The Harmony of the Gospels 3.27–3.38

Matthew, then, continues and says, “When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. And they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.” Mark similarly: “And immediately in the morning,” he says, “the chief priests, holding a council with the elders and scribes and the whole council, bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.” Luke, however, after completing his narrative of Peter's denial, recapitulated what had already been done to the Lord, evidently around morning, and composed his narrative thus: “And the men who were holding him mocked him, beating him; and they blindfolded him and struck his face and asked him, saying, ‘Prophesy to us, who is it that struck you?’ And they said many other blasphemous things against him. And when day came, the elders of the people and the chief priests and scribes gathered, and they led him into their council, saying, ‘If you are the Christ, tell us.’ And he said to them, ‘If I tell you, you will not believe me; and if I ask you, you will not answer me or let me go. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.’ And they all said, ‘Are you, then, the Son of God?’ He said, ‘You say that I am.’ And they said, ‘What further testimony do we need? For we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth.’ And the whole multitude of them rose and led him to Pilate.” All this Luke narrated, where it is understood that what Matthew and Mark also narrated, that the Lord was asked whether he was the Son of God and said, “I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven,” was done when day was already dawning, when Luke says, “And when day came”; and so he narrates similar things, even if he too records something they passed over. But we understand that what Matthew and Mark briefly recorded, and Luke passed over, was done to the Lord by night through false witnesses, while Luke narrated what was done around morning. For they too, that is, Matthew and Mark, continued their narrative of what was done to the Lord up to morning, but afterward returned to narrate Peter's denial, and when that was finished they returned to the morning, so as to continue from there the rest, until they had brought to an end what was done to the Lord; but they had not yet recorded what was done in the morning. John too, when he had recorded what was done to the Lord, as much as seemed good, and the whole of Peter's denial, says, “They then led Jesus to Caiaphas, into the praetorium; and it was morning.” Here we understand either that there was some cause that compelled Caiaphas to be in the praetorium and not present when the other chief priests held their inquiry about the Lord, or that the praetorium was in his house. Yet he was being led to him from the beginning, to whom he was brought at the last. But because they were now bringing him as a convicted criminal, and it had already earlier seemed good to Caiaphas that Jesus should die, no delay was allowed before he was handed over to Pilate to be killed. What was done to the Lord through Pilate, then, Matthew narrates thus.

And first he ran out from there to record the end of Judas the betrayer, which he alone narrated, saying thus: “Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, moved by repentance brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned in betraying righteous blood.’ But they said, ‘What is that to us? See to it yourself.’ And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he withdrew, and went and hanged himself with a noose. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, ‘It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.’ And taking counsel, they bought with them the potter's field for the burial of strangers. Therefore that field was called Akeldama, field of blood, to this day. Then was fulfilled what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him who was priced, whom the sons of Israel priced, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me.’”

But if anyone is troubled that this testimony is not found in the writing of the prophet Jeremiah, and therefore thinks that something should be taken away from the credibility of the evangelist, let him first know that not all manuscripts of the Gospels have that it was spoken through Jeremiah, but only “through the prophet.” We could say, then, that those manuscripts are rather to be believed which do not have the name of Jeremiah. For this was spoken through a prophet, but Zechariah; hence the manuscripts that have the name of Jeremiah are thought to be faulty, because they ought to have had either Zechariah's name or none, as some do, but still “through the prophet, saying,” who is certainly understood to be Zechariah. But let whoever likes use that defense; the reason why it does not please me is this: more manuscripts have the name of Jeremiah, and those who have examined the Gospel more carefully in the Greek copies report that they found it so in the older Greek ones. There was no reason why this name should be added so as to create a fault; but there was certainly a reason why it should be removed from some manuscripts, namely that bold ignorance did this, being troubled by the question that this testimony is not found in Jeremiah.

What, then, is to be understood, except that this was done by a more hidden counsel of the providence of God, by which the minds of the evangelists were governed? For it could have happened that, as Matthew was writing the Gospel, Jeremiah came to his mind instead of Zechariah, as usually happens; which, however, he would without any doubt have corrected, at least when reminded by others who could have read it while he was still living in the flesh, unless he had thought that it was not for nothing that, to his memory, which was ruled by the Holy Spirit, one prophet's name had occurred for another's, but because the Lord had appointed it to be written so. And why the Lord so appointed it, that first and most useful reason ought very easily to be thought of: that it was thus also conveyed that all the holy prophets, speaking by one Spirit, stand together in such wonderful agreement that this is much more than if all the sayings of all the prophets were spoken by one mouth of one man; and that therefore whatever the Holy Spirit said through them should be accepted without doubt, and each saying belongs to all, and all to each. Since, then, what was spoken through Jeremiah is as much Zechariah's as Jeremiah's, and what was spoken through Zechariah is as much Jeremiah's as Zechariah's, what need was there for Matthew to correct it when he reread what he had written, one name having occurred to him for another? Should he not rather, following the authority of the Holy Spirit, by whom he certainly felt more than we do that his mind was ruled, leave it written as the Lord had appointed by prompting him, to teach us that there is such agreement of his words among the prophets that we would not absurdly, but most fittingly, ascribe also to Jeremiah what we find spoken through Zechariah? For if today anyone, wishing to indicate someone's words, names another person as the speaker, yet one who is a very close friend and very intimately joined to the one whose words he meant to quote, and, remembering immediately that he said one name for another, collects and corrects himself yet says, “I spoke rightly,” what else does he mean except that there is such agreement between the two, the one whose words he meant to quote and the other whose name occurred to him in place of his, that it is the same that the one said it as if the other had said it? How much more was this to be understood and especially commended of the holy prophets, that we should receive the books of all as one book of one man, in which no discrepancy of facts is to be believed, as none is found, and in which there is greater constancy of truth than if one man, however learned, spoke all those things? What unbelieving or ignorant people, then, try to take from here as an argument to show disharmony among the holy evangelists, the faithful and learned ought rather to take to show the unity of the holy prophets too.

There is another reason, which it seems to me should be treated more carefully at another time, so as not to prolong the discussion further than the need to finish this work demands, why this name of Jeremiah was permitted to remain in the testimony of Zechariah, or rather was commanded by the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is in Jeremiah that he bought a field from his brother's son and gave him silver, not indeed under this name of the price, thirty pieces of silver, which is put in Zechariah; yet the purchase of a field is not in Zechariah. That the evangelist interpreted the prophecy of the thirty pieces of silver as fulfilled in what has now happened concerning the Lord, so that this was his price, is clear; but that what Jeremiah says about the purchased field also belongs to this could be signified mystically here by putting not the name of Zechariah, who spoke of thirty pieces of silver, but of Jeremiah, who spoke of the purchased field; so that, having read the Gospel and found the name of Jeremiah, then having read Jeremiah and not found the testimony about thirty pieces of silver, but nevertheless having found the purchased field, the reader may be prompted to compare both and draw out from them the sense of the prophecy, how it bears on what was fulfilled in the Lord. For what Matthew added to this testimony, when he says, “whom the sons of Israel priced, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me,” is found neither in Zechariah nor in Jeremiah. Hence it is rather to be taken as elegantly and mystically inserted in the person of the evangelist himself, because he knew by the Lord's revelation that a prophecy of this kind belonged to this matter, which was done concerning Christ's price. For in Jeremiah the deed of the purchased field is commanded to be put into an earthen vessel, and here with the Lord's price a potter's field is bought, and that for the burial of strangers, as for the abiding rest of those who, being strangers in this world, are buried with Christ through baptism. For the Lord also tells Jeremiah that the purchase of that field signifies that there will be an abiding place in that land for those freed from captivity. These things I thought should be touched on as it were in outline, while pointing out what is to be sought more carefully and attentively in these prophetic testimonies brought together and compared with the gospel narrative. These things Matthew inserted about Judas the betrayer.

Then he continues and says: “Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Jesus said to him, ‘You say so.’ And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then Pilate said to him, ‘Do you not hear how many testimonies they bring against you?’ And he did not answer him a single word, so that the governor marveled greatly. Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner, whomever they wanted. And he then had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when they had gathered, Pilate said, ‘Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?’ For he knew that they had delivered him out of envy. And as he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much today in a dream because of him.’ But the chief priests and elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. And the governor answered and said to them, ‘Which of the two do you want released to you?’ And they said, ‘Barabbas.’ Pilate said to them, ‘What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?’ They all said, ‘Let him be crucified.’ The governor said to them, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they cried out all the more, saying, ‘Let him be crucified.’ And when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands before the people, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man; see to it yourselves.’ And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children.’ Then he released Barabbas to them; but Jesus, having been scourged, he delivered to them to be crucified.” These things Matthew narrated as done to the Lord through Pilate.

Mark too agrees in almost the same words and facts. But the words of Pilate with which he answered the people asking that one prisoner be released according to the custom he reports thus: “Pilate answered them and said, ‘Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?’” Matthew, however, says thus: “So when they had gathered, Pilate said, ‘Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?’” There is no question about Matthew being silent that they themselves asked that someone be released to them. But it can be asked which words Pilate said, those reported by Matthew or those reported by Mark. For “Whom do you want me to release to you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?” seems one thing, and “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” another. But because they called kings christs (anointed ones), and he who said “this one or that one” clearly asked whether they wanted the king of the Jews, that is, the Christ, released to them, it makes no difference to the meaning that Mark here was silent about Barabbas, wishing to say only what concerned the Lord, since in their answer he too shows clearly enough whom they wanted released to them: “The chief priests,” he says, “stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas to them instead.” And he goes on to say, “And Pilate again answered and said to them, ‘What then do you want me to do with the king of the Jews?’” From this it is now clear enough that Mark wants to show by saying “the king of the Jews” what Matthew does by saying “Christ.” For only kings of the Jews were called christs; for in that place too Matthew says, “Pilate said to them, ‘What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?’” So Mark continues, “And they cried out again, ‘Crucify him,’” which Matthew gives as, “They all said, ‘Let him be crucified.’” And Mark continues, “But Pilate said to them, ‘Why, what evil has he done?’ But they cried out all the more, ‘Crucify him.’” Matthew did not say this; but since he said, “And when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather a riot was starting,” and said too that he washed his hands before the people to signify that he was innocent of the righteous man's blood, which Mark and the others are silent about, Matthew too shows clearly enough that the governor dealt with the people to have him released; which Mark signified briefly by reporting that Pilate said, “Why, what evil has he done?” Then he too concludes what was done to the Lord through Pilate thus: “And Pilate, wishing to satisfy the people, released Barabbas to them and delivered Jesus, beaten with scourges, to be crucified.” These things done before the governor Mark narrated.

Luke narrates what was done before Pilate thus: “And they began to accuse 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, though they did say that they accused him. So Luke also set out the very charges, which they falsely brought. But he was silent about what Pilate said to him: “Do you answer nothing? See how many things they accuse you of.” But he clearly goes on to say what the others also said: “And Pilate asked him, saying, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ And he answered and said, ‘You say so.’” Matthew and Mark recorded this before saying that Jesus was addressed because he did not answer his accusers. But it makes no difference to the truth in what order Luke reported these things, just as it makes no difference if one passes over something another records, as he says in what follows: “And Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, ‘I find no case against this man.’ But they grew insistent, saying, ‘He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to here.’ And when Pilate heard Galilee, he asked whether the man was a Galilean, and when he learned that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem in those days. And Herod, seeing Jesus, was very glad; for he had long been wanting to see him, because he heard many things about him, and he hoped to see some sign done by him. And he questioned him with many words; but he answered nothing. And the chief priests and scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him, dressing him in a white garment, and sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends that very day; for before they had been at enmity with each other.” All these things, that is, that the Lord was sent from Pilate to Herod and what was done there, Luke alone tells, even if he says something there similar to what can be found in other places of the narratives in the others; while the others chose to tell only what was done before Pilate, until the Lord was handed over to be crucified. Returning, then, to what was being done before the governor, from which he had digressed to narrate what was done before Herod, Luke continues thus: “And Pilate, having called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, said to them, ‘You brought me this man as one who turns the people away, and behold, having examined him before you, I found no case in this man in the things of which you accuse him.’” Here we understand that he passed over how Pilate asked the Lord what he would answer to his accusers. “‘Neither did Herod,’ he says, ‘for I sent you to him; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.’ Now he was obliged to release one to them at the feast. But the whole crowd cried out together, saying, ‘Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas,’ who had been put in prison for a certain insurrection made in the city and for murder. And Pilate spoke to them again, wishing to release Jesus. But they shouted back, saying, ‘Crucify, crucify him.’ And he said to them a third time, ‘Why, what evil has this man done? I find no cause of death in him; I will therefore chastise him and release him.’ But they pressed with loud voices, demanding that he be crucified, and their voices prevailed.” Matthew attested clearly enough, in very few words, this attempt of Pilate, by which he dealt with them repeatedly, wishing Jesus to be released, where he says, “And when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather a riot was starting”; which he would not say unless Pilate had striven much, though he was silent about how many times he tried to bring this about, to rescue Jesus from their fury. And so Luke concludes what was done before the governor thus: “And Pilate,” he says, “gave sentence that their request should be done. And he released to them the one who had been put in prison for murder and insurrection, whom they asked for; but Jesus he delivered to their will.”

Now let us consider the same things according to John, that is, what was done through Pilate. “And they themselves,” he says, “did not enter the praetorium, so as not to be defiled, but to eat the Passover. So Pilate went out to them and said, ‘What accusation do you bring against this man?’ They answered and said to him, ‘If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you.’” We must see that this is not contrary to Luke's saying that definite charges were made against him, and he says what they were: “And they began,” he says, “to accuse 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.’” But in what I have now recalled according to John, the Jews seem to have been unwilling to state charges when Pilate had said to them, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” For they answered, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you,” evidently so that, following their authority, he would stop asking what was charged against him and would believe him guilty merely because he had deserved to be handed over to him by them. We ought to understand, then, that both this was said and what Luke recorded. For many things were said and many answered, from which each of them plucked as much as seemed good and put in his narrative what he judged enough. For John himself also gives certain things that were charged, which we shall see in their places. So he continues: “Pilate then said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.’ The Jews then said to him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death,’ so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spoke, signifying by what death he was to die. Pilate then entered the praetorium again and called Jesus and said to him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ Jesus answered, ‘Do you say this of yourself, or did others tell you about me?’” This too would seem not to agree with what is recorded by the others, “Jesus answered, ‘You say so,’” were it not that in what follows he shows that this too was said. From this he shows that what he now says was rather passed over by the other evangelists than not said by the Lord. Attend, then, to the rest: “Pilate answered,” he says, “‘Am I a Jew? Your nation and the chief priests handed you over to me; what have you done?’ Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here.’ So Pilate said to him, ‘So you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king.’” See, here we come to what the other evangelists recorded. Then follows, with the Lord still speaking, what the others passed over: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, ‘I find no case in him. But you have a custom that I release one to you at the Passover. Do you want me, then, to release to you the king of the Jews?’ They all cried out again, saying, ‘Not this man, but Barabbas.’ Now Barabbas was a robber. Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him. And the soldiers, plaiting a crown of thorns, put it on his head and clothed him in a purple robe, and they came to him and said, ‘Hail, king of the Jews,’ and they struck him with their hands. Pilate went out again and said to them, ‘Behold, I bring him out to you, so that you may know that I find no case in him.’ So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And he said to them, ‘Behold the man.’ When the chief priests and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, ‘Crucify, crucify.’ Pilate said to them, ‘Take him yourselves and crucify him; for I find no case in him.’ The Jews answered him, ‘We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.’” This can fit with what Luke records was said in the Jews' accusation, “We found this man subverting our nation,” so that there is added, “because he made himself the Son of God.” John, then, continues and says: “When Pilate heard this word, he was the more afraid, and he entered the praetorium again and said to Jesus, ‘Where are you from?’ But Jesus gave him no answer. So Pilate said to him, ‘Will you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to crucify you and authority to release you?’ Jesus answered, ‘You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who handed me over to you has the greater sin.’ From then on Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, ‘If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.’” With this can fit what Luke narrates in the same accusation of the Jews: having said, “We found him subverting our nation,” he added, “and forbidding tribute to be given to Caesar and saying that he himself is Christ, a king.” By this that question is solved by which it could be thought that John said no charge was brought against the Lord by the Jews, when they answered and said to him, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you.” John, then, continues and says: “So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called the Pavement, but in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, ‘Behold your king.’ But they cried out, ‘Away with him, crucify him.’ Pilate said to them, ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar.’ Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.” These things John narrated as done through Pilate.

It follows now that we should look at the Lord's passion itself according to the testimony of the four evangelists. Matthew begins it thus: “Then the governor's soldiers took Jesus into the praetorium and gathered the whole cohort around him. And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak around him, and plaiting a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and a reed in his right hand, and kneeling before him they mocked him, saying, ‘Hail, king of the Jews.’” Mark says this at the same place in his narrative thus: “And the soldiers led him into the court of the praetorium and called together the whole cohort, and they clothed him in purple, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him, and they began to salute him, ‘Hail, king of the Jews.’ And they struck his head with a reed and spat on him, and kneeling they worshiped him.” It is understood, then, that what Matthew says, “they put a scarlet cloak around him,” Mark expressed as “they clothed him in purple.” For that scarlet cloak had been used by the mockers in place of the royal purple; and there is a kind of red purple very like scarlet. It may also be that Mark mentioned the purple which the cloak had, although it was scarlet. Luke passed over this. But John recorded it before saying that Pilate handed him over to be crucified, saying: “Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him, and the soldiers, plaiting a crown of thorns, put it on his head and clothed him in a purple robe, and they came to him and said, ‘Hail, king of the Jews,’ and they struck him with their hands.” From this it appears that Matthew and Mark recorded this by recapitulation, not because it was done at the time when Pilate had already handed him over to be crucified. For John says quite plainly that these things were done before Pilate; from which those two recalled what they had passed over. To this also belongs what Matthew says next: “And spitting on him, they took the reed and struck his head. And after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the cloak and put his own garments on him and led him away to crucify him.” That they stripped him of the cloak and put his garments on him is understood to have been done at the end, when he was already being led away. Mark says this thus: “And after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple and put his own garments on him.”

Matthew, then, continues: “And as they went out, they found a man of Cyrene named Simon; this man they compelled to carry his cross.” Mark too: “And they lead him out,” he says, “to crucify him. And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross.” Luke says this thus: “And as they led him away, they seized a certain Simon of Cyrene coming from the country and laid the cross on him to carry behind Jesus.” But John narrates thus: “They took Jesus and led him out. And carrying the cross for himself, he went out to the place called the Place of a Skull, in Hebrew Golgotha, where they crucified him.” From this it is understood that he was carrying the cross himself when he went out toward the place mentioned; but that Simon, whom the three record, was pressed into service on the way, and afterward the cross was given to him to carry to the place. So we find that both happened: first what John said, then what the other three.

Matthew, then, continues: “And they came,” he says, “to a place called Golgotha, that is, the Place of a Skull.” In this they agree most plainly. Then the same Matthew adds, “And they gave him wine to drink mixed with gall, and when he had tasted it, he would not drink.” Mark narrates this thus: “And they gave him wine mixed with myrrh to drink, and he did not take it.” This is to be understood as what Matthew said, “mixed with gall.” For he put gall for bitterness, and wine mixed with myrrh is very bitter; although it may be that they made the wine very bitter with both gall and myrrh. As for Mark's saying, “He did not take it,” it is understood that he did not take it so as to drink it. But he tasted it, as Matthew is witness; so that what the same Matthew says, “he would not drink,” Mark said as “he did not take it,” but was silent about his tasting it.