Nor is it in any way contrary that one was silent about 'man' while the other stated it. What might rather be thought to differ is that Luke does not say the centurion said, 'He was the Son of God,' but: 'He was righteous.' Yet we ought either to understand that both were said by the centurion, and that they recorded the one, this the other; or perhaps that Luke wished to express the meaning of the centurion, in what sense he called him the Son of God. For perhaps the centurion had not understood him to be the only-begotten, equal to the Father, but had called him the Son of God for this reason, that he had believed him righteous, just as many righteous men are called sons of God.

But as to what Luke himself also said: 'Now when the centurion saw what was done,' in that expression he included all the things which had been wondrously done in that hour, recording them as if a single wondrous deed, of which all those miracles were, as it were, the members and parts. Now indeed, as to Matthew's adding those who were with the centurion, while others were silent about this, to whom is it not evident, from the well-known rule, that there is no contradiction when one states what another passes over in silence? And as to Matthew's saying, 'They feared greatly,' while Luke did not say 'he feared' but 'he glorified God,' who does not understand that he glorified by fearing? XXI. Matthew continues: 'was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him.'

'and many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.' Among these I see nothing that could be thought contradictory. For what does it matter to the truth that some women were named together, while individuals named others? Luke too weaves his narrative thus: had Matthew and Luke also most plainly named Mary Magdalene, we could say that some stood far off, others close by the cross. For none of them except John mentioned the mother of the Lord.

Now therefore, how is it understood that the same Mary Magdalene both stood far off with the other women, as Matthew and Luke say, and was near the cross, as John says, unless because they were at such a distance that they could both be said to be near, since they were present in his sight, and far off in comparison with the crowd that stood more closely around with the centurion and the soldiers? We can also understand that those who were present together with the mother of the Lord, after he had commended her to the disciple, had already begun to withdraw, to extricate themselves from the density of the crowd, and to gaze from farther off upon the other things that were done, so that the other evangelists, who mentioned them after the Lord's death, mentioned them as already standing far off. XXII.

Matthew continues: 'he marvelled if he were already dead. And having summoned the centurion, he asked him whether he were already dead.' By showing that he cared less about the Jews, although he was accustomed in the case of the Lord to avoid their enmities by giving them a hearing. XXIII. Matthew continues: 'And having received the body, Joseph wrapped it in a clean linen cloth.' They made mention only of this, or because they said that Joseph wrapped him in a single linen cloth, they did not thereby forbid it to be understood that other linen cloths too could have been brought by Nicodemus and added on, so that John narrated truly that he was wrapped not in one cloth but in cloths. Although also on account of the napkin, which was applied to the head,

and the bands with which the whole body was bound, since all were made of linen, even if there was a single sheet there, it could most truly be said: 'they bound him in linen cloths.' For those things are generally called linens which are woven of flax. Matthew continues: Then the same Matthew continues and says: 'They saw, as they entered the tomb, one sitting on the right,' whom, in order that they should enter, they were exhorted by the words of him who sat outside, saying: 'Come and see the place where the Lord was laid'; and coming there, as was said, and entering, they saw him of whom Matthew is silent, but of whom Mark speaks, sitting on the right, from whom they heard similar things.