Chapter XXIV.—Of the Absence of All Discrepancies in the Narratives Constructed by the Four Evangelists on the Subject of the Events Which Took Place About the Time of the Lord’s Resurrection.

61. Matthew proceeds thus: “And there was there Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.”977    Matt. xxvii. 61. This is given by Mark as follows: “And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joseph, beheld where He was laid.”978    Mark xv. 47. So far it is evident that there is no kind of inconsistency between the accounts.

62. Matthew continues in these terms: “Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we have remembered that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch; go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.”979    Matt. xxvii. 62–66. This narrative is given only by Matthew. Nothing, however, is stated by any of the others which can have the appearance of contrariety.

63. Again, the same Matthew carries on his recital as follows: “Now, in the evening of the Sabbath,980    Vespere autem Sabbati. [The Greek does not present the difficulty which is found in the Latin text, and discussed by Augustin in § 65 (latter part). The phrase is properly rendered in the Revised Version, “Now late on the Sabbath day.”—R.] when it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, 981    The editions often give, in prima Sabbati = on the first day of the week. The best mss. read, as above, in primam, etc. came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. And his countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you.”982    Matt. xxviii. 1–7. Mark is in harmony with this. It is possible, however, that some difficulty may be felt in the circumstance that, according to Matthew’s version, the stone was already rolled away from the sepulchre, and the angel was sitting upon it. For Mark tells us that the women entered into the sepulchre, and there saw a young man sitting on the right side, covered with a long white garment, and that they were affrighted.983    Mark xvi. 5. But the explanation may be, that Matthew has simply said nothing about the angel whom they saw when they entered into the sepulchre, and that Mark has said nothing about the one whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone. In this way they would have seen two angels, and have got two separate angelic reports relating to Jesus,—namely, first one from the angel whom they saw sitting outside upon the stone, and then another from the angel whom they saw sitting on the right side when they entered into the sepulchre. Thus, too, the injunction given them by the angel who was sitting outside, and which was conveyed in the words, “Come, and see the place where the Lord lay,” would have served to encourage them to go within the tomb; on coming to which, as has been said, and venturing within it, we may suppose them to have seen the angel concerning whom Matthew tells us nothing, but of whom Mark discourses, sitting on the right side, from whom also they heard things of like tenor to those they had previously listened to. Or if this explanation is not satisfactory, we ought certainly to accept the theory that, as they entered into the sepulchre, they came within a section of the ground where, it is reasonable to suppose, a certain space had been by that time securely enclosed, extending a little distance in front of the rock which had been cut out in order to construct the place of sepulture; so that, according to this view, what they really beheld was the one angel sitting on the right side, in the space thus referred to, which same angel Matthew also represents to have been sitting upon the stone which he had rolled away from the mouth of the tomb when the earthquake took place, that is to say, from the place which had been dug out in the rock for a sepulchre.

64. It may also be asked how it is that Mark says: “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they anything to any man; for they were afraid;”984    Mark xvi. 8. whereas Matthew’s statement is in these terms: “And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring His disciples word.985    Matt. xxviii. 8. The explanation, however, may be that the women did not venture to tell either of the angels themselves,—that is, they had not courage enough to say anything in reply to what they had heard from the angels. Or, indeed, it may be that they were not bold enough to speak to the guards whom they saw lying there; for the joy which Matthew mentions is not inconsistent with the fear of which Mark takes notice. Indeed, we ought to have supposed that both feelings had possession of their minds, even although Matthew himself had said nothing about the fear. But now, when this evangelist also particularizes it, saying, “They departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy,” he allows nothing to remain which can occasion any question of difficulty on this subject.

65. At the same time, a question, which is not to be dealt with lightly, does arise here with respect to the exact hour at which the women came to the sepulchre. For when Matthew says, “Now, on the evening of the Sabbath, when it was dawning toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,” what are we to make of Mark’s statement, which runs thus: “And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun”?986    Mark xvi. 2. [Mark’s expression, according to the Greek text is more explicit: “when the sun was risen.” But this is to be explained by the context, as Augustin indicates.—R.] It is to be observed that in this Mark states nothing inconsistent with the reports given by other two of the evangelists, namely, Luke and John. For when Luke says, “Very early in the morning,” and when John puts it thus, “Early, when it was yet dark,” they convey the same sense which Mark is understood to express when he says, “Very early, at the rising of the sun;” that is to say, they all refer to the period when the heavens were now beginning to brighten in the east, which, of course, does not take place but when the sunrise is at hand. For it is the brightness which is diffused by the rising sun that is familiarly designated by the name of the dawn.987    Auroræ. Consequently, Mark does not contradict the other evangelist who uses the phrase, “When it was yet dark;” for as the day breaks, what remains of the darkness [of the night] passes away just in proportion as the sun continues to rise. And this phrase, “Very early in the morning,” need not be taken to mean that the sun itself was actually seen by this time [blazing] over the lands; but it is rather to be taken as like the kind of expression which we are in the habit of employing when speaking to people to whom we wish to intimate that something should be done more betimes than usual. For when we have used the term, “Early in the morning,”988    Mane. if we wish to keep the persons addressed from supposing that we refer directly to the time when the sun is already conspicuously visible over earth, we usually add the word “very,” and say, “very early in the morning,” in order that they may clearly understand that we allude to the time which is also called the daybreak.989    Albescente. At the same time, it is also customary for men, after the cockcrow has been repeatedly heard, and when they begin to surmise that the day is now approaching, to say, “It is now early in the morning;”990    Mane. and when after this they weigh their words and observe that, as the sun now rises,—that is to say, as it now makes its immediate advent into these parts,—the sky is just beginning to redden, or to brighten, those who said, “It is early in the morning,” then amplify their expression and say, “It is very early in the morning.” But what does it matter, provided only that, whichever method of explanation be preferred, we understand that what is meant by Mark, when he uses the terms “early in the morning,”991    Mane. is just the same as is intended by Luke when he adopts the phrase, “in the morning;”992    Diluculo. and that the whole expression employed by the former—namely, “very early in the morning”993    Valde mane.—amounts to the same as that which we find in Luke—namely, “very early in the dawn,”994    Valde diluculo.—and as that which is chosen by John when he says, “early, when it was yet dark”?995    Mane cum adhuc tenebræ essent. Moreover, when Mark speaks of the “rising of the sun,” he just means that by its rising the sun was now beginning to bring the light in upon the sky. But the question now is this: how can Matthew be in harmony with these three when he says neither “in the early morning” nor “early in the morning,” but “in the evening of the Sabbath, when it was beginning to dawn toward the first day of the week”? This is a matter which must be carefully investigated. 996    [The difficulty arises from taking vespere in its technical sense, as referring to the previous evening. As already intimated (see note on § 63), the Greek does not necessarily imply this.—R.] Now, under that first part of the night, which is [here called] the evening, Matthew intended to refer to this particular night, at the close of which the women came to the sepulchre. And we understand his reason for so referring to the said night to have been this: that by the time of the evening it was lawful for them to bring the spices, because the Sabbath was then indeed over. Consequently, as they were hindered by the Sabbath from doing so previously, he has given a designation of the night, taken from the time at which it began to be a lawful thing for them to do what they did at any period of the same night which pleased them. Thus, therefore, the phrase “in the evening of the Sabbath” is used, as if what was said had been “in the night of the Sabbath,” or in other words, in the night which follows the day of the Sabbath. The express words which he employs thus indicate this with sufficient clearness. For his terms are these: “Now, in the evening of the Sabbath, when it began to dawn toward the first day of the week;” and that could not be the case if what we had to understand to be denoted by the mention of the “evening” was simply the first short space of the night, or in other words, only the beginning of the night. For what can be said “to begin to dawn toward the first day of the week” is not explicitly the beginning [of the night], but the night itself, as it commences to be brought to its close by the advance of the light. For the terminus of the first part of the night is just the beginning of the second part, but the terminus of the whole night is the light. Hence we could not speak of the evening as dawning toward the first day of the week unless under the term “evening” we should understand the night itself to be meant, which, as a whole, is brought to its close by the light. It is also a familiar method of speech in divine Scripture to express the whole under the part; and thus, under the word “evening” here, the evangelist has denoted the whole night, which finds its extreme point in the dawn.997    Diluculo. For it was in the dawn that those women came to the sepulchre; and in this way they really came on the night, which is here indicated by the term “evening.” For, as I have said, the night as a whole is denoted by that word; consequently, at whatever period of that night they might have come, they certainly did come in the said night. And, accordingly, if they came at the latest point in that night, it is still unquestionably the case that they did come in the said night. But it could not be said to be on “the evening, when it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” unless the night as a whole can be understood under that expression. Accordingly, the women who came in the night referred to, came in the evening specified. And if they came at any period, even the latest during that night, they surely came in the night itself.

66. For the space of three days, which elapsed between the Lord’s death and resurrection, cannot be correctly understood except in the light of that form of expression according to which the part is dealt with as the whole.998    A sentence is sometimes added here in the editions, namely, Hinc magna redditur ratio verbi Domini = hence a large account is given of the Lord’s word. It is omitted in the mss. For He said Himself, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”999    Matt. xii. 40. Now, in whichever way we reckon the times, whether from the point when He yielded up the ghost, or from the date of his burial, the sum does not come out clearly, unless we take the intermediate day, that is to say, the Sabbath, as a complete day—in other words, a full day along with its night,—and, on the other hand, understand those days between which that one intervenes—that is to say, the day of the preparation and the first day of the week, which we designate the Lord’s day—to be dealt with on the principle of the part standing for the whole. For of what avail is it that some, hard pressed by these difficulties, and not knowing the very large part which the mode of expression referred to—namely, that which takes the part as the whole—plays in the matter of solving the problems presented in the Holy Scriptures, have struck out the idea of reckoning as a distinct night those three hours, namely, from the sixth hour to the ninth, during which the sun was darkened, and as a distinct day the other three hours, during which the sun was restored again to the lands, that is to say, from the ninth hour on to its setting? For the night connected with the coming Sabbath follows, and if we compute it along with its day, there will then be two days and two nights. But, further, after the Sabbath there comes in the night connected with the first day of the week, that is to say, with the dawning of the Lord’s day, which was the time when the Lord arose. Consequently, the result to which this mode of calculation leads us will be just two days and two nights, and one night, even supposing it possible to take the last as a complete night, and taking it for granted that we were not to show that the said dawn was in reality the ultimate portion of the same. Thus it would appear that, even although we were to compute these six hours in that fashion, during three of which the sun was darkened, and during the other three of which it shone forth again, we would not establish a satisfactory reckoning of three days and three nights. In accordance, therefore, with the usage which meets us so frequently in the language of the Scriptures, and which deals with the part as the whole, it remains for us to hold the time of the preparation to constitute the day at the one extremity,1000    The text gives, extremum diem tempus parasceues. One of the Vatican mss. reads primum diem, etc. = the first day. on which the Lord was crucified and buried, and, from that limit, to find one whole day along with its night which was fully spent. In this way, too, we must take the intermediate member, that is to say the day of the Sabbath, not as calculated simply from the part, but as a really complete day. The third day, again, must be computed from its first part; that is to say, calculating from the night, we must look upon it as making up a whole day when its day-portion is connected with it. Thus we shall get a space of three days, on the analogy of a case already considered, namely, those eight days after which the Lord went up into a mountain; with respect to which period we find that Matthew and Mark, fixing their attention simply on the complete days intervening, have put it thus, “After six days,” whereas Luke’s representation of the same is this, “An eight days after.”1001    See above, Book ii. chap. 56, § 113.

67. Let us now proceed, therefore, to look into the rest of this passage, and see how in other respects these statements are quite consistent with what is given by Matthew. For Luke tells us, with the utmost plainness, that two angels were seen by those women who came to the sepulchre. One of these angels we have understood to be referred to by each of the first two evangelists; that is to say, one of them is noticed by Matthew, namely, the one who was sitting outside upon the stone, and a second by Mark, namely, the one who was sitting within the sepulchre on the right side. But Luke’s version of the scene is to the following effect: “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women which had come with Him from Galilee beheld the sepulchre, and how His body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day, according to the commandment.1002    [The Greek text connects closely this clause with the following one. Comp. Revised Version.—R.] Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared.1003    The words, “and certain others with them,” are omitted here. [So the Greek text, according to the best authorities. Comp. Revised Version.—R.] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments; and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered His words. And they returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.”1004    Luke xxiii. 54-xxiv. 12. The question, therefore, is this, how can these angels have been seen sitting each one separately,—namely, one outside upon the stone, according to Matthew, and another within upon the right side, according to Mark,—if Luke’s report of the same bears that the two stood beside those women, although the words ascribed to them are similar? Well, it is still possible for us to suppose that one angel was seen by the women in the position assigned by Matthew, and in the circumstances indicated by Mark, as we have already explained. In this way, we may understand the said women to have entered into the sepulchre, that is to say, into a certain space which had been fenced off within a kind of enclosure, in such a manner that an entrance might be said to be made when they came in front of the rocky place in which the sepulchre was constructed; and there we may take them to have beheld the angel sitting upon the stone which had been rolled away from the tomb, as Matthew tells us, or in other words, the angel sitting on the right side, as Mark expresses it.1005    [Matthew tells nothing of their entering the tomb; but Mark distinctly affirms this, as does Luke.—R.] And then we may further surmise that the said women, after they had gone within, and when they were looking at the place where the body of the Lord lay, saw other two angels standing, as Luke informs us, by whom they were addressed in similar terms, with a view to animate their minds and edify their faith.1006    [The view that there were two parties of women is not noticed by Augustin. His explanations are in the main pertinent, though harmonists and commentators still disagree in regard to the details.—R.]

68. But let us also examine John’s version, and see whether or in what manner its consistency with these others is apparent. John, then, narrates these incidents as follows: “Now the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciples whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he, stooping down, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and, as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. They say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her.”1007    John xx. 1–18. In the narrative thus given by John, the statement of the day or time when the sepulchre was come to agrees with the accounts presented by the rest. Again, in the report of two angels who were seen, he is also at one with Luke. But when we observe how the one evangelist tells us that these angels were seen standing, while the other says that they were sitting; when we notice, also, that there are certain other things which are left unrecorded by these two writers; and, further, when we consider how questions are thus raised regarding the possibility of proving the consistency of the one set of historians with the other on these subjects, and of fixing the order in which those said things took place, we see that, unless we submit the whole to a careful examination, there may easily appear to be contradictions here between the several narratives.

69. This being the case, therefore, let us, so far as the Lord may help us, take all these incidents, which took place about the time of the Lord’s resurrection, as they are brought before us in the statements of all the evangelists together, and let us arrange them in one connected narrative, which will exhibit them precisely as they may have actually occurred. It was in the early morning of the first day of the week, as all the evangelists are at one in attesting, that the women came to the sepulchre. By that time, all that is recorded by Matthew alone had already taken place; that is to say, in regard to the quaking of the earth, and the rolling away of the stone, and the terror of the guards, with which they were so stricken, that in some part they lay like dead men. Then, as John informs us, came Mary Magdalene, who unquestionably was surpassingly more ardent in her love than these other women1008    The text follows the mss. in reading sine dubio cæteris mulieribus…plurimum dilectione ferventior. Some editions insert cum before cæteris mulieribus; in which case the sense would be = Mary Magdalene, unquestionably accompanied by the other women who had ministered to the Lord, but herself more ardent, etc. who had ministered to the Lord; so that it was not unreasonable in John to make mention of her alone, leaving those others unnamed, who, however, were along with her, as we gather from the reports given by others of the evangelists. She came accordingly; and when she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre, without pausing to make any more minute investigation, and never doubting but that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, she ran, as the same John states, and told the state of matters to Peter and to John himself. For John is himself that disciple whom Jesus loved. They then set out running to the sepulchre; and John, reaching the spot first, stooped down and saw the linen clothes lying, but he did not go within. But Peter followed up, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, which had been about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then John entered also, and saw in like manner, and believed what Mary had told him, namely, that the Lord had been taken away from the sepulchre. “For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping,”1009    John xx. 9, 10.—that is to say, before the place in the rock in which the sepulchre was constructed, but at the same time within that space into which they had now entered; for there was a garden there, as the same John mentions.1010    John xix. 41. Then they saw the angel sitting on the right side, upon the stone which was rolled away from the sepulchre; of which angel both Matthew and Mark discourse. “Then he said unto them, Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay: and go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you.”1011    Matt. xxviii. 5–7. In Mark we also find a passage similar in tenor to the above. At these words, Mary, still weeping, bent down and looked forwards into the sepulchre, and beheld the two angels, who are introduced to us in John’s narrative, sitting in white raiment, one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been deposited. “They say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him.”1012    John xx. 13. Here we are to suppose the angels to have risen up, so that they could be seen standing, as Luke states that they were seen, and then, according to the narrative of the same Luke, to have addressed the women, as they were afraid and bowed down their faces to the earth. The terms were these: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise. And they remembered His words.”1013    Luke xxiv. 5–8. It was after this that, as we learn from John, “Mary turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing Him to be the gardener, saith unto Him, Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto Him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”1014    John xx. 13–18. Then she departed from the sepulchre, that is to say, from the ground where there was space for the garden in front of the stone which had been dug out. Along with her there were also those other women, who, as Mark tells us, were surprised with fear and trembling. And they told nothing to any one. At this point we next take up what Matthew has recorded in the following passage: “Behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.”1015    Matt. xxviii. 9. For thus we gather that, on coming to the sepulchre, they were twice addressed by the angels; and, again, that they were also twice addressed by the Lord Himself, namely, at the point at which Mary took Him to be the gardener, and a second time at present, when He meets them on the way, with a view to strengthen them by such a repetition, and to bring them out of their state of fear. “Then, accordingly, said He unto them, Be not afraid: go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.”1016    Matt. xxviii. 10. “Then came Mary Magdalene, and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her;”1017    John xx. 18.—not herself alone, however, but with her also those other women to whom Luke alludes when he says, “Which told these things unto the eleven disciples, and all the rest. And their words seemed to them like madness, and they believed them not.”1018    Luke xxiv. 10, 11. Mark also attests these facts; for, after telling us how the women went out from the sepulchre, trembling and amazed, and said nothing to any man, he subjoins the statement, that the Lord rose early the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils, and that she went and told them who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept, and that they, when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 1019    [Augustin makes no allusion to the doubtful genuineness of Mark xvi. 9–20. The passage appears in nearly all early Latin codices.—R.] It is further to be observed, that Matthew has also introduced a notice to the effect that, as the women who had seen and heard all these things were going away, there came likewise into the city some of the guards who had been lying like dead men, and that these persons reported to the chief priests all the things that were done, that is to say, those of them which they were themselves also in a position to observe. He tells us, moreover, that when they were assembled with the elders and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, and bade them say that His disciples came and stole Him away while they slept, promising at the same time to secure them against the governor, who had given those guards. Finally, he adds that they took the money, and did as they had been taught, and that this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.1020    Matt. xxviii. 11–15.

CAPUT XXIV. De his quae circa tempus resurrectionis Domini facta sunt, quemadmodum omnes non inter se dissentiant.

61. Sequitur Matthaeus: «Erat autem ibi Maria Magdalene et altera Maria sedentes contra sepulcrum» (Matth. XXVII, 61). Quod Marcus ita dicit: «Maria autem Magdalene et Maria Joseph aspiciebant ubi poneretur» (Marc. XV, 47). Unde nihil eos ex hoc dissentire manifestum est.

62. Sequitur Matthaeus: «Altera autem die, quae est post parasceven, convenerunt principes sacerdotum et Pharisaei ad Pilatum, dicentes: Domine, recordati sumus quia seductor ille dixit adhuc vivens, Post tres dies resurgam: jube ergo custodiri sepulcrum usque in diem tertium; ne forte veniant discipuli ejus, et furentur eum, et dicant plebi, Surrexit a mortuis; et erit novissimus error pejor priore. Ait illis Pilatus: Habetis custodiam, ite, custodite sicut scitis. Illi autem abeuntes munierunt sepulcrum, signantes lapidem, cum custodibus» (Matth. XXVII, 62-66). Hoc solus Matthaeus narrat, nullo aliorum narrante aliquid quod huic videatur esse contrarium.

63. Deinde sequitur idem Matthaeus, et dicit: «Vespere autem sabbati, quae lucescit in primam sabbati , venit Maria Magdalene et altera Maria videre sepulcrum. Et ecce terrae motus factus est magnus. Angelus enim Domini descendit de coelo, et 1197 accedens revolvit lapidem, et sedebat super eum. Erat autem aspectus ejus sicut fulgur, et vestimenta ejus sicut nix. Prae timore autem ejus exterriti sunt custodes, et facti sunt velut mortui. Respondens autem angelus dixit mulieribus: Nolite timere, vos: scio enim quod Jesum qui crucifixus est, quaeritis; non est hic, surrexit enim sicut dixit: venite, et videte locum ubi positus erat Dominus. Et cito euntes dicite discipulis ejus quia surrexit; et ecce praecedit vos in Galilaeam; ibi eum videbitis: ecce dixi vobis» (Matth. XXVIII, 1-15). Huic Marcus consonat (Marc. XVI, 1-11). Sed potest movere quomodo secundum Matthaeum angelus super lapidem sedebat revolutum a monumento: Marcus enim introeuntes eas in monumentum dicit vidisse juvenem sedentem in dextris coopertum stola candida, et obstupuisse: nisi intelligamus aut Matthaeum tacuisse de illo angelo, quem intrantes viderunt; Marcum vero de illo tacuisse, quem foris viderunt sedentem super lapidem: ut duos viderint, et a duobus singillatim audierint quae dixerunt angeli de Jesu, prius ab illo quem foris viderunt sedentem super lapidem, deinde ab illo quem viderunt intrantes in monumentum, sedentem a dextris; quo ut intrarent, illius qui foris sedebat verbis exhortatae sunt dicentis, Venite, et videte locum ubi positus erat Dominus: quo venientes, ut dictum est, et intrantes viderunt eum de quo Matthaeus tacet, Marcus autem loquitur, sedentem a dextris, a quo talia similiter audierunt. Aut certe intrantes in monumentum in aliqua septa maceriae debemus accipere, qua communitum locum tunc fuisse credibile est in aliquo spatio ante petram, qua excisa locus factus fuerat sepulturae: ut ipsum viderint in eodem spatio sedentem a dextris, quem dicit Matthaeus sedentem super lapidem, quem terrae motu ab ostio monumenti revolverat, id est a loco sepulcri, quod effossum erat in petra.

64. Item quaeri potest, quemadmodum Marcus dicat, At illae exeuntes fugerunt de monumento; invaserat enim eas tremor et pavor: et nemini quidquam dixerunt; timebant enim; cum dicat Matthaeus, Et exierunt cito de monumento cum timore et gaudio magno, currentes nuntiare discipulis ejus: nisi intelligamus ipsorum angelorum nemini ausas fuisse aliquid dicere, id est, respondere ad ea quae ab illis audierant, aut certe custodibus quos jacentes viderunt. Nam illud gaudium quod Matthaeus commemorat, non repugnat timori de quo Marcus dicit: debuimus enim utrumque in illarum animo factum intelligere, etiamsi ipse Matthaeus de timore non diceret; cum vero et ipse dicat, Exierunt cito de monumento cum timore et gaudio magno, nihil ex hac re quaestionis remanere permittit.

65. De hora quoque ipsa qua venerunt mulieres ad monumentum, non contemnenda exoritur quaestio. Cum enim Matthaeus dicat, Vespere autem sabbati, quae lucescit in primam sabbati, venit Maria Magdalene et, altera Maria videre sepulcrum: quid est quod dicit 1198 Marcus, Et valde mane una sabbatorum veniunt ad monumentum, oriente jam sole? In quo quidem a caeteris duobus, id est, Luca et Joanne non discrepat. Quod enim dicit Lucas, valde diluculo; et Joannes, mane cum adhuc tenebrae essent: hoc intelligitur Marcus dicere, valde mane, oriente jam sole, id est cum coelum ab orientis parte jam albesceret; quod non fit utique nisi solis orientis vicinitate: ejus enim est ille fulgor qui nomine aurorae appellari solet. Ideo non repugnat illi qui ait, cum adhuc tenebrae essent. Die quippe surgente, aliquae reliquiae tenebrarum tanto magis extenuantur, quanto magis oritur lux. Nec sic accipiendum est quod ait, valde mane, tanquam sol ipse videretur jam super terras: sed potius sicut dicere solemus eis quibus volumus significare temperius aliquid faciendum. Cum enim dixerimus, Mane, ne putent jam sole supra terram conspicuo nos dicere, ad hoc plerumque addimus, Valde mane; ut illud quod etiam albescente vocatur, intelligant: quanquam et hoc usitatum sit, ut post galli cantum saepe repetitum, cum conjectare homines coeperint diem jam propinquare, dicant, Jam mane est; et cum post hoc verbum attenderint, et jam oriente, id est jam de proximo adveniente in has partes sole, coelum rubescere vel albescere viderint, addant qui dicebant, Mane est, et dicant, Valde mane est. Quid autem interest, dum sive illo sive isto modo nihil aliud intelligamus a Marco appellatum mane, nisi quod Lucas appellavit diluculo; et hoc valde mane, quod ille valde diluculo, et quod Joannes mane cum adhuc tenebrae essent; sole autem jam oriente, id est; ortu suo jam coelum illuminare incipiente? Quomodo ergo his tribus congruat Matthaeus, qui nec diluculo, nec mane, sed vespere ait sabbati, quae lucescit in primam sabbati, attentius indagandum est. A parte quippe prima noctis, quod est vesper, ipsam noctem voluit significare Matthaeus, cujus noctis fine venerunt mulieres ad monumentum. Ea vero causa intelligitur eamdem noctem sic appellasse, quia jam a vespere licebat afferre aromata, transacto utique sabbato. Ergo quoniam sabbato impediebantur, ut non ante facerent, ab eo tempore nominavit noctem, ex quo eis licere coepit ut facerent, quocumque vellent tempore ejusdem noctis, Sic itaque dictum est, vespere sabbati, ac si diceretur, nocte sabbati, id est nocte quae sequitur diem sabbati: quod ipsa verba ejus satis indicant. Sic enim ait: Vespere autem sabbati, quae lucescit in primam sabbati: quod fieri non potest, si tantummodo primam noctis particulam, id est solum initium noctis, intellexerimus dicto vespere significatam; neque enim ipsum initium lucescit in primam sabbati, sed ipsa nox quae luce incipit terminari. Nam terminus primae partis noctis, secundae partis initium est; lux autem terminus totius noctis est: unde non potest dici vesper lucescens in primam sabbati, nisi nomine vesperi nox ipsa intelligatur quam lux terminat. Et usitatus loquendi modus divinae Scripturae est, a parte totum significare : a vespere ergo noctem significavit, cujus extremum est diluculum. Diluculo enim venerunt illae mulieres ad 1199 monumentum; ac per hoc ea nocte venerunt, quae significata est nomine vesperi. Tota enim significata est eo nomine, ut dixi; et ideo quacumque ejus noctis parte venissent, ea utique nocte venissent: cum ergo venerunt parte ejus noctis extrema, ea procul dubio nocte venerunt. Vespere autem quae lucescit in primam sabbati, non potest nisi tota ipsa nox intelligi: eo igitur vespere venerunt, quae ipsa nocte venerunt; ipsa autem nocte venerunt, quae noctis ipsius quamvis extrema parte venerunt.

66. Nam et ipsum triduum, quo Dominus mortuus est et resurrexit, nisi isto loquendi modo, quo a parte totum dici solet, recte intelligi non potest . Ipse quippe ait, Sicut enim Jonas fuit in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus; sic erit Filius hominis in corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus (Matth. XII, 40). Computantur autem tempora, sive ex quo tradidit spiritum, sive ex quo sepultus est, et non occurrit ad liquidum; nisi medium diem, hoc est sabbatum totum diem accipiamus, id est cum sua nocte, illos autem qui eum in medio posuerunt, id est parasceven et primam sabbati, quem diem dominicum dicimus, a parte totum intelligamus. Quid enim juvat quod quidam his angustiis coarctati, et istum locutionis modum, id est a parte totum, in sanctarum Scripturarum solvendis quaestionibus plurimum valere nescientes, noctem voluerunt annumerare tres illas horas a sexta usque ad nonam quibus sol obscuratus est, et diem tres horas alias quibus iterum terris est redditus, id est a nona usque ad ejus occasum? Sequitur enim nox futuri sabbati, qua cum suo die computata, erunt jam duae noctes et duo dies; porro autem post sabbatum sequitur nox primae sabbati , id est illucescentis dici dominici, in qua tunc Dominus resurrexit: erunt ergo duae noctes et duo dies, et una nox, etiamsi tota posset intelligi, nec ostenderemus quod illud diluculum pars ejus extrema sit; quapropter nec annumeratis illis sex horis, quarum tribus sol contenebratus est, et tribus eluxit, constabit ratio trium dierum et trium noctium. Restat ergo ut illo Scripturarum usitatissimo loquendi modo, quo a parte totum intelligitur, inveniamus extremum diem tempus parasceves, quo crucifixus et sepultus est Dominus, et ex ipsa extrema parte totum diem cum sua nocte, qui jam peractus fuerat, accipiamus: medium vero, id est sabbati diem, non a parte, sed integre totum: tertium rursus a parte sua prima, id est a nocte totum cum suo diurno tempore; ac sic erit triduum: quemadmodum illi octo dies post quos ascendit in montem, quorum medios integros attendentes Matthaeus et Marcus dixerunt, Post sex dies; quod Lucas dixit, Post octo dies .

67. Nunc jam caetera videamus, quemadmodum 1200 Matthaeo congruant. Lucas enim apertissime duos angelos dicit visos fuisse a mulieribus, quae venerunt ad monumentum, quorum singulos intellexeramus commemoratos a duobus; unum a Matthaeo, id est, illum qui extra monumentum sedebat in lapide; alterum a Marco, id est illum qui intra monumentum sedebat a dextris. Sed Lucas ita narrat: Et dies erat parasceves, et sabbatum illucescebat. Subsecutae autem mulieres, quae cum ipso venerant de Galilaea, viderunt monumentum, et quemadmodum positum erat corpus ejus; et revertentes paraverunt aromata et unguenta: et sabbato quidem siluerunt secundum mandatum: Una autem sabbati valde diluculo venerunt ad monumentum, portantes quae paraverant aromata; et invenerunt lapidem revolutum a monumento; et ingressae non invenerunt corpus Domini Jesu: et factum est dum mente consternatae essent de isto, et ecce duo viri steterunt secus illas in veste fulgenti. Cum timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram, dixerunt ad illas: Quid quaeritis viventem cum mortuis? non est hic, sed surrexit: recordamini qualiter locutus est vobis, cum adhuc in Galilaea esset, dicens: Quia oportet Filium hominis tradi in manus hominum peccatorum, et crucifigi, et die tertia resurgere. Et recordatae sunt verborum ejus, et regressae a monumento nuntiaverunt haec omnia illis undecim, et caeteris omnibus (Luc. XXIII, 54; XXIV, 12). Quomodo ergo singuli visi sunt sedentes, unus secundum Matthaeum foris super lapidem; et alter secundum Marcum intus a dextris; cum secundum Lucam duo steterint secus illas, quamvis similia dixerint? Possumus quidem adhuc intelligere unum angelum visum a mulieribus, et secundum Matthaeum, et secundum Marcum, sicut supra diximus: ut eas ingressas in monumentum sic accipiamus, in aliquod scilicet spatium quod erat aliqua maceria communitum, ut intrari posset ante illum saxeum sepulcri locum, atque ibi vidisse angelum sedentem supra lapidem revolutum a monumento, sicut dicit Matthaeus, ut hoc sit sedentem a dextris, quod dicit Marcus; deinde intus ab eis, dum inspicerent locum in quo jacebat corpus Domini, visos alios duos angelos stantes, sicut dicit Lucas, similia locutos ad earum exhortandum animum et aedificandam fidem.

68. Sed videamus et illa quae Joannes dicit, utrum vel quemadmodum his congruant. Sic ergo narrat Joannes: «Una autem sabbati Maria Magdalene venit mane, cum adhuc tenebrae essent, ad monumentum, et vidit lapidem sublatum a monumento. Cucurrit ergo, et venit ad Simonem Petrum, et ad alium discipulum quem amabat Jesus, et dicit eis: Tulerunt Dominum de monumento, et nescimus ubi posuerunt eum. Exiit ergo Petrus et ille alius discipulus, et venerunt ad monumentum. Currebant autem duo simul, et ille alius discipulus praecucurrit citius Petro, et venit primus ad monumentum: et cum se inclinasset, vidit posita linteamina, non tamen introiit. Venit ergo Simon Petrus sequens eum, et introiit in monumentum; et 1201 vidit linteamina posita, et sudarium quod fuerat super caput ejus, non cum linteaminibus positum, sed separatim involutum in unum locum. Tunc ergo introiit et ille discipulus, qui venerat primus ad monumentum, et vidit, et credidit. Nondum enim sciebant Scripturam, quia oporteret eum a mortuis resurgere. Abierunt ergo iterum ad semetipsos discipuli. Maria autem stabat ad monumentum foris plorans: dum ergo fleret, inclinavit se, et prospexit in monumentum; et vidit duos angelos in albis sedentes, unum ad caput et unum ad pedes, ubi positum fuerat corpus Jesu. Dicunt ei illi: Mulier, quid ploras? Dicit eis: Quia tulerunt Dominum meum, et nescio ubi posuerunt eum. Haec cum dixisset, conversa est retrorsum, et vidit Jesum stantem, et non sciebat quia Jesus est. Dicit ei Jesus: Mulier, quid ploras? quem quaeris? Illa existimaus quia hortulanus est, dicit ei: Domine, si tu su tulisti eum, dicito mihi ubi posuisti eum, et ego eum tollam. Dicit ei Jesus: Maria. Conversa illa dicit ei: Rabboni, quod dicitur Magister. Dicit ei Jesus: Noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum: vade autem ad fratres meos, et dic eis, Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, et Deum meum et Deum vestrum. Venit Maria Magdalene annuntians discipulis, Quia vidi Dominum, et haec dixit mihi» (Joan. XX, 1-18). In hac Joannis narratione dies vel tempus quo ventum est ad monumentum, cum caeteris convenit; illud etiam quod duo angeli visi sunt, concerdat cum Luca: sed quod ille stantes dicit angelos visos, iste autem sedentes, et caetera quae illi non dicunt, quomodo hic possint intelligi non discrepare a caeteris, et quo ordine gesta sint, nisi diligenter considerentur, repugnantia possunt videri.

69. Quapropter haec omnia quae circa tempus resurrectionis Domini facta sunt, secundum omnium Evangelistarum testimonia in una quadam narratione, quantum nos Dominus adjuverit, quemadmodum geri potuerint, ordinemus. Prima sabbati diluculo, sicut omnes consentiunt, ventum est ad monumentum. Jam factum erat quod solus Matthaeus commemorat de terrae motu et lapide revoluto conterritisque custodibus, ita ut in parte aliqua velut mortui jacerent. Venit autem, sicut Joannes dicit, Maria Magdalene, sine dubio caeteris mulieribus , quae Domino ministraverant, plurimum dilectione ferventior, ut non immerito Joannes solam commemoraret, tacitis eis quae cum illa fuerunt, sicut alii testantur. Venit ergo, et ut vidit lapidem sublatum a monumento, antequam aliquid diligentius inspiceret, non dubitans ablatum inde esse corpus Jesu, cucurrit, sicut dicit idem Joannes, et nuntiavit Petro atque ipsi Joanni. Ipse est enim discipulus quem amabat Jesus. At illi currere coeperunt ad monumentum, et praeveniens Joannes inclinavit se, et vidit posita linteamina, nec intravit: Petrus autem consecutus intravit in monumentum, et vidit linteamina posita, et sudarium quod fuerat super caput 1202 ejus, non cum linteaminibus positum, sed separatim involutum. Deinde et Joannes intravit, et vidit similiter, et credidit quod Maria dixerat, sublatum esse Dominum de monumento. «Nondum enim sciebant Scripturam, quia oportebat eum a mortuis resurgere. Abierunt ergo iterum ad semetipsos discipuli. Maria autem stabat ad monumentum foris plorans,» id est ante illum saxei sepulcri locum, sed tamen intra illud spatium quo jam ingressae fuerant: hortus quippe illic erat, sicut idem Joannes commemorat (Id. XIX, 41). Tunc viderunt angelum sedentem a dextris super lapidem revolutum a monumento, de quo angelo narrant Matthaeus et Marcus. «Tunc eis dixit, Nolite timere, vos: scio enim quod Jesum qui crucifixus est quaeritis; non est hic, surrexit enim sicut dixit: venite et videte locum ubi positus erat Dominus. Et cito euntes dicite discipulis ejus, quia surrexit; et ecce praecedit vos in Galilaeam, ibi cum videbitis; ecce dixi vobis»: quibus similia Marcus quoque non tacuit. Ad haec verba Maria dum fleret, inclinavit se et prospexit in monumentum, et vidit duos angelos, sicut dicit Joannes, in albis sedentes; unum ad caput, et unum ad pedes, ubi positum fuerat corpus Jesu. «Dicunt ei illi: Mulier, quid ploras? Dicit eis: Quia tulerunt Dominum meum, et nescio ubi posuerunt eum. Hic intelligendi sunt surrexisse angeli, ut etiam stantes viderentur, sicut eos Lucas visos fuisse commemorat, et dixisse secundum eumdem Lucam timentibus mulieribus et vultum in terram declinantibus, «Quid quaeritis viventem cum mortuis? non est hic, sed surrexit: recordamini qualiter locutus est vobis, cum adhuc in Galilaea esset, dicens, Quia oportet Filium hominis tradi in manus hominum peccatorum, et crucifigi, et die tertia resurgere. Et recordatae sunt verborum ejus. Post haec conversa est retrorsum Maria, et vidit Jesum stantem, sicut dicit Joannes, et non sciebat quia Jesus est. Dicit ei Jesus: Mulier, quid ploras? quem quaeris? Illa existimans quia hortulanus est, dicit ei: Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi ubi posuisti eum, et ego eum tollam. Dicit ei Jesus: Maria. Conversa illa dicit ei: Rabboni, quod dicitur magister. Dicit ei Jesus: Noli me tangere; nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum: vade autem ad fratres meos, et dic eis, Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum et Deum meum et Deum vestrum.» Tunc egressa est a monumento, hoc est ab illo loco ubi erat horti spatium ante lapidem effossum: et cum illa aliae, quas secundum Marcum invaserat tremor et pavor; et nemini quidquam dicebant. Tunc jam, secundum Matthaeum, «ecce Jesus occurrit illis dicens: Avete. Illae autem accesserunt et tenuerunt pedes ejus, et adoraverunt eum.» Sic enim colligimus et angelorum allocutionem bis numero eas habuisse venientes ad monumentum, et ipsius Domini: semel scilicet illic quando Maria hortulanum putavit; et nunc iterum cum eis occurrit in via, ut eas ipsa repetitione firmaret, atque a timore recrearet. «Tunc ergo ait illis Nolite timere, ite, nuntiate fratribus meis, ut eant in Galilaeam; ibi me videbunt. Venit ergo Maria Magdalene 1203 annuntians discipulis quia vidit Dominum, et haec ei dixit»: non solum ipsa, sed et aliae, quas Lucas commemorat, «quae nuntiaverunt haec discipulis undecim, et caeteris omnibus. Et visa sunt ante illos sicut deliramentum verba ista, et non credebant illis.» His et Marcus attestatur. Nam posteaquam commemoravit eas trementes et paventes exiisse a monumento, et nemini quidquam dixisse, adjunxit quod resurgens Dominus apparuerit mane prima sabbati, primo Mariae Magdalenae, de qua ejecerat septem daemonia; et quia illa vadens nuntiavit iis qui cum eo fuerant lugentibus et flentibus; et quia illi audientes quod viveret, et visus esset ab ea, non crediderunt. Sane Matthaeus etiam illud inseruit, abscedentibus mulieribus quae illa omnia viderant et audierant, venisse etiam quosdam in civitatem de illis custodibus qui jacuerant velut mortui, et nuntiasse principibus sacerdotum omnia quae facta erant, hoc est quae etiam illi sentire potuerunt: illos vero congregatos cum senioribus consilio accepto, pecuniam copiosam dedisse militibus, ut dicerent quod discipuli ejus venissent, eumque furati essent illis dormientibus; pollicentes etiam securitatem a praeside qui eos custodes dederat: et illos accepta pecunia fecisse sicut erant edocti, divulgatumque esse verbum istud apud Judaeos usque in hodiernum diem.