Supplementa ad quaestiones ad Stephanum

1. Concerning the fact that Matthew traces the successions from above, while Luke has done the opposite, having traveled one and the same road, there is nothing to blame. For just as those who ascend a steep and uphill path, and those who descend the same way in the opposite direction, no one would say are walking a different road, since one path lies before both those going up and those going down. In the same manner, then, it is also possible in the succession of generations, for whoever wishes, with authority, through the same line, for some to ascend from below to those further on, and for others, having begun from the ancestors above, to end at the last descendants. This manner was also dear to the Hebrews from long ago, the evangelists of our Savior. But if someone should say that they disagree because Luke did not stop ascending at Abraham, nor did Matthew begin from Adam, at whom Luke ended, he does not think rightly. For each of them made the exposition of the genealogy by his own reasoning, the one beginning from Abraham, the other going beyond Abraham and ascending to the first man, and not even stopping there, but suspending the whole account upon God. For what conflict is there in these things? If the genealogy from Abraham to those who follow seemed useful to the one, on account of the economy of the account in his Gospel, while the other, on account of the mystery of regeneration in Christ, leads up the one born again through the bath, beyond all generation.

Keep in mind that throughout the whole account the word "generation" has been passed over in silence, and he leads him upward and sets him not at any man but at the God of all, all but bringing him forward as having become a Son to the Father. 2. In order, then, that we may refute the ignorance of the one who has said this, and put a stop to anyone being scandalized through similar ignorance, I will set forth the true history of the events; but first it is time to examine the proposition set before us. Matthew descends from Abraham to David, and so to Solomon and his successors down to Jacob, from whom came Joseph, who was reckoned the father of Christ; but Luke says that Joseph was not from Jacob, as Matthew does, but from Heli; then, going up from Heli, he proceeds to others whom Matthew did not mention at all; and thus, having run a kind of side course, he comes not to Solomon the son of David but to Nathan, who was also himself of David. Yet if their account was indeed of the same genealogy, he ought to have gone up through the same names as Matthew, or Matthew through the names Luke traversed. But if they did not agree with each other in this way—so that the one says that Joseph was the son of Jacob and of Solomon the son of David, while the other says he was not of Jacob but of Heli and of Nathan the son of David—then in these respects they appear to contain much disagreement with each other. What, then, might one say to this problem set before us? Come, let us open the eye of the soul, fix our mind intently upon the very words, and see what Luke says.

And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli, of Melchi;" but Matthew at least did not use the phrase "as was supposed." This, then, is the first exposition. 3. But there could also be another deep and secret account in the words set before us. For Matthew, admittedly, when recounting the incarnate generation of Christ and wishing to demonstrate that Joseph was truly descended from David, from which he needed to employ the opening of his account, having said, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ," and the rest; and consequently he sets down the whole subsequent narrative after the list of forefathers: the Magi, the madness of Herod, the flight of Jesus into Egypt, the return from there, Archelaus; and how after these things John, now at last having advanced to manhood after the thirtieth year of Jesus' birth, proclaims in the wilderness a baptism of repentance, and Jesus comes along with the others to the Jordan to be baptized by John. And indeed observe in these things the texture and sequence of historical narrative which Matthew sets forth, a Syrian man, a tax collector by livelihood, a Hebrew in speech. 4. But Luke was by race from the renowned Antioch, where indeed all the most learned men boast of the Ionians as their ancestors; nevertheless, in addition to the natural Greek character of these men, Luke brought something more in his writings, inasmuch as he was experienced in the science of medicine. Yet such a man, beginning the writing of his own Gospel, first recounts the events concerning Zechariah and Elizabeth.

Then, having appended Gabriel's appearance to Mary, he next sets down the wondrous generations, making no mention of any genealogy of Joseph; then, recording the twelfth year of Jesus, he does not even now mention a genealogy. But after the times of Augustus, when Tiberius succeeded to the rule of the Romans, in his fifteenth year, he says that John preached in the wilderness a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; and he sets down his teaching, and after all these things, he says, when Jesus was baptized and had prayed, it came about that the heaven was opened, and the Spirit descended like a dove, and a voice was brought from there: "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Having arrived here, as if waking up from sleep, he mentions the genealogy out of season, as one might suppose, saying, "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli, of Melchi," and the rest. 5. Who, then, would not be at a loss in these matters? If Matthew appears to have composed his account knowledgeably, and to have used the genealogy at the right time, but Luke drove on to such a degree of perplexity that, when it was necessary to place the genealogy in its proper place, he then omitted it, and having set forth so great a narrative from the birth of Christ up to thirty years, he did not perceive any suitable occasion for the genealogy according to him; but now, when he has come at thirty years of age to the baptism of John, contrary to all reason and contrary to the occasion, he introduces the genealogy as if it were some insertion of the writing.

But if anyone had reproached him for such things, the divine evangelist would not have been at a loss for an answer; he would have said, as is fitting, things divine and wise and worthy of the divine Spirit within him. But I consider that he, wishing to give the genealogy of Jesus according to the flesh, has done this now; for if he had done this according to his own judgment, he would not have been ignorant of when it was necessary to set it forth. But since he now mentions the regeneration through the bath, introducing him as Son of God, he wishes to present, as it were by way of example, that everyone who is regenerated in God, even if he is truly thought to be a son of men because of the flesh he wears, yet the things of his generation do not stop for him at his parents according to the flesh, nor does it reach as far as the forefathers of the body; but even if he is thought to be a son of men because of the generation of the body, nevertheless he is not alien to the sonship of God. Therefore I consider that he used the genealogy at the right time, and the addition of the phrase "as was supposed." For it was fitting, when the testimony from the heavens said to Jesus, "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased," no longer to proclaim him a son of men in the same way, but with the addition "as was supposed"; for he was proclaimed to be a son of God by nature, but not as was supposed; and he was supposed to be a son of Joseph, but he was not a son by nature. 6. Since these things are so, I think I have also given the reasoning according to which Matthew, beginning his own writing, before the conception of Mary and before the incarnate generation of Jesus, sets forth at the right time, as in a history, the genealogy according to the flesh.

Therefore he also brings down the generations, hinting at a descent from the better things of the one indicated; for the Word of God, becoming flesh, descended, in that, existing in the form of God, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. But Luke, if he had intended to make known his incarnate presence in the same way as Matthew, would certainly have also used the history of the lineage, at the time of the conception or of the birth; and consequently, beginning from the ancestors, he would have come down to the last. But since he set forth his narrative not according to the same intent as Matthew, reasonably passing over the same time as that one, he arrives at the regeneration through the bath; and here he sets forth the opposite succession of the generations, at once leading up from the last to the first, and at the same time shaking off the memory of the blameworthy and sinful men in Matthew, since indeed the one regenerated in God becomes a stranger to the fleshly birth and to the sinful fathers according to the flesh, being declared a Son of God, and of all who have lived blamelessly according to God. Thus it was also said to Abraham: "But you shall go to your fathers"—not those according to the flesh, but the word hints at those in God through the likeness of piety.

7. Reasonably, therefore, Luke, inasmuch as he records the regeneration, does not follow the same path as Matthew; neither then does he make the juxtaposition of Solomon and of the wife of Uriah, nor of Tamar, nor of Ruth, nor of Jeconiah and the men in between who are disparaged, but through other blameless ones he ascends, and indeed from the prophet Nathan he brings in the one regenerated. And the one born according to the flesh in Matthew was a son of Abraham, traced in genealogy from there, since the promise of the blessing of the nations had been given first to Abraham, which was to come about in no other way than through the one who would proceed from his seed. But the one regenerated in God, having inscribed other fathers according to God—though he did not truly have them either, but as was supposed because of the similarity of their characters—ascends to the true Father, having been called the Son of God after all. But let this account be set aside by us among secret things. But so that no one may suppose that we are engaging in specious reasoning, I will also use a very ancient history from which it is possible to find the solution to the discrepancy commonly supposed between both evangelists. The author of this history was Africanus, a learned man and distinguished among those who come from secular education; besides many other fine works of his, there is also extant an epistle to Aristides concerning the discrepancy commonly supposed among the evangelists regarding the genealogy of Christ; and it is as follows. Of Africanus. 8.

Some, however, do not speak accurately when they say that this differing enumeration and intermingling of names—of the priestly, as they suppose, and of the royal—came about justly, so that Christ might be shown justly to have become both priest and king; as though someone were disobedient or had held another hope, that Christ is high priest of the Father, offering up our prayers to him, and a king above the world, distributing to those whom he freed by the Spirit, having become a fellow-worker for the ordering of all things. And this was announced to us not by the catalogue of the tribes, not by the mixing of the recorded lineages, but by patriarchs and prophets. Let us not, then, descend into such petty-mindedness of religion as to establish the kingship and priesthood of Christ by the interchange of names; since the tribe of Levi, the priestly one, was joined to the tribe of Judah, the royal one, when Nahashon took as wife the sister of Elizabeth, Aaron's wife, and again Eleazar the daughter of Phatiel, and from there they begot children. The evangelists, then, lied, establishing not truth but conjectured praise; and for this reason the one traced the genealogy through Solomon from David of Jacob the father of Joseph, while the other traced it through Nathan of David, of Eli the father of Joseph likewise of others; although they ought not to have been ignorant that each order of those enumerated is the race of David, the royal tribe of Judah. For even if Nathan was a prophet, nevertheless

And Solomon, and the father of each of these; but prophets came from many tribes, priests from none of the twelve tribes, but only Levites. In vain, then, has their falsehood been fabricated for them; nor let such a word prevail in the Church of Christ against exact truth—that a lie has been composed for the praise and glorification of Christ. For who does not know also that most sacred word of the Apostle, when he proclaims and announces the resurrection of our Savior and insists on the truth, saying with great fear: if some say that Christ has not been raised, but we both say this and have believed it, and we both hope it and proclaim it—we bear false witness against God, that he raised Christ whom he did not raise. But if the one who glorifies God the Father has feared lest he seem to speak falsely when recounting a wondrous deed, how would he not justly fear, since by falsehood he procures confirmation for truth, composing a glory that is not true? For if the lineages are different, and no genuine seed descends to Joseph, but it has been said only for the confirmation of the one who was to be born, that the one who is to come will be king and priest, with no proof accompanying it, but the solemnity of the words being carried along to a feeble hymn, it is clear that the praise does not touch God, since it is a lie; and there is judgment for the one who has spoken, for boasting of what is not as though it were.

10. Matthew also placed David before the others in the genealogy according to him, since it was foretold that Christ would spring from him according to the flesh, to David first and alone, with an oath of assurance. For it is written: "The Lord swore truth to David, and he will not annul it: from the fruit of your belly I will set upon your throne." And again: "I swore to David my servant, I will prepare your seed forever." And in Chronicles: "And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, that I will raise up your seed after you, who shall be from your belly, and I will prepare his kingdom; he shall build me a house, and I will set up his throne forever; I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." Similar things to these are also brought forward in the second book of Kings; but those at least could be drawn to Solomon, whereas the things at hand, that they have no commonality with Solomon, one would learn as follows. After the death of Solomon, many years later, Isaiah prophesying proclaims such things about the one who would be born from the seed of David: "A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse—and this was the father of David—and a flower shall rise up from the root; and the root of Jesse shall be, and the one rising to rule the nations; on him shall the nations hope." And about the throne promised to David he prophesies thus: "A child was born to us, a son also was given to us, whose rule is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Angel of great counsel; great is his rule, and of his peace there is no limit.

upon the throne of David and his kingdom, to establish it." And through the things set forth it has been said that from the root of Jesse and of David one will arise to rule not Israel but the nations; and it has been said that a child will be born, and he will be called Son, adorned with strange names and with things that surpass human nature, and that such a one will take up the throne of David, and establish his kingdom. 10. But that these things were foretold after Solomon concerning some other one who was going to come, is clear to everyone. And in another way, the oracles set forth concerning David would not fit Solomon, when they receive exact examination; for the oracle clearly shows that the one prophesied will arise after the death of David. But Solomon, while David was still alive, became successor of the kingdom by his nod and decision; at any rate it is said that he reigned over Israel for only forty years. How then could the words "to set up his throne forever" be applied to him?

But if someone should say that these things were spoken concerning the succession from him, it must not be overlooked that the succession of the kingdom from David and Solomon continued until Jeconiah and the captivity in Babylon, since no one after Jeconiah was established on the throne of the kingdom of David. And how could you apply the words of the oath to the lover of women, whose heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, and the words, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? But these things are plainly foreign to Solomon; they would be referred to Christ, who, having risen from the seed of David, built for God a house not of lifeless stones, nor in a corner and part of the earth, but throughout the whole inhabited world and among all the nations, from living and rational stones, his Church worthy of God; and to him alone the words, "He shall be to me a son," when proclaimed, will fit; since in other Scriptures too he is proclaimed Son of God: in the one that says, "From the womb before the morning star I begot you"; and in the one that says, "The Lord said to me, You are my Son"; again in that in which it is said, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works, and before all the hills he begets me." With these, then, agrees also the voice borne from heaven upon him, which said, "You are my beloved Son"; and the things contained in the seventy-first psalm, "He shall continue with the sun," and, "All the nations shall bless him," would plainly concur with the things theologized concerning our Savior.

That these things are so, the confirmation from Isaiah is beyond dispute, who after the death of Solomon and after very many other successions of the line, prophesies that one would come forth from the root of Jesse and David, and that this one would be the Savior of the nations, plainly speaking thus: "And the root of Jesse shall be, and the one who rises up to rule the nations; on him shall the nations hope." But although so many oracles had been given, to David alone, and with the assurance of an oath, concerning the birth of the prophesied one from his seed, and all Israel, as was likely, because of so many predictions, was daily expecting the Savior and Redeemer of all men who was to be born of David, Matthew, reasonably proclaiming the good news of the arrival of the things hoped for, made the beginning of his account from that very expectation which was hoped for, calling the one who shone forth a son of David; and after David he runs back to Abraham, since again to Abraham first various oracles had been given concerning the calling of the nations. For before the legislation of Moses, and before the nation of the Jews, indeed also before circumcision, Abraham, being of another nation and coming from the land of the Chaldeans, leaves his ancestral ways, and having come to know God who is over all, he is testified that he believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness; and he has been shown to be righteous and beloved of God, not through circumcision of the body, nor through the observance of the day of the Sabbath, of festivals or new moons, nor indeed through any other self-chosen worship prescribed by Moses, but through another manifestation of God—of the Lord who appeared to him, and this was the Savior—and through a venerable and virtuous life.

Since, then, he was succeeding in this manner of godliness, the promise concerning the nations was given to him, that they too would at some time worship God with the zeal of Abraham, and would be deemed worthy of a blessing equal to that of the man beloved of God. At any rate, it was said to him, "And in you all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed"; and again: "And the Lord said, I will not hide from Abraham my child what I am doing; but Abraham shall become a great and numerous nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." Since these things are so, it was fitting that Abraham, being the forefather of the calling of the nations, should be taken up second by the evangelist after David. For it was necessary that the one who had received the promises concerning the birth of the Savior be preferred in order to the one who had received the promises concerning the nations; and that the founder of the nations be taken up second in the genealogy. 12. For John, in the writing of his own Gospel, hands down the things done before Christ, while the Baptist had not yet been cast into prison; but the other three evangelists speak of the things after the prison. And for one who attends to this, the Gospels would no longer seem to disagree with one another, since the Gospel according to John contains the earlier events, while the others contain the later history. 13. Of Eusebius. But that the Mother of God was found with child, and that by no other than Joseph, the evangelist declared; for that this was by the Holy Spirit, he says, is evident; for to Joseph, being a righteous man, it was not a matter of wonder to know that it was through the Holy Spirit, from whom also the conception had come to be. 14. Of Eusebius.

But I encountered an untitled interpretation which says that some claim Elizabeth was called a kinswoman of the Virgin by the angel, not as being of the same tribe, but because both were descended from the same ancestors and from the same common stock of the Jews; as the Apostle says, "I could wish, he says, that I myself were accursed for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." And many even of those held in esteem say that the priestly tribe was truly joined by kinship to the royal tribe, both of old in the time of Moses. For Elizabeth, the wife of Aaron, was a sister of Nahshon the son of Amminadab, who traced his descent from Judah the son of Jacob, from whom the royal line belonged to the Jews; and in later times likewise Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah, drew her origin from the tribe of Judah, being called a daughter of Jacob the father of Joseph. At any rate, from the kinship of this Nahshon the Lord was born according to the flesh. Not in vain, then, did the divine prophet teach the intermingling with the royal tribe, but to show that the Lord Christ sprang from both, having been called both king and high priest according to the human nature; or, as being from one forefather, Jacob, he calls them kinswomen.

15. The reason why Matthew traced the genealogy of Christ from above, while Luke does so from below and in the opposite direction, has been fittingly investigated; and it must be said that it is not unreasonable to travel the same road both from above and from below; for this was also long customary in the divine Scripture. For thus David is genealogized from above in Ruth, just as Christ is in Matthew; and in the first book of Kingdoms the father of Samuel is genealogized from below, in a manner similar to Luke. 16. Concerning this, Eusebius in his work On Matthew says thus: He says that Nathan also prophesied, according to what is recorded in Kingdoms. But I, says someone, have also inquired into the reason that led the blessed Luke to turn aside from the royal clan, namely that the kings descended from Solomon himself were not clean of idolatry, except for very few, and for this reason he declined the genealogy through them. 17. Of Eusebius. When the evangelist made public David's repentance for his sin, he mentioned the woman with whom he committed the sin; and that if he had not received forgiveness of the sin from God through repentance, he himself would not have been deemed worthy to become the forefather of Christ. 18. Of Eusebius. It was a reproach of Jeconiah that he had been proclaimed and taken captive; therefore he was also dishonored among the many; and this was what divided those who genealogized Christ, so that some traced the generations from Solomon, others from Nathan; and from this the evangelist made mention of him; and he says that the Redeemer of captives had come, and through baptism receives them.

1. Since fear of the Jews was pressing upon the disciples of the Savior, John indeed says that the disciples were gathered together in one house, with the doors shut for fear of the Jews. How then did Peter and John go to the tomb? And this too while a military guard was watching the place, as Matthew testified; for the custodia is a military detachment. To this we shall say that the apostles went boldly to the tomb, having learned beforehand from the Magdalene that none of those guarding the place was there, so that it was evident from the fact that the stone had been lifted from the tomb; and it had been lifted in no other way than by the angel from heaven having flashed upon the place with great light, and himself having rolled away the stone, and having terrified the guards, so that they were almost petrified by fear; and after this, as was likely, they took to flight, so that none of them was left behind, and the place was free for those arriving to see the saving resurrection; for this was especially the reason for the angel's appearance. For he did not move the stone for the sake of the resurrection, nor did he appear in such a form for the sake of the stone, but in order that he might drive those men away, and having welcomed the women coming to see, might announce the resurrection to them. Of these things Matthew is a witness, saying, From his fear those who were keeping watch were shaken, and became as dead men.

For the Savior, having risen, even precedes the angel, and does not wait for the removal of the stone, but even while it was still lying before the door, and had been sealed with the seals of the chief priests, and while the guards were encircling the place, he was invisible from the tomb, having accomplished the resurrection from the dead by divine power, at an hour that no one knew, and at a time that none of the evangelists noted; so that one might aptly apply to this very matter that saying spoken by him concerning the universal consummation: "But of that day no one knows, neither the angels of God." Thus, then, the Savior himself, having become the firstfruits of the resurrection, was raised at an hour that no one knew, escaping the notice of all, and was raised while the stone remained in its position. But as a messenger of good things, the angel was present for humans, contributing nothing to the resurrection by his presence, but ministering to the great salvation of humans; therefore he also flashed in appearance, showing himself in white garments, and was the first to begin the proclamation of the saving resurrection. And just as at the rising of the sun venomous reptiles and such beasts as are dear to night and darkness flee away, but men, as kin to the light, pursue these risings, in the same way the angel, flashing upon the enemies of truth and life—those who are kin and friends to death—with the gleams of his light, drove them away; but to those who longed for the saving resurrection, he announced it as good news, providing them ready leisure through the driving away of the guards.

At any rate, he provided two clear signs for his own people to see: the removal of the stone, and the opening of the door of the tomb, and the flight of the guards. Having beheld these things, Mary Magdalene reported them to the disciples; and they, having learned these things from her, went to meet him boldly and at a run, since nothing stood in their way. 2. And how, when it was still dark, according to the evangelist John, did the two disciples see the things inside the tomb? For the same evangelist also noted the hour, saying, "While it was still dark, early in the morning," and that the two disciples had seen the things inside the tomb: "For they went in," he says, "and believed." At the very beginning of the day, Scripture testified that it was still dark at the tomb; yet it was already early morning. But this early morning, while it was still dark, Mary, having seen for herself, returns to the disciples; then an angel comes to them. So then, in the interval of time after her first arrival, while she was going away to the apostles, and the hour

It was natural that they should have advanced further; and when those women again arrived at the tomb, that the time should have increased still more, so that it was no longer darkness but already clear day, at which the aforementioned men, having met together and standing outside the tomb, were able to see clearly the linen cloths lying within; and much more so when they had gone inside, since the place was already illuminated by the bright day. And it seems to me that the linen cloths lying inside provide at once a proof that the body had not been taken away by men, which is what Mary supposed—for no one, in removing the body, would have left the linen cloths behind; nor would a thief ever have waited until he had unwound the linen cloths and been caught—and at the same time they are evidence of the resurrection of the body from the dead. For God, who transforms the bodies of our lowliness to be conformed to the body of the glory of Christ, changed the body as an instrument of the power that dwelt in it, transforming it to something more divine, but left the linen cloths behind as superfluous and foreign to the substance of the body. And it seems to me that Peter and John arrived at the tomb at the right time, in already clear day and bright light, so that they would not be suspected of having come by night and in darkness—which is exactly what the chief priests falsely alleged against them, that they came by night and stole him. Therefore the men did not arrive by night, nor even while darkness still prevailed, but when the bright day was already shining. But if the Gospel says that the disciples were gathered together because of fear of the Jews, then someone might object to this, saying: How then did those who were shut in go to the tomb in the bright day?

We will say that it was natural for those of the Jews who lived in the middle of the city to have been shut in, all of them gathered together in one house; but those who arrived at the tomb, being outside the city, were far removed also from the fear of the Jews, passing as they did into a deserted place and one free of men. Perhaps also Peter and John, having become stronger than fear, were emboldened to go forth from the house more daringly, while the others did not dare to do this, or only these alone, who are attested as having been deemed worthy of greater honor than the rest of the apostles in other respects too. 3. But how is it that in John the disciples, having heard from Mary, and then having come to the tomb, believed; while in Luke it is said that these words appeared before them as nonsense, and they did not believe them? Mary in John, revealing as a secret to the chosen of the apostles, Peter and John alone, declared what she had seen; but they again, escaping the notice of the rest of the disciples, went alone to the tomb at a run, and having seen, believed; and it was nothing wonderful that the chosen of the apostles, having seen, believed, while the rest, to whom the women reported, since they had not received it by sight, did not believe them. Indeed, at once when the Savior appeared to the disciples gathered together, according to John, those who saw rejoiced; but Thomas, since he was not present nor had seen, was not convinced. But if this man disbelieved the apostles, scarcely would anyone blame the rest because, not yet having seen, they disbelieved the women.

The Scripture presents the great testing and thoroughness of the disciples, who did not readily agree with these reports, but held back at first, until later, having come to know the truth most fully and clearly, they were able to speak: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon, and our hands have handled concerning the Word of life." But the passage can also have another meaning. For someone might say that the eleven did not believe the women who announced the Savior's resurrection, since, according to Luke, they had heard from the two men who appeared to them, and among them were Peter and John, who had not themselves believed. And when Mary, according to John, said, "They have taken my Lord from the tomb," the two disciples did not believe this very thing—that the Savior had been taken away—before they came to the place and learned it by deed. So when these men entered the tomb and saw only the linen cloths, and the body nowhere, then they believed. And in what did they believe, if not in Mary's word that said, "They have taken my Lord"? Therefore he adds next: "For they did not yet know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead." IV. But how, when two disciples came to the tomb according to John, Peter and John, does Luke say that only one met there? This is how it may be resolved. Peter was always great in zeal, so that alone among the apostles he said to the Savior: "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you"; and alone again he thought it worthy to step upon the waves; and alone he answered and said to him:

You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"; and therefore he alone among the disciples hears: "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah." Therefore he also is the first to dare to enter the tomb, having come with the other disciple whom Jesus loved, according to John; but at that time, having learned from the Magdalene that the body of the Lord had been taken from the tomb, he was coming together with the other disciple; then he withdrew with him, having seen the linen cloths inside the tomb and believed. But according to Luke, while the other disciples disbelieved, he alone again believes the women who said they had seen the angels that appeared; for not disbelieving the women's testimony, he returns again to the tomb alone; and again stooping down he sees only the linen cloths, as also before; then he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened; and now indeed he departed marveling at what had happened, but since he was great in zeal and displayed more earnestness than all, hastening and running about, and looking all around for the Savior with the opened eyes of his soul, and seeking everywhere and gazing about, he did not fail of his hope, but he too was deemed worthy of his divine manifestation; of this the same evangelist Luke is witness, proceeding next in some such way and saying that the Lord truly rose and appeared to Simon. And the holy Apostle also bears witness to him, writing to the Corinthians thus: "He appeared to Cephas, then to the eleven." And Cephas was Simon himself, who is also Peter, to whom even before the eleven the Savior appeared alone to him alone, because of his zeal surpassing that of all.

5. One might further ask how it is that in Matthew Magdalene Mary, together with the Mary of the same name, is said to have seen outside the tomb, seated upon the stone, one angel only; but according to John, inside the tomb she beholds two angels seated; and according to Luke, two men met the women; and according to Mark, a young man was seen by them. The accounts in John and Matthew may receive a solution of this kind: for I think that the history in John comes first, before that in Matthew, and that Magdalene, having come first, saw the two angels seated inside the tomb; but after these things, having come a second time to the same place with the other Mary, she saw the angel seated upon the stone. Or perhaps the angel in Matthew is one, and the time and place of the angel's appearance are another; and the angels who appear to the women are different from him; and likewise the two angels in John, who were seen inside the tomb, are different from the one outside before the tomb, seated upon the stone in Matthew. For if Matthew, having said "late on the Sabbath," and having recorded one seated before the door of the tomb upon the stone, while John, keeping the same time and the same place, had said "late on the Sabbath" that two were seen seated before the door of the tomb upon the stone, then one could truly allege a discrepancy. And Matthew likewise, if he had kept the morning hour in the same way as John, and had himself said that not two angels but one were seen inside the tomb, he would reasonably seem to be writing things contrary.

But if the evangelists have distinguished both the times and the manners, and the persons of those who saw, and the words of the angels, no one could reasonably find fault with a disagreement of Scripture, since each is true according to the account of its own history, and declares the narration of different matters. But the angels in these evangelists, and the appearances of the Savior after the resurrection, being recorded by these alone as by better witnesses and eyewitnesses and earwitnesses of the Savior himself, would preserve this sequence. But the two men seen in shining clothing in Luke, on account of the symbols of the festival; and the young man in Mark, himself also clothed in a white garment, and seen on the right and not on the left, both because he announced glad tidings to the women on the right and cheerful side, would again be different, both from one another and from those in the first. Therefore he did not even call them angels, since they did not mention the appearances of the Savior, yielding to Matthew and John, who were better than themselves, to write and record the better things; but they, narrating the second things, and in time the things done later after the mention of the first, passed over what was said by the eyewitnesses, and filled in what had been silenced by them; which were indeed second and far inferior to the history of the former; thus the Holy Spirit distributed the narrations fitting and suitable to each. 6.

At any rate, the women who came to the tomb at deep dawn in Luke, bringing the spices they had prepared, would be different from those in Matthew and John. For it would make no sense that the Maries who had foreseen so much should now for the first time bring spices, as though they had not yet learned of the resurrection beforehand. For clearly by what he says he shows that both those who appeared were different from those previously indicated, and the place where they appeared was different; for neither were they inside the tomb, as John taught, nor sitting on the stone, as the angel in Matthew; but Luke did not even name angels at all, but two men, except that they too were in lightning-like clothing, on account of the symbols of the feast; and their words to the women are distinct; and the women were more numerous, not the two Maries of Matthew, but simply those who had come together with him from Galilee; and these too were fainthearted, not displaying such zeal as those who endured through the night and remained at the tomb. At any rate Matthew testifies to Magdalene and the other Mary great earnestness and perseverance, saying after his passion these things: "And there was there Mary the Magdalene and another Mary, sitting opposite the tomb." But these sat beside the tomb on the day of the Preparation; wherefore they also see more quickly, first the angel of good things, then the very author of life. And the one in John, she too first sees the angels, and after these she beholds the Savior himself; yet these were not bringing spices, nor were they occupied with this zeal.

But the women who had followed him from Galilee, who according to Luke were many, returned on the Preparation day and prepared the spices, since they had as yet learned nothing beforehand about the resurrection. Therefore to these two men appear in shining garments and announce the resurrection. But the Savior no longer appeared to them, as he did to the woman in John and to those in Matthew; so that one ought to regard this account as distinct. But according to Mark, very early on the first day of the week they come to the tomb after the sun had risen—these again are different women, and at another time again, who also said to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us?" And they come and find it rolled away, and having entered they saw a young man; where again, in contrast to Luke, they are men and not angels, just as here too it is not called an angel but a young man; so that this narrative also is separate, and the one who appeared is different, and those who arrived are different, and the time likewise is that after sunrise; which if it had also been observed in Luke, one would reasonably demand his two men, and

The same words. But if Luke has taken up the time before sunrise, he reasonably records also the two men who were seen then, and not the young man. 7. Since there are four evangelists, the visions recorded by them appear equal in number to these; and the times are four, and those seen at each time are distinct; likewise the women who beheld them are different; and the words of those who appeared to them differ. For the first time was the one called in Matthew "late on the Sabbath"; and the fourth and last is the one recorded in Mark, "when the sun had risen"; and the middle ones are those in John and in Luke; therefore those seen at each time are distinct. For late on the Sabbath, one angel from the tomb; after him, the Savior himself; but early, while it was still dark, two angels inside the tomb; after them, again the same Savior. And at deep dawn, according to Luke, two other men, so named, seen not inside the tomb. Then afterward, after all of these, the young man, who was seen by the women who arrived when the sun had risen. If, then, all had stated one time and recorded the same place, yet did not indicate the same appearances, one might reasonably have found fault. But if they distinguished the times, and assigned to each time also a distinct place, then consistently they recorded also different visions. So if all had been mindful of one appearance, and had said that one angel was seen, or had agreed in mentioning two angels, or again two men or one young man—

Then they would have differed in times, or would not have indicated the same places, and in this way too there would have been grounds for blame. But as it is, the account remains accurate and beyond reproach, introducing the visions as varying in different times and places, and again their beholders as different—the first two being different from the second, and the third likewise different from the fourth. So then, immediately after the young man's address to the last women, whose names are not recorded, Mark adds: "And when they heard it, they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." These women, then, were of such a sort, and fearful, and exceedingly timid, so as not even to be persuaded by the young man when he said to them: "Go and tell his disciples and Peter, 'Behold, he goes before you into Galilee.'" For having heard these words, they did the opposite; whereas the women in Luke, after turning back from the tomb, reported all these things to the eleven. Likewise also the woman in John comes to the disciples reporting what she had seen. But only the women in Mark, having come last of all, and truly having come very late, so as to arrive after sunrise, are deemed worthy neither to see the Savior, nor the angel flashing like lightning, nor the two inside the tomb, nor the two men in Luke; but they saw a mere young man clothed in a white robe, seeing the vision in proportion to the smallness of their understanding; and though they beheld him in white garments because of the festival, nevertheless they were amazed; for Mark testified this to them—although in the case of the earlier women, amazement is nowhere mentioned.

It is likely that Magdalene, who was free of other occupations and devoted herself closely, not only beheld the first appearances of the things seen to her alone, but also the young man seen by the other women in Mark. You could say the same about the account in Luke, who, after the arrival of the many women and after the sight of the two men who appeared to them, relates, saying: "And having turned back from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven." To which he adds: "It was Magdalene Mary," and the rest. For it was not unlikely that even now again Magdalene, who had arrived long before and had remained steadfastly at the tomb, was found there when many women who had come together from Galilee were approaching the grave bringing the spices, so that she too, together with the rest, beheld the two men and heard their words; then returned with the many and reported to the eleven. But the account can also be understood in another way: assigning the first things to the women from Galilee—I mean the arrival at the tomb, the bringing of the spices, the appearance of the two men that came to them, and their words to them—while the report to the eleven was no longer made by them alone, but by all together, each recounting what she had seen; among whom Magdalene was again with the rest, herself reporting to the disciples the things seen to her privately and alone.

8. I also seek to understand that other point: how Mark says that after the Sabbath had passed they prepared spices, whereas Luke says they did this before the Sabbath, on the Preparation day itself. This question too, being interwoven with the earlier inquiries, may receive the same interpretation as those. For we demonstrate that they are not the same women, but that some were those before the Sabbath, on the Preparation day itself, on which the Savior suffered, who busied themselves with the burial; and others were those after the Sabbath. For Luke clearly testifies that these did these things on the very day of the passion, making no mention at all of the names of the women, but simply saying "the women" who had come with him from Galilee. But Mark records by name only three who of themselves took thought for the spices, not on the Preparation day, but after the Sabbath had passed. And that these are different from those in Luke, the things that follow also show. These women, then, in Mark see the young man sitting on the right, who also says to them: "Do not be afraid; you seek Jesus the Nazarene; he has risen, he is not here." But to those in Luke two men stood by in shining garments, and they utter different words, saying: "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" and the rest. And those in Mark, having heard, were to report to the disciples the things commanded; they said nothing to anyone. But those in Luke went and reported to the eleven. So from all these things it is gathered that they are not the same women; and therefore they did not do the things recorded at one and the same time.

9. "While they were speaking these things, Jesus himself stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace to you.'" Here someone might raise the question how the Lord, according to Luke and according to John, who agree in recording these things, came and stood among the eleven disciples gathered together after the resurrection, yet is no longer recorded by both as doing and saying the same things. That the two evangelists wrote down the same appearance, occurring at one and the same hour and day, must first be established; and this would become clear to you if you carefully observe the Scripture. For John, after first saying, "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene comes announcing to the disciples that she had seen the Lord and that he had said these things to her," immediately adds, saying: "When it was evening on that day, the disciples being gathered, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said, 'Peace to you.'" So that from these things it is clear that the events in John took place in the evening of the Lord's day itself, the day of the resurrection; and according to Luke the same day and hour will be found. For he too says: "On the first day of the week, at deep dawn, the women came to the tomb." Then next, that having seen angels, they returned and announced to the disciples what they had beheld. And Peter, hurrying to the tomb, arrives and beholds the linen cloths; and these things took place at deep dawn, on the day of the resurrection. And next the Scripture adds, saying: "And behold, two of them on that same day were going to a village." And these were the men with Cleopas.

With whom, having entered into Emmaus, he took bread, blessed it, and while giving it to them, he became invisible. Then he adds: "And rising up, they returned at that very hour to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together." Then, while they were speaking, Jesus stood in their midst and says to them, "Peace to you," and so on. It has therefore been shown also from Luke that it was the same day, and the same hour is established from the fact that on one day those around Cleopas came to Emmaus, and from there returned to Jerusalem, evening by then having certainly already come on; then the appearance took place. Since, therefore, the same vision has appeared in both, come, let us see how the Savior is said to have done and spoken different things in Luke, and different things in John. Similarly, then, it is said in both that, standing in their midst, he said to them, "Peace to you." But in Luke it is distinctly added that they thought they were seeing a spirit, and so on. But even if not so many things are said in John, yet what follows again was in agreement in both. For in John, after "Peace to you," it is added, "And having said this, he showed them his hands and his side." But the reason is not recorded in John, as being already stated in Luke; and this was that they thought they were seeing a spirit; that he showed them his hands and his side, John having testified, would be in agreement with the one who also set down the reason. Next after these things, Luke says, "But while they were still disbelieving from joy and marveling, he said to them, 'Do you have anything edible here?'

But they gave him a piece of broiled fish. John did not record these things. It is fitting that we apply our mind to what has been set before us, namely that, as also in the other matters, the Holy Spirit brought to remembrance through John the more august and more divine deeds and teachings of our Savior, but recorded the more human things through the others—which indeed he has done also now. For when the disciples, seeing the Savior, thought that they were not beholding him but a spirit, and disbelieved him, and even after he had necessarily shown them his hands and feet, while they were still disbelieving, he asked for something to eat and ate before them. These things, being more bodily and charging the apostles with much disbelief, and showing the condescension of the Savior himself as he persuaded them and clearly demonstrated that it was truly he, the Spirit prompted Luke, as being inferior, to write; but the better things and those indicative of divine power he set forth through John, who himself writes these things in sequence: "The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord." He said therefore to them again, "Peace to you; as the Father has sent me, I also send you; and having said this, he breathed on them," and what follows. And the account in both would have a sequence, if we should reckon that the things in Luke were done first, and then in this way after those we should join the things in John. For while they were still disbelieving, he both asked for food, and, not satisfied with the eating of the fish, he also strengthened them with words, reminding them of the former teaching according to Luke.

But when at last they were convinced and fully assured that it was truly he, and were now filled with joy, then he gives them a second peace, another and better than the first, and he exhorts them to be ready for the apostolate, promising that they themselves would be almost like him through the same work. Then, in sequence and consequently, he breathes on them the Holy Spirit, as those who needed it for the promise that follows next; and this was the ability to forgive sins through the power of the Holy Spirit. And in this way, from both evangelists a single harmonious account will be completed—the things spoken by Luke having been passed over in silence by John, and the things handed down in writing by John having been kept in silence by Luke; and the things spoken by Luke coming first, and those by John joined in sequence to them; and thus the things in both preserving one mind and one meaning. So much for this matter. 10. But how is it that in Matthew an angel appeared to the women and instructed them to report to his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and goes before you into

Galilee, there you will see him; and likewise in Mark the young man, whom they saw sitting on the right, said these things to the women. But in Luke, in Jerusalem itself, when the eleven disciples had gathered together in the same place and were relating to one another the things concerning his resurrection, he stood in their midst and conversed with them, and ate a portion of broiled fish before them. And according to John also, in Jerusalem itself again, not once but a second time he appeared to the eleven: first on the very day of the resurrection, at evening; then eight days later. How then, according to Luke and John, when he appeared so many times to the disciples in Jerusalem itself, according to Mark and Matthew are the same disciples commanded through the women to go away into Galilee, as though they would see him there, and not about to behold him in Jerusalem? Further, if the writing of the Gospels knew only the eleven disciples of the Savior, then someone might say that the account lacks nothing, if for a time, healing his disciples who disbelieved the women's reports, he appeared once and a second time to them as they hid secretly in Jerusalem.

In Galilee, however, he no longer made his divine manifestation and the display of his divinity in a hidden manner, nor once or twice only, nor to men shut in for fear of the Jews, but with great boldness, presenting himself to them alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them over forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God, and lodging with them, as Luke says in the Acts. And this is the first solution. But since some of the disciples, the chosen and foremost, made up the choir of the twelve, and a second order besides these was that of the seventy, concerning whom Luke says in the Gospel, "After these things the Lord appointed also other seventy," and besides these there were also many others who were known to the Savior, whom the holy Apostle also mentioned, saying, "Then he appeared to above five hundred brethren"—and these very men had been deemed worthy of the name of disciples—it was not possible for him to appear after the resurrection to all of them gathered together at the same time in Jerusalem. Reasonably, then, two of the evangelists, Luke and John, record that he appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven only. But the other two said that both the Savior himself and the angel who appeared to them urged not only the eleven to hasten to Galilee, but simply all the disciples and brethren, designating all of them indefinitely and without restriction. But the first solution is better and truer; therefore the appearances to the disciples after the resurrection were more numerous and of various kinds.

And some say that he spoke these things, while others say that he also did these things; and sometimes, when speaking about the main point, the second fills in what was left out by the first. 11. But one might ask, how is it that Matthew says that the eleven, having gone to the mountain of Galilee, saw Jesus, while John records that after the two appearances in Jerusalem he was seen a third time, not on the mountain of Galilee, but by the sea of Galilee? I myself agree that this was truly the third time the Savior was seen by the disciples: the first on the very day of the resurrection, on which Mary Magdalene saw him in the morning—and Luke also records this first appearance; and the second eight days later, that is, on the other Sunday, when the Savior appeared again and healed Thomas of his unbelief, showing him his side and his hands. But since they had been commanded to meet together in Galilee, the eleven also did what was commanded along with the rest, and each of them gathered together, while the eleven were not yet assembled but were still intending to, the third time by the sea of Galilee he appears, not to the eleven, but to those alone

seven to those indicated by John; and these were Peter and Thomas and Nathanael, and the two sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. This, then, was truly the third time he appeared to these, while the eleven were not yet gathered together. Therefore John, not precisely excluding the rest from the Savior's appearance, noted that after the first and second appearance, he made the third to those named alone at the Sea of Galilee. And it is not unlikely that after these things he was seen also a fourth and a fifth time, and at other times and often; therefore John does not describe all the Savior's deeds; but proceeding in order he says, "And Jesus did many other things." After, then, he appeared this third time to the seven mentioned, you would not err in saying that the fourth appearance is the one in Matthew, which he records was made to the eleven on the mountain. And after these, you would not be mistaken in saying that he was seen at the same time by the eleven and the seventy gathered together. But Paul records that the Savior was seen after the resurrection by even more than these, having learned this from others; for "He appeared," he says, "to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to five hundred, then to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all," he says, "to me also." Do you see how often and to how many he appeared after the resurrection? Thus he appeared also to those hiding in Jerusalem; and before them to those around Cleopas going to Emmaus; and before all, to Simon among men, and to Mary Magdalene among women.

Hence Luke in the Acts, since he had often shown himself to the disciples, observes, saying, that for forty days appearing to them and conversing with them, he delivered the teachings concerning the kingdom of God, and he urged them to set out for Jerusalem, and there to proclaim the word to the Jews first; and not to depart from the city before that, but to wait for the promise of the Father, concerning which we shall discuss a little later.