The Harmony of the Gospels 2.25–2.42

Matthew, then, continues about John thus: “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the desert of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.’ For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’” Mark and Luke also agree that this testimony of Isaiah is about John. For Luke recorded several further words from the same prophet when he narrated about John the Baptist. And John the evangelist records that John the Baptist himself brought forward the same testimony of Isaiah about himself, just as Matthew here has given certain words of John that the others did not give: “preaching,” he says, “in the desert of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.’” These words of John the others passed over. But what Matthew goes on to add, “For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” is placed ambiguously, and it is not clear whether Matthew recorded this in his own person or added it still following the words of John, so that John is understood to have said the whole: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet,” and so on. Nor should it trouble us that he does not say, “For I am he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet,” but says, “For this is he who was spoken of.” For such a manner of speaking is usual even with the evangelists Matthew and John themselves. For Matthew said, “He found a man sitting at the tax office,” and did not say, “He found me”; and John says, “This 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 he,” or, “My testimony is true.” And the Lord himself very often says “the Son of Man” or “the Son of God,” and does not say “I”; and, “Christ had to suffer,” he says, “and rise on the third day,” and not, “I had to suffer.” John the Baptist, then, could also, after saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” add of himself the words that follow, “For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet,” and so on, so that after his words Matthew continues the narrative thus: “And John himself had a garment of camels' hair,” and so on. If this is so, it is no wonder if, when asked what he said of himself, as John the evangelist relates, he said, “I am the voice of one crying in the desert,” as he had already said when he commanded them to repent. Then about his clothing and food Matthew continues, saying, “And John himself had a garment of camels' hair and a leather belt around his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey.” Mark too says this in almost the same number of words, while the other two are silent.

Matthew, then, continues and says: “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan went out to him, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, ‘Brood of vipers, who showed you how to flee from the wrath to come? Bear, then, fruit worthy of repentance, and do not presume to say within yourselves, “We have Abraham as father”; for I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. For already the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree, then, that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you in water for repentance; but he who is to come after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.’” Luke too says all these things, setting out almost the same words of John. And where there is some variation in the words, there is no departure from the same sense. For example, Matthew says that John said, “And do not presume to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as father,’” while Luke has, “And do not begin to say, ‘We have Abraham as father.’” Matthew has, “I indeed baptize you in water for repentance”; Luke inserts the crowds' question about what they should do, and John's answer to them about good works as fruits of repentance, which Matthew omitted; then, when they were thinking in their hearts about him, whether he himself was the Christ, he says that John answered, “I indeed baptize you with water”; he did not say “for repentance.” Then Matthew says, “But he who is to come after me is mightier than I,” while Luke says, “But one mightier than I is coming.” Again Matthew says, “whose sandals I am not worthy to carry,” while Luke has, “the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.” Mark too says this, while he is silent about the rest. For after recording his clothing and food he goes on to say, “And he preached, saying, ‘There comes one mightier than I after me, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’” About the sandals, then, he differs from Luke in that he added “stoop down”; about the baptism he differs from both in that he did not say “and fire,” but only “with the Holy Spirit.” For like Matthew, Luke too said, and in the same order, “He will baptize you in the Spirit and fire,” except that Luke did not add “Holy,” as Matthew said “in the Holy Spirit and fire.” John the evangelist attests these three when he says, “John bears witness about him and cries out, saying, ‘This was he of whom I said, He who comes after me has been made before me, because he was before me.’” For in this way he shows that John said this at the time when the others record that he said it, but repeated and recalled what he had already said when he says, “This was he of whom I said, He who comes after me.”

If, then, it is asked which words John the Baptist actually said, whether those that Matthew records he said, or those that Luke records, or those that Mark gives in the few he set down as said by him while passing over the rest, anyone who understands wisely judges that there is no need at all to labor over this, since it is the meanings themselves that are necessary for knowing the truth, in whatever words they were set out. For that one keeps one order of words and another another is certainly not a contradiction. Nor is it a contradiction if one says what another passes over. For it is clear that they set out the same meaning as each remembered it and as each had it at heart, whether more briefly or more fully.

And in this it is quite clear, which is most to the point, that since the truth of the gospel, dispensed through the creature by temporal signs and human languages by the Word of God, which remains eternal and unchangeable above every creature, has obtained the highest peak of authority, we ought not to think that anyone is lying if, when several people recall something they have heard or seen, the same thing is not reported in the same way and in the same words. This holds whether the order of the words is changed, or other words that nevertheless mean the same are used in place of others; or whether something is said less fully, either because it did not occur to the one remembering it or because it can be understood from other things that are said; or whether, for the sake of other things he has decided rather to narrate, so that a fitting measure of time may suffice, someone undertakes not to set something out in full but to touch on it in part; or whether, to illuminate and declare the meaning, the one to whom the authority of narrating has been granted adds nothing indeed of the facts but something of the words; or whether, holding the matter well, he does not succeed, though he tries, in repeating from memory in full the words he heard. Whoever says that the evangelists should surely have been granted, through the power of the Holy Spirit, not to differ in the kind, order, or number of words does not understand that the more the authority of the evangelists excels, the more it should have strengthened through them the security of other people who speak the truth. Then, when several happen to narrate the same thing, none of them could rightly be convicted of lying if he differed from another in a way that could be defended by the precedent of the evangelists. For since it is not right either to think or to say that any of the evangelists lied, it will thus appear that he too has not lied to whom, in remembering, some such thing has happened as is shown to have happened to them. And the more it belongs to the best morals to beware of lying, the more we ought to be guided by so eminent an authority, so as not to think things lies when we find people's narratives differing among themselves as the evangelists' narratives differ. At the same time, which belongs above all to faithful teaching, we would understand that it is not so much the truth of words as of things that is to be sought and embraced, since we approve those who do not use the same expressions as having stood in the same truth, when they do not differ in facts and meanings.

What, then, in the things I have compared from the narratives of the evangelists, is to be thought contradictory? Is it that one said, “whose sandals I am not worthy to carry,” and the others, “to untie the strap of his sandal”? For here it seems to differ not in words, or the order of words, or any manner of speech, but in the thing itself: to carry sandals is one thing, to untie the strap of a sandal another. It can rightly be asked, then, which John said he was not worthy to do, to carry the sandals or to untie the strap of the sandal. For if he said one of these, the evangelist who was able to narrate what he said seems to have told the truth, while the one who gave the other, even if he did not lie, will certainly be thought to have forgotten and said one thing in place of another. But it befits the evangelists that all falsehood be absent from them, not only that which is put forth by lying but also that which comes by forgetting. So, if it matters that something different is understood from the words “to carry the sandals” and something different from “to untie the strap of the sandal,” what else would you rightly judge is to be taken but that John said both, either at different times or in succession? For he could have said, “whose sandal strap I am not worthy to untie, nor to carry his sandals,” so that one evangelist gave one part, the others the other, and all told the truth. But if John meant nothing, when he spoke of the Lord's sandals, but the Lord's excellence and his own lowliness, then whichever of these he said, whether about untying the strap of the sandals or about carrying the sandals, anyone who, even in his own words, expressed the same meaning of lowliness by mentioning the sandals kept the same sense, and so did not stray from the same intention. This, then, is a useful principle, and one most to be committed to memory when we speak of the agreement of the evangelists: it is not a lie when someone, even saying something other than what the person he is narrating about said, nevertheless sets out that person's intention, the same as does another who records his words. For in this way we learn, to our profit, that nothing else is to be sought but what the speaker means.

Matthew then continues and says: “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent him, saying, ‘I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to me?’ But Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he let him.” The others also attest that Jesus came to John. Three record that he was baptized, but they are silent about what Matthew says John said to the Lord, or the Lord answered to John.

Then Matthew continues: “And when he had been baptized, he immediately came up from the water. And behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And behold, a voice from the heavens saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” The other two, Mark and Luke, narrate this in a similar way, but as to the words of the voice that came from heaven they vary the expression while keeping the sense. For when Matthew says it was said, “This is my beloved Son,” and the other two say, “You are my beloved Son,” it serves to set out the same sense, as was discussed above. For the heavenly voice said one of these; but the evangelist wanted to show that what was said, “This is my Son,” meant that it was indicated rather to those who heard that he was the Son of God, and so he wanted to report “You are my Son” as though it had been said to them, “This is my Son.” For Christ was not being told what he knew; rather, those present heard, for whose sake the voice itself was made. Again, as to one saying, “in whom I am well pleased,” another, “in you I am well pleased,” and another, “in you it has pleased me”: if you ask which of these sounded in that voice, take whichever you like, provided you understand that those who did not report the same expression reported the same sense. This diversity of expressions is useful also so that something said in one way may not be understood too little and interpreted otherwise than the matter stands. For if anyone wanted to understand “in whom I am well pleased” as though God seemed pleased with himself in the Son, he is reminded by “in you I am well pleased.” If, again, from this alone someone understood that the Father in the Son was pleasing to human beings, he is reminded by “in you it has pleased me.” From this it is clear enough that, whichever of the evangelists kept the very words of the heavenly voice, the others varied the words to set out the same sense in a more familiar way, so that it is understood to have been said by all as though it were said, “In you I have set my good pleasure,” that is, “through you to do what pleases me.” As for what some manuscripts of Luke have, that the voice sounded what is written in the psalm, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” although it is said not to be found in the older Greek manuscripts, yet if it could be confirmed by some trustworthy copies, what else is to be understood than that both sounded from heaven, in whatever order of words?

What is said about the dove according to John does not narrate when it happened; rather, the words of John the Baptist are reported, recalling what he saw. Here it is asked how it was said, “And I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’” For if he came to know him then, when he saw the dove descending on him, it must be asked how he said to him as he came to be baptized, “I ought rather to be baptized by you”; for he said this to him before the dove descended. From this it appears that, although he already knew him (for he even leaped in his mother's womb when Mary came to Elizabeth), he nevertheless learned by the descent of the dove something in him that he did not yet know: namely, that he himself would baptize in the Holy Spirit by a certain power of his own, a divine power, so that no human being who had received baptism from God, even if he baptized someone, could say that what he handed on was his own, or that the Holy Spirit was given by him.

Matthew continues and says: “Then Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, say that these stones become bread.’ He answered and said, ‘It is written: Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God,’” and so on, up to where it is said, “Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him.” Luke narrates all this in a similar way, though not in the same order. So it is uncertain which happened first, whether the kingdoms of the earth were shown to him first and afterward he was lifted onto the pinnacle of the temple, or this first and that afterward. But it makes no difference, so long as it is clear that all of it happened. And that Luke sets out the same meanings in other words need not always be pointed out, since nothing is lost to the truth. Mark, however, attests that he was tempted by the devil in the desert forty days and nights, but is silent about what was said to him and what he answered. Again, what Luke passed over Mark did not pass over, that angels ministered to him. John passed over this whole passage.

Matthew continues his narrative: “But when he had heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee.” Mark says this too, and Luke too, though Luke says nothing in this place about John's being handed over. John the evangelist, however, says that before Jesus went into Galilee, Peter and Andrew stayed with him for one day, and that then the name Peter was given to Peter, who had previously been called Simon; that on the next day, when he already wished to go out into Galilee, he found Philip and told him to follow him. From there he goes on to narrate about Nathanael too; and that on the third day, being in Galilee, he did that miracle at Cana of turning water into wine. All these things the other evangelists passed over, joining to their narratives that Jesus returned into Galilee. Hence it is understood that some days were interposed, in which those things concerning the disciples took place that John inserts. Nor is it contrary to the place where Matthew narrates that the Lord said to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” For he is not to be understood to have received this name then, but rather when John records it was 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 did not say, “You shall be called Peter,” but, “You are Peter,” because it had already been said to him before, “You shall be called.”

Then Matthew continues the narrative and says: “And leaving the city of Nazareth, he came and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,” and so on, until the sermon he gave on the mountain is finished. In this part of the narrative Mark agrees with him about the calling of the disciples Peter and Andrew, and a little later James and John. But whereas Matthew at once attached the narrative of that long sermon which he gave on the mountain, after he had cured many and great crowds had followed him, Mark inserted other things: that he taught them in the synagogue and they were amazed at his teaching. Then he said what Matthew too says after that long sermon, that he was teaching them as one having authority and not as the scribes. He narrated also about the man from whom an unclean spirit was cast out, then about Peter's mother-in-law (and in these things Luke agrees with him); but Matthew narrated nothing about this demon, and did not pass over Peter's mother-in-law but told of her later.

In this place, then, which we are now considering, the same Matthew, after the calling of the disciples, whom he commanded to follow him while they were fishing, narrates that he went around Galilee teaching in the synagogues and preaching the gospel and healing every sickness, and that when the crowds had gathered to him he went up the mountain and gave that long sermon. He thus gives room to understand that the things Mark narrates after the choosing of the same disciples happened then, while he was going around Galilee and teaching in their synagogues, and then too the healing of Peter's mother-in-law; but that he recorded later what he had passed over, although he did not bring back into the narrative everything he had passed over.

It can certainly trouble someone how John says that it was not in Galilee but beside the Jordan that Andrew first followed the Lord with another whose name is not given, then Peter received his name from him, and third Philip was called to follow him; whereas the other three evangelists say they were called from fishing, agreeing quite well among themselves, especially Matthew and Mark. For Luke does not name Andrew, who is nevertheless understood to have been in that boat according to the narrative of Matthew and Mark, who touch briefly on how it happened, which Luke set out more plainly, recording there also the miracle of the catch of fish and that the Lord first spoke to the crowds from the boat. This too seems to differ, that he records it was said by the Lord to Peter alone, “From now on you will be catching men,” which the others narrated was said to both brothers. But this could certainly have been said first to Peter, when he marveled at the huge multitude of fish caught, which Luke indicated, and afterward to both, which those two recorded. What we said about John, then, must be considered carefully; for it can be thought no small contradiction, since there is a great difference of place and time and of the calling itself. For if beside the Jordan, before Jesus had gone into Galilee, at the testimony of John the Baptist two followed him, one of whom was Andrew, who at once brought his brother Simon to Jesus, when he also received the name by which he would be called Peter, how is it said by the other evangelists that he found them fishing in Galilee and called them to discipleship? Unless it is to be understood that they did not then see the Lord beside the Jordan in such a way as to cleave to him inseparably from then on, but only came to know who he was and, having marveled at him, returned to their own affairs.

For in Cana of Galilee too, when he had made wine from water, the same John says that his disciples believed in him. He narrates it thus: “And on the third day there was a wedding at Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus too and his disciples were invited to the wedding.” If they believed in him then, as he says a little later, they were certainly not yet disciples when they were invited to the wedding. But this was said in the manner of speaking that we use when we say that the apostle Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia; for he was not yet an apostle then. So when we hear that Christ's disciples were invited to the wedding, we ought to understand not those already disciples but those who were to be disciples. For they were certainly already Christ's disciples when these things were narrated and written down, and so the narrator of past times spoke of them in this way.

As for what the same John says, “After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there 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 lived in Capernaum, and afterward that he called them from their boats as they were fishing; but John, that his disciples came with him to Capernaum. Or perhaps Matthew went back to something he had passed over, since he does not say, “After this, walking beside the sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers,” but without any distinction of subsequent time: “And walking beside the sea of Galilee,” he says, “he saw two brothers,” and so on? So it may be that he narrated afterward, not what had happened afterward, but what he had passed over before, so that they are understood to have come with him to Capernaum, where John says that he and his mother and disciples came. Or were they rather other disciples, as Philip was already following him, whom he had called by saying to him, “Follow me”? For in what order all twelve apostles were called does not appear in the narratives of the evangelists, since not only the order of calling but not even the calling itself of all of them is recorded, but only that of Philip, Peter, Andrew, the sons of Zebedee, and Matthew the tax collector, who was also called Levi. Yet Peter was both the first and the only one to receive a name from him individually; for the sons of Zebedee he named not individually but both together, “sons of thunder.”

It should certainly be noted that the gospel and apostolic Scripture calls his disciples not only those twelve but all who, believing in him, were instructed by his teaching for the kingdom of heaven. From their multitude he chose twelve, whom he also named apostles, as Luke records. For a little later he says, “And coming down with them he stood on a level place, and a crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of the people.” He would certainly not call twelve men a crowd of disciples. In other places of the Scriptures too it plainly appears that all were called his disciples who learned from him what pertained to eternal life.

It can be asked, however, how he called fishermen from their boats two by two, first Peter and Andrew, then, going on a little, the other two, the sons of Zebedee, as Matthew and Mark narrate, when Luke says that both their boats were filled by that great catch of fish, and records that Peter's partners, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were called to help when they could not draw in the full nets, and that they were amazed together at the great multitude of fish that had been caught; and that, although he had said only to Peter, “Do not fear; from now on you will be catching men,” they nevertheless all followed him together after drawing their boats to land. Hence it must be understood that what Luke indicates happened first, and that they were not then called by the Lord, but it was only foretold to Peter that he would catch men. This was not said as though he would never again catch fish; for we read that even after the Lord's resurrection they went fishing. It was said, then, that from then on 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 what Matthew and Mark narrate happened afterward, when he called them two by two and himself commanded them to follow him, first two, Peter and Andrew, then two others, the sons of Zebedee. For then they followed him, not after drawing their boats to land as if with the thought of returning, but as one who called and commanded them to follow.

This too must be examined: how John the evangelist says that Jesus went into Galilee before John the Baptist was put in prison (for after recording that at Cana of Galilee he made wine from water and went down to Capernaum with his mother and disciples and they stayed there not many days, he says that he then went up to Jerusalem for the Passover, after this came into the land of Judea with his disciples and stayed there with them and baptized; and there he goes on to say, “And John too was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there, and people were coming and being baptized; for John had not yet been put in prison”), while Matthew says, “But when he had heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee.” Similarly Mark: “But after John was handed over,” he says, “Jesus came into Galilee.” Luke too says nothing indeed about John's being handed over, yet he too, after Christ's baptism and temptation, says that he went into Galilee, as the other two do. For he continues his narrative thus: “And when every temptation was finished, the devil departed from him until a time. And Jesus went out in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report about him went out through the whole region.” Hence it is understood that these three evangelists did not narrate things contrary to John the evangelist, but passed over the Lord's first coming into Galilee after he was baptized, when he turned water into wine there (for then John had not yet been handed over), and joined to their narratives that coming of his into Galilee which took place after John was handed over. About this return of his to Galilee John the evangelist himself also speaks thus: “When, then, Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples), he left Judea and went away again into Galilee.” We understand, then, that John had already been handed over at that time, and that the Jews had heard that he was making and baptizing more disciples than John had made and baptized.