Wherefore, since Christ himself is the Wisdom of God, through whom all things were created, and since no rational minds, whether of angels or of men, become wise except by participation in that very Wisdom, to whom we cleave through the Holy Spirit, through whom love is poured forth in our hearts—which Trinity is one God—it was provided by divine providence for mortals, whose temporal life was held occupied in things rising and setting, that this same Wisdom of God, having taken on man into the unity of his person, in whom he might be temporally born, live, die, and rise again, should, by saying and doing, by suffering and enduring things fitting to our salvation, become both, below, an example for men of returning, and, being above, an example for angels of abiding.
For unless something also arose temporally in the nature of the rational soul—that is, began to be what it was not—it would never pass from a life most base and foolish to one wise and best. And through this, since the truth of those who contemplate has full enjoyment in eternal things, while to things that have arisen the faith of believers is owed, man is purified through faith in temporal things, that he may perceive the truth of eternal things. For indeed a certain most noble philosopher of theirs, Plato, in that book which they call the Timaeus, says thus: 'As much as eternity avails to that which has arisen, so much does truth avail to faith.' Those two are above—eternity and truth; these two are below—that which has arisen and faith.
Therefore, that we may be called back from the lowest to the highest, and that what has arisen may receive eternity, we must come through faith to truth. And because all things which proceed to their opposite are led back through some middle term, and temporal iniquity was estranging us from eternal justice, there was need of a middle justice, temporal—a middle term that should be temporal in respect of the lowest, just in respect of the highest—and thus, neither tearing itself away from the highest, and tempering itself to the lowest, might render the lowest to the highest. Therefore Christ was called the Mediator of God and men, between the immortal God and mortal man, God and man, reconciling man to God, remaining what he was, made what he was not. He himself is faith for us in things arisen, who is truth in things eternal.
This great and unspeakable mystery, this kingdom and priesthood, was revealed to the ancients through prophecy, and is preached to their posterity through the Gospel. For it behooved that at some time it should be rendered among all nations, which was long promised through one nation. Accordingly, he who sent the prophets before his descent, himself also sent the apostles after his ascension. And to all his disciples, through the man whom he took on, he is, as it were, the head to the members of his body. And so, when they wrote the things which he showed and said, it is by no means to be said that he himself did not write, since his members accomplished that which they came to know at the head's dictation.
For whatever he willed us to read concerning his own deeds and words, this he commanded them to write as though with his own hands. Whoever shall understand this fellowship of unity and this ministry of members concordant in diverse offices under one head, will receive what he reads in the Gospel from the disciples of Christ narrating it in no other way than if he had beheld the very hand of the Lord, which he bore in his own body, writing it.
Wherefore let us now rather see of what sort are those things which they think the evangelists wrote contrary to one another—which can seem so only to those with poor understanding—so that, these questions being resolved, from this too it may appear that the members of that head preserved a genuine concord in the unity of the body itself, not only by thinking the same thing, but also by writing things that agree. HERE ENDS BOOK ONE. HERE BEGINS BOOK TWO OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINE, BISHOP, ON THE AGREEMENT OF THE EVANGELISTS. (The questions of Books II, III, and IV are all set before Book One on folios 1–4; the heading reads: HERE BEGIN THE CHAPTERS OF THE QUESTIONS OF BOOK TWO.) Book II.
Why the ancestors of Christ are recounted down to Joseph, when Christ was not born of his seed but of the Virgin Mary. How Christ is the son of David, when he was not born of the intercourse of Joseph, David's son. Why Matthew enumerates some forefathers of Christ, and Luke others. Why forty generations, excepting Christ himself, are found in Matthew, when he reckons three times fourteen. How Luke's order agrees with Matthew's in those things concerning Christ's conception and infancy or boyhood which the one omits and the other recounts. On the order of the preaching of John the Baptist among all four. On the two Herods.
How Matthew says that Joseph feared to go with the child Christ into Jerusalem because of Archelaus, and did not fear to go into Galilee, where Herod his brother was tetrarch. How Matthew says that Joseph therefore went into Galilee with the child Christ, because he feared Archelaus who was reigning in Jerusalem in place of his father, whereas Luke says that he therefore went into Galilee because their city Nazareth was there. How Luke says: 'His parents went every year to Jerusalem on the solemn day of the Passover with that boy,' whereas Matthew says that out of fear of Archelaus they feared to go thither when returning from Egypt.
How they could, when the days of the purification of Christ's mother were fulfilled, as Luke says, go up with him into the temple to perform the solemn rites, if, according to Matthew, it was already known to Herod through the Magi that he had been born, on whose account, when he sought him, Herod slew so many infants. On the words of John among all four. On the baptized Jesus. On the words of the voice that came from heaven over the baptized one. How, according to John the evangelist, John the Baptist says: 'I knew him not,' whereas according to the others it is found that he already knew him. On the tempted Jesus. On the calling of the fishing disciples. On the time of his withdrawal into Galilee. On that lengthy sermon which, according to Matthew, he delivered on the mountain.
How Matthew says that a centurion came to him on behalf of his servant, whereas Luke says that he sent friends to him. On Peter's mother-in-law, in what order it is narrated. On the order of the things which they narrate after this, whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke in no way disagree among themselves. On him who said to the Lord: 'I will follow you wherever you go,' and the other things which are near it, in what order they are narrated by Matthew and Luke. On his crossing over, where he slept in the little boat, and on the demons cast out, which he permitted to enter the swine, how the things that were done or said agree among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. On the paralytic, to whom he said: 'Your sins are forgiven you,' and:
'Take up your bed,' especially whether the place where this was done agrees between Matthew and Mark, since Matthew says 'in his own city,' but Mark says Capernaum. On the calling of Matthew also, whether this same Matthew agrees with Mark and Luke, who say Levi son of Alphaeus. On the banquet, where it was objected to him that he ate with sinners and that his disciples did not fast—which some seem to attribute to some, as to those by whom it was objected—and on their words and the Lord's replies, whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree.
On the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue raised up, and the woman who touched the hem of his garment, whether the order in which these things are told is in no way at odds for any of those by whom they are told, and especially concerning the words of the ruler of the synagogue himself, wherewith he besought the Lord. On the two blind men and the dumb man with a demon, which Matthew alone tells. Where, having compassion on the crowds, he sent his disciples, giving them power to bestow healings, and enjoined many things on them, ordaining how they should live; where it must be asked how Matthew agrees with Mark and Luke, especially concerning the staff, which according to Matthew he says is not to be carried, but according to Mark alone is to be carried, and concerning the manner of their sandals and garments.
Where John the Baptist sent his disciples from prison to Jesus, which Matthew and Luke tell. Where he upbraided the cities that they did not repent, which Luke also tells; where it must be asked how Matthew agrees with him in the very order. Where he calls men to take up his yoke and his burden, how Matthew does not differ from Luke in the order of narration. Where the disciples plucked and ate the ears of grain, how Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree among themselves in the order of narration. On him who, having a withered hand, was cured on the sabbath, how Matthew's narrative accords with Mark and Luke, whether in the order of things or in the words of the Lord and of the Jews. It must be considered whether, from him whose withered hand was healed,
these three evangelists so diverge that in nothing do they contradict one another in the very order of narration. On the dumb and blind man who had a demon, how Matthew and Luke agree. Where it was said to him that he casts out demons by Beelzebul—whatever, from that very occasion, he spoke concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and concerning the two trees—whether in nothing Matthew disagrees with the other two, especially with Luke. What he answered to those who sought a sign, concerning Jonah the prophet and the Ninevites and the queen of the South and the unclean spirit, which, when it has gone out of a man, returns and finds the house swept—how Matthew agrees with Luke. Where his mother and brothers were announced to him, whether the order itself does not differ from Mark and Luke.
That from the little boat he spoke to the crowds concerning him some of whose seed in sowing fell by the wayside and the rest, and concerning him among whose seed tares were sown, and concerning the grain of mustard, and concerning the leaven; and that in the house he spoke concerning the treasure hidden in the field, and concerning the pearl, and concerning the net cast into the sea, and concerning one bringing forth from his treasure things new and old: how Matthew agrees with Mark and Luke, whether in those things which they said with him or in the order of narration. That he came into his own country and they marveled at his teaching, while they despised his lineage: how Matthew agrees with Mark and Luke, especially whether the order of narration is in nothing at odds with the other.
How Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree among themselves concerning the words of Herod, when he had heard of the marvels of the Lord, or concerning the very order of narration. On John shut up or even slain, in what order it is narrated by these three. To the miracle of the five loaves, in what order and how the coming was, by all. In that very miracle of the five loaves, how all four agree among themselves. That he walked upon the waters, how those who said this agree among themselves, and how they diverge from that place where he fed the crowds with the five loaves. How Matthew and Mark do not contradict John in that which is narrated by the three of them, as to what happened after they had crossed over. On the Canaanite woman, who said:
'even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters' table,' how Matthew and Luke agree among themselves. When he fed the crowds with seven loaves, whether Matthew and Mark agree among themselves. That Matthew says he came thence into the borders of Magadan, how it agrees with Mark, and in this, that to those seeking a sign he answered again concerning Jonah. On the leaven of the Pharisees, how it agrees with Mark, whether in matter or in order. When he asked the disciples whom men said that he was, whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke in no way conflict among themselves in matter or in order. Where he foretold his passion to the disciples, what agreement there is among Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Where the same three subjoin how the Lord commanded that whoever wishes should come after him, how far they agree together. That the Lord showed himself to three disciples on the mountain with Moses and Elijah, how these three agree among themselves in order and in matter, and especially concerning the number of days, because Matthew and Mark say it was done after six days, but Luke after eight. Where he spoke to them concerning the coming of Elijah, what agreement there is between Matthew and Mark. On him who offered him his son, whom the disciples could not heal, how these three agree even in the order of narration. Where, when he had spoken to them concerning his passion, they were made sorrowful, which these same three recall in the same order.
Where from the mouth of a fish he paid the tribute, which Matthew alone tells. On the little child whom he set forth to be imitated, on the offenses of the world, on the members of the body causing offense, on the angels of the little ones who see the Father's face, on the one sheep out of a hundred sheep, on the brother to be reproved in secret, on the sins to be loosed and bound, on the concord of two and the gathering of three, on the sins to be forgiven up to seventy times seven, on the servant to whom a great debt was forgiven and who himself did not forgive a small one to his fellow servant: how Matthew does not conflict with the rest.
When he was asked whether it is lawful to dismiss a wife, how Matthew and Mark agree among themselves, especially concerning the very questionings, whether of the Lord or of the Jews, and the replies, in which they seem to vary somewhat. On the little ones on whom he laid hands, on the rich man to whom he said: 'Sell all that you have,' on the vineyard to which workmen were hired at different hours, how Matthew does not conflict with the other two. Where he foretold his passion secretly to the twelve disciples, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons asked that one of them might sit at his right hand and the other at his left, how Matthew does not conflict with the other two.
On the blind men of Jericho given sight, how Matthew does not disagree with either Mark or Luke. On the ass and the colt, how Matthew agrees with the rest, who mention the colt alone. On the sellers and buyers cast out of the temple, how these three do not conflict with John, who tells this same thing far elsewhere. On the withered fig tree and the things narrated near it, how Matthew does not conflict with the rest, especially Mark, as to the order of narration. When the Jews asked the Lord by what authority he did these things, how these three agree among themselves.
On the two whom the father commanded to go into the vineyard, and on the vineyard which was let out to other husbandmen, how Matthew does not disagree with those two, with whom he holds the same order, and especially in this parable, which all three tell, concerning the vineyard let out, on account of the reply of those to whom it was spoken, where he seems to vary somewhat. On the marriage of the king's son, to which the crowds were invited, what order Matthew held, on account of Luke, who said something of this kind elsewhere. On the coin to be rendered to Caesar, whose image it bore, and on the woman who had married seven brothers, how these three agree.
On him to whom the two commandments of love of God and of neighbor were commended, what the order is of Matthew and Mark who narrate it, since they seem to differ from Luke, who tells something of the kind elsewhere. That the Jews are questioned concerning Christ, whose son he seems to them to be, whether Matthew does not conflict with the other two, because according to him it is said: 'What think you of Christ? Whose son is he?' to which they answered: 'David's,' but according to those others: 'How do the scribes say that Christ is the son of David?' On the Pharisees sitting upon the seat of Moses and saying the things they do not do, and the rest of the things said by the Lord against those same Pharisees, whether Matthew's discourse agrees with the other two, and especially with Luke, who recalls something similar not in this order but elsewhere.
When he foretold the overthrow of the temple, how he agrees with the other two in the order of narration. On the discourse which he delivered on the Mount of Olives, when the disciples asked: 'When shall the consummation be?'—how these three agree among themselves. That Matthew and Mark mention that it was two days before the coming Passover, and afterward say that he was in Bethany, how this does not conflict with John, who along with them narrates this same thing that was done in Bethany, and says: 'six days before the Passover.' On the supper in Bethany, where the woman poured precious ointment on the Lord, how Matthew, Mark, and John agree among themselves, and how they are not at odds with Luke, who recalls something of the kind at another time.
Where he sends the disciples to prepare for him to eat the Passover, how Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree among themselves. Book III. On the Lord's supper and on his betrayer being pointed out, how the four agree among themselves. On the foretold denial of Peter, how they are shown to conflict in nothing among themselves. On the things said by the Lord until he went out from the house where they had supped, how they are shown to differ in nothing. On the things done in that estate or garden, whither they came from that house after supper, how the consonance of the three—that is, of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—may be demonstrated, since John is silent about this.
Concerning those things which all the evangelists relate about His seizure — how among themselves nothing appears to be in disagreement. Concerning the things that were done when the Lord was led to the house of the chief priest, and what happened in that very house when He had been brought in by night, and especially concerning Peter's denial — how they all agree among themselves. Concerning the things done in the morning, before He was handed over to Pilate — how the evangelists do not differ among themselves, and concerning the testimony of Jeremiah which Matthew inserted regarding the price of the Lord, though this is not found in the writing of that same prophet. Concerning the things done before Pilate — how they in no way disagree among themselves.
Concerning the mockery with which He was mocked by Pilate's cohort — how the three who report it, Matthew, Mark, and John, are not discordant. How there is no contradiction in that Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that the man who carried His cross was pressed into service, while John says that Jesus Himself carried it. Concerning the drink which they gave Him before His crucifixion was mentioned — how Matthew and Mark agree. Concerning the division of His garments — how they all consent with one another. Concerning the hour of the Lord's passion — how Mark and John do not disagree over the third and the sixth hour. Concerning the two robbers crucified with Him — how they all concur.
Concerning those who insulted the Lord — how Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree with one another. Concerning the insult of the robbers — how Matthew and Mark do not contradict Luke, who said that one of them insulted Him while the other believed. Concerning the drink of vinegar — how they all consent with one another. Concerning the words which the Lord uttered when about to die at once — how Matthew and Mark do not contradict Luke, nor those three contradict John. Concerning the rending of the veil — how Matthew and Mark do not disagree with Luke as to the order in which it happened. Concerning the wonder of the centurion and of those who were with him — how Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree among themselves.
Concerning the women who stood there — how Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who said that they stood afar off, do not contradict John, who named one of them as standing near the cross. Concerning Joseph, who asked the body of the Lord from Pilate — how they all agree, and how John does not contradict himself. Concerning His burial — how the three do not disagree with John. Concerning the things done around the time of the Lord's resurrection — how they all do not disagree among themselves. XXV. As to the fact that He afterward manifested Himself to the disciples — how all the evangelists do not oppose one another when their testimonies are compared, and concerning the apostle Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. Book IV.
In the Gospel of Mark, apart from those things which he said in common with Matthew, how no contradiction is shown from the beginning up to that place where he says: 'And they enter Capernaum, and immediately on the sabbath He taught them' — which he says in agreement with Luke. Concerning the man from whom the unclean spirit was cast out, tormenting him — how Mark does not contradict Luke, who related this together with him. Concerning the name of Peter — how, again and again, it is shown that he does not contradict John, who told when Peter received this name. As to what he said: 'The more He charged them to be silent, so much the more they proclaimed it' — how this does not contradict His own foreknowledge, which is commended in the Gospel. Concerning him of whom John reported that he cast out demons in His name, not being associated with the disciples, and said:
'Do not forbid him, for whoever is not against you is for you' — how this does not contradict that saying where He says: 'He who is not with Me is against Me.' As to the fact that, on the occasion of this man who cast out demons in the name of Christ, though he did not follow with the disciples, Mark related more of what the Lord said than Luke did — how it is shown that this pertains to the very point that He forbade the one working miracles in His name to be hindered. From here up to the Lord's supper, from which point all the accounts of all were first taken into consideration, no question has been treated concerning Mark. Concerning the Gospel of Luke — how its beginning agrees with the beginning of the book of the Acts of the Apostles.
How it is shown that what Luke related about the fishes that were caught does not pertain to that which John seems to have narrated as similar after the Lord's resurrection; and how thereafter, up to the Lord's supper — from which point all the accounts of all were considered to the end — no question, even from the Gospel of Luke, has been treated. Concerning John the evangelist — in what he differs from the other three.
Since in a discourse neither brief nor unnecessary, which we have embraced in a single book, we have refuted the vanity of those who think that the disciples of Christ, in composing the Gospel, are to be despised because no writings of Christ Himself are produced by us — though they do not hesitate to hold that He, even if not as God, yet as a man far excelling all others in wisdom, is to be honored — and who wish it to seem that He wrote such things as perverse men love, not such as, when read and believed, may correct men from perversity: now let us see how the things which the four evangelists wrote about Christ agree both with themselves and with one another, lest those who are more curious than capacious suffer any stumbling-block in the Christian faith on this account. For, having not so much perused as, so to speak, more diligently scrutinized the evangelical books, and supposing they have detected certain inconsistencies and contradictions, they judge that these are rather to be contentiously objected than prudently considered.
The evangelist Matthew thus began: 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.' By this very opening he shows plainly enough that he undertook to narrate the generation of Christ according to the flesh. For according to this Christ is the Son of Man, which title He also very often calls Himself, commending to us what in His mercy He deigned to become for our sake. For that supernal and eternal generation, according to which the only-begotten Son of God is before every creature — since all things were made through Him — is so ineffable that concerning it the prophet is understood to have said: 'His generation who shall declare?'
Matthew therefore traces the human generation of Christ, recording the progenitors from Abraham, whom he brings down to Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born. For it was not right that he should think Joseph ought to be separated from his marriage to Mary on this account, that she bore Christ not from his embrace but as a virgin.
For by this example it is magnificently intimated to faithful married persons that, even with continence preserved by mutual consent, wedlock can remain and be called wedlock, not through the mingling of the body's sex but through the affection of the mind being kept — especially since a son could even be born to them without any carnal union, that son who is to be sought only for the begetting of children. For Joseph was not on that account not to be called the father of Christ, because he had not begotten Him by lying with Mary; since indeed he would rightly be father even of one whom, not begotten of his own wife, he had adopted from somewhere else. Christ was indeed thought in another way also to be the son of Joseph, as though begotten altogether of his flesh; but this was thought by those from whom Mary's virginity was hidden. For Luke says:
'And Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age when He began, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph.' Yet this same Luke did not in the least hesitate to call not Mary alone His parent, but both His parents, when he says: 'And the child grew and waxed strong, full of wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. And His parents went every year to Jerusalem at the solemn feast of the Passover.' But lest anyone here suppose that by 'parents' the blood-relations of Mary are rather to be understood together with His mother herself, what will he answer to that which this same Luke said above: 'And His father and mother were marveling at those things which were spoken concerning Him'? Since, then, he himself narrates that Christ was born not of Joseph's embrace, but of . . .
. . . the Virgin Mary that Christ was born — why does he call Joseph His father, unless because we rightly understand him to be also the husband of Mary, without carnal commingling, by the very bond of the marriage covenant, and on this account the father of Christ much more closely, since He was born of his wife, than if He had been adopted to him from elsewhere? Hence it is manifest that what he says, 'as was supposed, the son of Joseph,' he said on account of those who thought Him born of Joseph as other men are born. II. And through this, even if someone could demonstrate that Mary drew no origin of blood-relationship from David, it would be enough, according to that reasoning, to accept Christ as the son of David, by which reasoning also Joseph was rightly called His father:
how much more, since the apostle Paul plainly says that Christ is of the seed of David according to the flesh, ought we by no means to doubt that Mary herself also drew some blood-relationship from the stock of David! And since neither is the priestly lineage of this woman passed over in silence, Luke intimating that Elizabeth was her kinswoman — whom he says was of the daughters of Aaron — it must most firmly be held that the flesh of Christ was propagated from both lines, namely of kings and of priests; in which persons, among that Hebrew people, the mystical anointing was also prefigured, that is, the chrism, whence the name of Christ shines forth, foretold so long beforehand even by this most evident signification. III.