Chapter LXXX.—Of the Harmony Characterizing the Accounts Which are Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, of the Occasion on Which He Sent His Disciples to Make Preparations for His Eating the Passover.

157. Matthew proceeds thus: “Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas [of] Scarioth, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver;” and so on down to the words, “And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they made ready the passover.”719    Matt. xxvi. 14–19. Nothing in this section can be supposed to stand in any contradiction with the versions of Mark and Luke, who record this same passage in a similar manner.720    Mark xiv. 10–16; Luke xxii. 3–13. For as regards the statement given by Matthew in these terms, “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand: I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples,”721    Matt. xxvi. 18. it just indicates the person whom Mark and Luke name the “goodman of the house,”722    Patrem familias. or the “master of the house,”723    Dominum domus. in which the dining-room was shown them where they were to make ready the passover. And Matthew has expressed this by simply bringing in the phrase, “to such a man,” as a brief explanation introduced by himself with the view of succinctly giving us to understand who the person referred to was. For if he had said that the Lord addressed them in words like these: “Go into the city, and say unto him [or “it”],724    Ite in civitatem et dicite ei. Turning on the identity of form retained by the Latin pronoun in all the genders of the dative case, this, of course, cannot be precisely represented in English. The Master saith, My time is at hand, I will keep the passover at thy house,” it might have been supposed that the terms were intended to be directed to the city itself. For this reason, therefore, Matthew has inserted the statement, that the Lord bade them go “to such a man,” not, however, as a statement made by the Lord, whose instructions he was recording, but simply as one volunteered by himself, with the view of avoiding the necessity of narrating the whole at length, when it seemed to him that this was all that required to be mentioned in order to bring out with sufficient accuracy what was really meant by the person who gave the order. For who can fail to see that no one naturally speaks to others in such an indefinite fashion as this, “Go ye to such a man”? If, again, the words had been, “Go ye to any one whatsoever,” or “to any one you please,”725    Ad quemcunque aut ad quemlibet. the mode of expression might have been correct enough, but the person to whom the disciples were sent would have been left uncertain: whereas Mark and Luke present him as a certain definitely indicated individual, although they pass over his name in silence. The Lord Himself, we may be sure, knew to what person it was that He despatched them. And in order that those also whom He was thus sending might be able to discover the individual meant, He gave them, before they set out, a particular sign which they were to follow,—namely, the appearance of a man bearing a pitcher or a vessel of water,—and told them, that if they went after him, they would reach the house which He intended. Hence, seeing that it was not competent here to employ the phraseology, “Go to any one you please,” which is indeed legitimate enough, so far as the demands of linguistic propriety are concerned, but which an accurate statement of the matter dealt with here renders inadmissible in this passage, with how much less warrant could an expression like this have been used here (by the speaker Himself), “Go to such a man,” which the usage of correct language can never admit at all? But it is manifest that the disciples were sent by the Lord, plainly, not to any man they pleased, but to “such a man,” that is to say, to a certain definite individual. And that is a thing which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, could quite rightly have related to us, by putting it in this way: “He sent them to such a man,726    Ad quendam. in order to say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house.” He might also have expressed it thus: “He sent them to such a man, saying, Go, say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house.” And thus it is that, after giving us the words actually spoken by the Lord Himself, namely, “Go into the city,” he has introduced this addition of his own, “to such a man,” which he does, however, not as if the Lord had thus expressed Himself, but simply with the view of giving us to understand, although the name is left unrecorded, that there was a particular person in the city to whom the Lord’s disciples were sent, in order to make ready the passover. Thus, too, after the two [or three] words brought in that manner as an explanation of his own, he takes up again the order of the words as they were uttered by the Lord Himself, namely, “And say unto him, The Master saith.” And if you ask now “to whom” they were to say this, the correct reply is given [at once] in these terms, To that particular man to whom the evangelist has given us to understand that the Lord sent them, when, speaking in His own person, he introduced the clause, “to such a man.” The clause thus inserted may indeed contain a rather unusual mode of expression, but still it is a perfectly legitimate phraseology when it is thus understood. Or it may be, that in the Hebrew language, in which Matthew is reported to have written, there is some peculiar usage which might make it entirely accordant with the laws of correct expression, even were the whole taken to have been spoken by the Lord Himself. Whether that is the case, those who understand that tongue may decide. Even in the Latin language itself, indeed, this kind of expression might also be used, in terms like these: “Go into the city to such a man as may be indicated by a person who shall meet you carrying a pitcher of water.” If the instructions were conveyed in such words as these, they could be acted upon without any ambiguity. Or again, if the terms were anything like these, “Go into the city to such a man, who resides in this or the other place, in such and such a house,” then the note thus given of the place and the designation of the house would make it quite possible to understand the commission delivered, and to execute it. But when these instructions, and all others of a similar order, are left entirely untold, the person who in such circumstances uses this kind of address, “Go to such a man, and say unto him,” cannot possibly be listened to intelligently for this obvious reason, that when he employs the terms, “to such a man,” he intends a certain particular individual to be understood by them, and yet offers us no hint by which he may be identified. But if we are to suppose that the clause referred to is one introduced as an explanation by the evangelist himself, [we may find that] the requirements of brevity will render the expression somewhat obscure, without, however, making it incorrect. Moreover, as to the fact, that where Mark speaks of a pitcher727    Lagenam, bottle. of water, Luke mentions a vessel,728    Amphoram, large measure. the simple explanation is, that the one has used a word indicative of the kind of vessel, and the other a term indicative of its capacity, while both evangelists have nevertheless preserved the real meaning actually intended.

158. Matthew proceeds thus: “Now when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve disciples; and as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?” and so on, down to where we read, “Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.”729    Matt. xxvi. 20–25. In what we have now presented for consideration here, the other three evangelists,730    Mark xiv. 17–21; Luke xxii. 14–23; John xiii. 21–27. who also record such matters, offer nothing calculated to raise any question of serious difficulty.731    [No notice is taken by Augustin, in this treatise, of the most serious difficulty connected with the narratives of the Lord’s Supper; namely, that of the day of the month on which it was instituted. The Synoptists distinctly declare that our Lord ate the passover supper with His disciples at the regular time (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7), but some passages in John (xiii. 1, 27–30; xviii. 28; xix. 31) seem to indicate that the proper time of its observance had not yet come. Hence many commentators think that the Lord’s Supper was instituted on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, one day before the regular time of the paschal supper.—R.]

CAPUT LXXX. Ubi mittit discipulos ut praeparent ei manducare Pascha, quomodo inter se congruant Matthaeus, Marcus et Lucas.

157. Sequitur Matthaeus: Tunc abiit unus de duodecim qui dicitur Judas Scarioth, ad principes sacerdotum, et ait illis: Quid vultis mihi dare, et ego vobis eum tradam? At illi constituerunt ei triginta argenteos, etc., usque ad illud, ubi ait, Et fecerunt discipuli sicut constituit illis Jesus, et paraverunt Pascha (Matth. XXVI, 14-19). Nihil in hoc capitulo contrarium putari potest Marco et Lucae, qui hoc idem similiter narrant (Marc. XIV, 10-16, et Luc. XXII, 3-13). Quod enim dicit Matthaeus Ite in civitatem ad quemdam, et dicite ei: Magister dicit, Tempus meum prope est, apud te facio Pascha cum discipulis meis, eum significat quem Marcus et Lucas dicunt patremfamilias vel dominum domus, in qua eis coenaculum demonstratum est, ubi pararent Pascha: quod ergo interposuit Matthaeus, ad quemdam, tanquam ex persona sua studio brevitatis illum compendio voluit insinuare. Si enim diceret dixisse Dominum, Ite in civitatem, et dicite ei, Magister dicit, Tempus meum prope est, apud te facio Pascha; tanquam civitati dicendum esset, acciperetur. Ac per hoc non ex Domini, cujus mandatum narrabat, sed ex sua persona interposuit, ad quemdam jussisse Dominum ut irent, ne haberet necesse totum dicere, cum hoc illi ad insinuandam jubentis sententiam sufficere videretur. Nam neminem sic loqui, ut dicat, Ite ad quemdam, quis nesciat? Si enim diceret, Ite ad quemcumque, aut, ad quemlibet; posset esse integra locutio, sed non esset certus homo ad quem mitterentur : cum eum certum ostendant, quamvis tacito ejus nomine, Marcus et Lucas. Sciebat quippe Dominus ad quem mitteret. Et ut eum etiam illi quos mittebat, invenire possent, praemonuit quod indicium sequerentur, de homine gestante aquae lagenam vel amphoram, ut eum secuti, ad domum quam volebat, venirent. Cum itaque non hic posset dici, Ite ad quemlibet, quod integritas quidem locutionis admittit, sed hoc loco rei hujus quae insinuabatur veritas non admittit; quanto minus hic dici potuit, Ite ad quemdam, quod omnino nunquam recta locutione dici potest? Sed plane discipulos a Domino, non ad quemlibet, sed ad quemdam hominem, id est, ad certum aliquem missos esse manifestum est. Quod nobis ex persona sua recte potuit Evangelista narrare, ut diceret, Misit eos ad quemdam, ut dicerent ei, Apud te facio Pascha. Potuit etiam sic, Misit eos ad quemdam dicens: Ite, dicite ei, Apud te facio Pascha. Ac per hoc cum verba Domini posuisset dicentis, Ite in civitatem; interposuit ipse, ad quemdam: non quia hoc 1157 Dominus dixerit, sed ut ipse nobis insinuaret tacito nomine fuisse quemdam in civitate, ad quem Domini discipuli mittebantur, ut praepararent Pascha. Ac sic post hanc ex persona sua interpositionem duorum verborum, sequitur ordinem verborum Domini dicentis, Et dicite ei, Magister dicit. Jam enim si quaeras, Cui? recte respondetur, Illi cuidam homini, ad quem misisse insinuavit Evangelista, cum ex persona sua interposuisset, ad quemdam: minus quidem usitata locutio, sed tamen sic intellecta integerrima est; aut si habet aliquid proprietatis hebraea lingua, qua perhibetur scripsisse Matthaeus, ut etiam totum ex persona Domini dictum locutionis integritate non careat, viderint qui noverunt. Sane ita posset etiam latine dici, si diceretur, Ite in civitatem ad quemdam, quem vobis demonstraverit homo qui vobis occurrerit lagenam aquae portans: hoc modo jubenti sine ambiguitate posset obtemperari. Velut etiam si diceret, Ite in civitatem ad quemdam qui manet illo aut illo loco, in tali vel tali domo; cum expressione loci et designatione domus; posset intelligi, posset fieri. His autem 1158 atque hujusmodi caeteris tacitis indiciis qui dicit, Ite ad quemdam, et dicite ei, ideo non potest audiri, quia certum aliquem vult intelligi, cum dicit, ad quemdam, et non exprimit quomodo dignoscatur. Quod si ex persona Evangelistae dictum illud interpositum acceperimus, erit quidem necessitate brevitatis subobscura locutio, sed tamen integra. Quod vero Marcus lagenam dicit, quam Lucas amphoram; ille vasis genus, ille modum significavit: uterque tamen veritatem sententiae custodivit.

158. Sequitur Matthaeus: Vespere autem facto discumbebat cum duodecim discipulis; et edentibus illis dixit: Amen dico vobis, quia unus vestrum me traditurus est. Et contristati valde, coeperunt singuli dicere: Numquid ego sum, Domine? etc., usque ad illud ubi ait, Respondens autem Judas qui tradidit eum, dixit: Numquid ego sum, Rabbi? Ait illi: Tu dixisti (Matth. XXVI, 20-25). In his quae consideranda nunc proposuimus, nihil afferunt quaestionis etiam caeteri Evangelistae, qui talia commemorant (Marc. XIV, 17-21: Luc. XXII, 14-23, et Joan. XIII, 21-27).