ON HEBREW NAMES
See *Patrologia Latina* Vol. XXIII, Operum S. Hieronymi Vol. III, col. 121–190.
EVANGELICAL QUESTIONS
(Angelo MAI, *Biblioth. nova Patrum*, IV, p. 217.)
EDITOR'S ADMONITION
It is easy to divine why Eusebius, a most ardent defender of the Christian religion, undertook to write this work, since in reality many varieties occur among the Evangelists, which pagans or heretics used to abuse in order to deny the truth of the divine books. Hence so many gospel harmonies have been constructed, from the times of Tatian the Syrian right up to our own. Eusebius himself, near the beginning of his *Ecclesiastical History* (lib. 1, 7), also thought it necessary to demonstrate the harmony of the Gospels among themselves, which he also did, citing the example of Africanus in his letter to Aristides concerning the harmony of the Evangelists in recounting Christ’s genealogy. A Now, of what character this work of Eusebius—concerning the *diaphonia* or (reconciling) discrepancy of the Gospels—was, the author himself teaches by authentic testimony in his short preface to Marinus: "Of the ambiguous questions and solutions that occur regarding the beginnings of the divine Gospels, having already written two books, I now come, omitting the intermediate parts, to the final sections which have always been controversial among everyone." Moreover, the first two books were written to Stephanus, as the Vatican codex demonstrates, and the third to Marinus. Therefore, Eusebius had treated only those questions that arose concerning the beginning and end of the Gospels, omitting everything in between; all of which Saint Augustine subsequently covered in a very painstaking study on the harmony of the Evangelists, in which, in books II, III, and IV of the said work, he elucidated most difficulties throughout the whole context of the Evangelists with the sharpness of his genius.
And indeed—which I rightly marvel at (and which to some extent nourishes the hope that perhaps the work of Eusebius survives in its entirety somewhere, of which we exhibit here only a compendium)—Latinus Latinius (Opp. t. II, p. 116) wrote thus to Andreas Masius: B "Sirletus (the cardinal) wants you to know that there were discovered in Sicily three books of Eusebius of Caesarea on the *Diaphonia* of the Gospels, which, as he himself hopes, will soon be brought to light." Three books of Eusebius, therefore, were spoken of even then, as appeared to us later in the prologue to Marinus. Nor indeed should anyone think our codex was brought to Rome from Sicily; for it is one of the Palatine Heidelberg manuscripts, as its inscription demonstrates, as does the printed catalog of that Greek library by Silburgius, which was compiled before Heidelberg was captured and those codices moved to Rome. But if Silburgius says not three books, but two, that happened through a brief hallucination, because he evidently saw only two sections of the work in the codex, [those] to Stephanus and to Marinus, whose proemium he did not read.
For me, in the most beautiful Vatican Palatine codex CXX, of approximately the tenth century, the epitome of the three aforementioned books was found, as it is expressly inscribed *Ἐκλογή ἐν συντόμῳ*, etc., just as I have translated it word for word from the codex into the title of my book; in other Vatican catena codices I have also obtained parts of the entire work, which I shall recount after the epitome.
Now, it is nevertheless equitable to produce ancient witnesses of the work, which is certainly authentic in itself. C "...even though our Savior was not born from him, but from the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin, and in what manner she too, the Mother of the Lord, is proven to be of the race and seed of David, we have explained in the first of the questions and solutions regarding the genealogy of our Savior, and we send the curious to those." D "Why the sacred evangelists describe the lineage of Joseph, although our Savior was not born of him, but of the Holy Spirit and the holy Virgin; and in what manner the Mother of the Lord herself is shown to have been of the race and seed of David; we have explained in the first [book] of the questions and solutions regarding the lineage of our Savior. To that place, therefore, we send those who are studious in these matters." Furthermore, that this title *ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων*, of *questions and solutions*, is genuine and Eusebian, this author teaches, and the inscription of our Palatine codex confirms. Other authors, therefore,—for example, Saint Jerome, as we shall say shortly—spoke more freely when, as happens, they inscribed them a little differently, having regard only for the sense; which variety was already observed in the title of the *Chronicles* of Eusebius.
2. Saint Jerome therefore, in *De script. illustr.*, cap. 81, says: "Eusebius of Caesarea published [a work] on the *Diaphonia* of the Gospels."
3. Again, the same Jerome in *Comm. ad Matth.* 1, 16: "Regarding this, both Africanus the writer of chronology, and Eusebius of Caesarea in the books of *Διαφωνία Εὐαγγελίων*, have disputed more fully."
Moreover, Sophronius, Jerome the interpreter, Suidas, Honorius of Autun, Trithemius, and others, have but repeated the aforesaid testimonies. 4. Ebediesu in his catalogue of Syrian books [says] thus: "Eusebius of Caesarea composed a book of the solution of the contradictions of the Gospel." In fact, in the Vatican Syriac codex 111, p. 302, some excerpts from that work are made, with the title: "From the book of questions on the Gospel by Eusebius of Caesarea." 5. Nicephorus Callistus also, *Hist.* 1, 11, sufficiently hints at this work of Eusebius by saying: "Regarding the apparent discrepancies, not a few have published entire books." 6. Very many codices, especially of the catenae, record this work of Eusebius regarding the discrepancy of the evangelists, both elsewhere and also in the Vatican library, as I discovered while reading. For behold, Combefis also published from a catena of a Gallican codex a broad fragment, rendered by himself into Latin in *Bibl. concion.*, vol. VIII, p. 15, which returns in Greek among us. And these are the testimonies of the books to Stephanus. 7. Moreover, Anastasius the Sinaite in his *Questions*, 8, 148, 153, and Macarius Chrysocephalus in his *Florilegium* bear witness to the book to Marinus; [as do] the chronographers George Hamartolus, John Scylitzes, and Cedrenus, whom we shall praise further on. Likewise the author of the scholia on *1 Kings* ch. 11, [on] the canticle of Anna in the Sixtine Greek edition; then the catenae, Possinus indeed on Mark pp. 543-564, and Corderius on John pp. 456-8. Saint Ambrose, although he does not name Eusebius by name, nevertheless uses his work most extensively in his *Commentary on Luke* ch. ix. Whether Saint Augustine, who speaks in his own certain peculiar manner and style, had our Eusebius in view, I do not define; for he sometimes agrees and sometimes disagrees, which in such a work must inevitably happen. 9. Saint Jerome in his *Comm. on Matthew*, at the beginning and the end, draws from the Eusebian questions, and indeed abundantly from those to Marinus in *Epistle* 120, chaps. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9. Otherwise, who would doubt that the Greeks, especially the authors of biblical questions, of whom a long catalogue can be compiled, had Eusebius before their eyes?
SELECT EPITOME FROM THE QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS COMPOSED BY EUSEBIUS TO STEPHANUS CONCERNING THE GOSPELS
1. A Why the evangelists write the lineage of Joseph, and not of Mary.
How is it that the evangelists recount the lineage of Christ as if derived from David? It is entirely because of Joseph, who was begotten of the Davidic line. But Christ is not from Joseph, but from the Holy Spirit and Mary, as Scripture says. Therefore, the lineage of Mary ought to have been narrated, if they wished to trace the lineage of Christ, and not that of Joseph, to whom Christ has no relationship according to the flesh, being not begotten of him. But if He happens to be not from him, but from Mary alone, He would not be from David, since [A'] no account demonstrates that Mary descended from David; in vain, therefore, would they genealogize Christ [end of page]
as being the son of Joseph, nor does any account demonstrate that Mary descended from David — such were the contents of the first of the questions; the solution to it would be as follows.
A 1. Concerning the deeds of our Savior Jesus Christ, it was necessary for some to be kept silent for those of that time, while others were spread to the hearing of many, insofar as they were going to contribute to the benefit of the listeners. As, for example, upon reaching the thirtieth year of bodily age, He presents Himself for the baptism at the hands of John, and from then on begins His teaching and miraculous works; but what things were done by Him during the entire thirty years before the baptism, no history reveals, nor is it possible to learn about His life prior to this from any divine Scripture. But even from the time when He became known to all, He proclaimed some things to the hearing of all, while others He initiated only to His own disciples as mysteries; and sometimes, while performing wonders, He exhorted them to tell no one, while at other times He performed the miracles without such an injunction. Among the things, then, that were decreed to be kept silent, the miracle regarding His birth was preeminent; of the time in which He became man, none, except for a few, possessed knowledge of this.
B 2. But the holy man (Ignatius is his name, who was the second bishop of the Church of the Antiochenes after the apostles) says somewhere that the virginity of Mary and the birth of the Savior from her escaped even the ruler of this age; he says as follows: C « And the virginity of Mary, and her childbearing, and likewise the death of Christ, escaped the ruler of this age: three mysteries of outcry which were performed in the silence of God. » It is possible to grasp even by reasoning that it was not possible for all mortals who saw the Christ of God living in the flesh and moving among men as an ordinary man to be able to believe that He was born of a girl who knew not wedlock, without a father; nor was it expedient to publish to many that Mary, not from Joseph, had conceived and borne Jesus; for the virgin would have even undergone punishment according to the law of Moses, as having violated her virginity before the time of marriage. Therefore, it is rightly observed D that Scripture vigilantly says: « Before they came together, she was found with child; » as if openly saying that she did not conceive before the marriage, nor before coming to the man; but after she was joined to Joseph and began to dwell with him, and was called his wife by all—when they were dwelling together, and were already about to use the nuptial relation—at that very hour, so to speak, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. And this is indeed highly useful for winning over the many.
A For if it had happened that she conceived while still with her own parents, it would have been likely that the matter would be covered up, because it was not from a manifest male that she was pregnant, and she would have been put to death more quickly according to the law, or if not that, she certainly would not have been cleared of the stain of disgrace; for she herself, surely, was not a credible witness of herself and of the things that had happened to her. Nor would anyone have been persuaded by an appearance of an angel, or believed her when she related the things spoken to her by Gabriel, nor would Joseph, who was testified to be a just man, have received her into his own house when she was already with child. Wherefore, it happened with good reason that she became pregnant not while with her parents, but when she was already with him, and indeed with him, at the very order of marriage, so to speak; for before they came together, as the Scripture testifies, she was found with child in the womb.
B 3. But to whom was she found to be with child, if not to Joseph? And how and in what way was this discovered by Joseph? The account will teach us, saying that it was made known to Joseph also by the Holy Spirit. For he was a just man; and being just, it is no wonder if he was deemed worthy by the Divine Spirit to perceive the conception of his future spouse, and to refrain from marital intercourse. Immediately, upon understanding this and being struck with awe, he wished to put her away secretly, considering that what had happened was greater than that he should live with her thereafter. And this was the reason why, being just, he did not judge it right to expose her to shame, but preferred to put her away secretly. For surely, if he had not been persuaded that she had conceived from the Holy Spirit, while at the same time knowing well that she did not carry a child conceived by him as a husband—how could it ever be that he, in accordance with the duty of his justice, would not publicly declare her to have been corrupted before the wedding, and for that reason hand her over to the competent magistrates to be judged and put to shame? Otherwise, how could he be just, who would work at covering up and hiding such an impious thing? Certainly, it would not have been consistent for Joseph to be called just by the Evangelist if he were behaving in such a way. But rather, because he himself knew of the more divine conception of the Virgin from the Holy Spirit, and because he deemed her too august for it to be lawful for him to live with her any longer, it is rightly said by the Evangelist that the decision was taken by Joseph to put away his betrothed secretly, neither having her defamed by himself nor exposed to the gossip of the crowd. C It is well said, therefore, by the Evangelist that he did not wish to expose her to public talk [*diffamare*]. For he does not say he was unwilling to bring infamy upon her, but to expose her; for there is a great difference between these terms. Just as it does not mean the same thing to write and to proscribe, to think and to impute, to ask and to abrogate, so neither [does it mean the same] to expose to talk and to bring infamy; for *infamare* makes us think of the public revealing and accusation of a criminal, whereas *diffamare* has only the notion of making known.
A 4. But because it could not be that the matter remained concealed, even if Joseph had departed from Mary secretly, the angel conveniently appearing to him in a dream says: "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife; for that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit." B And observe how he calls him son of David from the beginning, referring him back to the progenitor, by the help of him whom all were expecting from the lineage of David. Otherwise, why would he not have called him the son of Jacob? For he was his father by nature, as the evangelist testifies: "Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph." But now, passing over the mention of the father, he commemorates the progenitor, almost signifying that he who had been promised to David is he whom Mary had conceived prodigiously and without any office of Joseph, but from the Holy Spirit. Then he commands him to put aside the fear by which he was gripped; for he was not in a small state of dread while considering that Mary was pregnant not by a man. Next, he teaches him not something he did not know, but the cause of what was already known. He says, therefore: "For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit."
B 5. Such and so great a divine plan appears to me in the divine Scriptures for the sake of concealing the virgin’s conception from the unbelieving; for the account would not easily have been believed by those hearing such things of a man, seeing him endowed with a fragile body just as we are, and differing in nothing regarding his mortal nature. What if even later, working wonders and extending divine benefits to many, he struck the minds of those seeing him? Did not Moses, who performed many wonders, yet share in a common birth? And Elias, C and Elisaeus, and each of the prophets? Therefore, the display of miraculous deeds contributed nothing to the end that Jesus might not be believed to be born of a man. In reality, the men of that age, suspecting nothing unusual about his birth, although they beheld the deeds he did, spoke thus to one another: "Whence has this man all this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" Again, at another time, his mother and brothers D standing outside and wishing to speak with him, someone said to him: "Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you." And what is wonderful when even his own disciples and apostles, having been asked, "Who do men say that I am?" answered that some thought him to be John, others Elias, some Jeremias, or another of the prophets? And when asked what opinion they themselves held concerning him, they all were silent, having nothing to say; only Peter, having confessed that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God, since to him alone this had been made known, Jesus replies, saying: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
A Mary also testifies that she kept the things that had happened in her own deep contemplation; for the Scripture says: "But Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart."
6. It is therefore demonstrated that it was beneficial that, at that time, the generation of Jesus from the Holy Spirit was concealed from the multitude, and Joseph was accepted in the place of a father, so that he was deservedly placed in the genealogy as the parent of the child. If this had not been done, the boy would have been considered fatherless, his lineage not being traced from any father; and this would have led many into impiety, who, through ignorance of the truth concerning the matter, would have slandered his birth. Useful, therefore, it was that he was reputed to be the son of the craftsman and the brother of the so-named children. And indeed, God the Word himself did not deny that he was man, but he even commanded his own disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ of God, who had long been heralded by the prophets as the one to come; for the majority of those who saw him then, B clothed as he was in a humble appearance, would not have believed it. Thus, even at that transfiguration on the mountain, he again commanded his disciples, saying: "Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man rises from the dead." For it was likely that the majority of those at that time would not have believed even this. If, then, he judged that these things should not be made public, how much more was it necessary that the circumstances of the birth from a virgin should at that time be kept silent among the populace, to be revealed at a season appropriate for the truth concerning him. This time was to be when he rose from the dead, and when he was taken up into heaven, and when the report concerning him as the Word of God ran through the whole world; and when the nations were called, and his divine oracles attained their fulfillment—the events, indeed, of the matters themselves clearly proving the faith of his same prophecies and predictions.
7. To those of our own time, therefore, who have received the faith of these events from their ancestors, and who have acknowledged his nature, which is more than human, it is reasonably admitted that the rest of the accounts, and those of his birth, are also true; yet the wonderful evangelists necessarily placed Joseph in the genealogy at that time, who was, as is well known, called by all the father of Jesus. For if they had passed over this and traced his genealogy from the mother, besides the fact that this was indecorous, and foreign to the simplicity D of the divine Scriptures, because no one is recorded as having his genealogy traced through a mother before, he whose genealogy was being woven would have seemed to be fatherless and of ignoble birth. And this, as I have said, was exposed to no small ignominy and accusation. Conveniently, therefore, while they trace Joseph from the stock of David for the reason already given, at the same time they confirm that Mary was also sprung from David, revealing the lineage of the wife through the spouse; for when the law of Moses decrees that it is not permitted to seek marriage from elsewhere than from one's own kin and one's own tribe, so that the inheritance of the family may not drift from tribe
from its own stock and tribe, so that the inheritance of the family may not drift from one tribe to another; the description of the husband was sufficient to signify the wife. For he who would live according to the norm of the law would not have taken into marriage any other woman but one who was, in the first place, of his own ancestral tribe—namely, Judah—and then of the same clan and family, that is, David’s. For such were the commandments of the law. Since, therefore, Joseph is proved to be of the tribe of Judah and of the inheritance and family of David, how does it not follow that Mary also is seen to come from the same origins? B
8. But if it be said that she is a kinswoman of Elisabeth, she being of the tribe of Judah, and Elisabeth being of the tribe of Levi, do not be amazed; for the entire nation of the Jews was of one lineage, and all the tribes were kin to one another. Hence also the divine Apostle calls all the Jews his kinsmen, saying: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites" (Rom. ix, 3). And yet, his kinsmen were in reality only those of the tribe of Benjamin; nevertheless, Paul denotes all Israelites by the names of brothers and kinsmen. Thus, therefore, the angel called Elisabeth a kinswoman to Mary, because both were Israelites. Moreover, it is reasonable that Elisabeth should be called a kinswoman of Mary because of the place, since she dwelt in the tribe of Judah, from which Mary hailed. Luke is witness to the fact, saying: "In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elisabeth" (Luke i, 39-40). For since the Mosaic law did not assign to the priestly tribe an inheritance—because the Lord God is their portion—but commanded them to dwell among the other tribes, and since Zechariah and Elisabeth dwelt in a certain city of the tribe of Judah, from which Mary hailed, it is reasonable that for this cause they should be called kinswomen. Nor is it unlikely that this was also for the sake of the similarity in their way of life, by which both women were counted worthy of the mystery of salvation, and the one received the Savior, while the other received the forerunner of the Savior into her bosom, both having partaken of the one and the same holy Spirit. And for this reason, they were kinswomen in a most special sense according to God. But this is the way this matter must be resolved. C
9. But if, according to the divine Apostle, the husband is the head of the woman (Ephes. v, 23), and "the two shall be one flesh" (Gen. ii, 24) according to the law of Moses, and if a woman betrothed to a husband who commits an offense suffers the same penalty for adultery, as one having already become the body of the betrothed and having imposed the husband as her head—why is it not consistent that, when the genealogy of the head is written, the body should be numbered with the head? D So that Mary, already
united to Joseph, may reasonably be considered to share in his genealogy, A especially since it has been demonstrated that she was not only of the same tribe as he, but of the same people and family. Moreover, Gabriel, in that conversation with Mary, prophesying among other things, says: “God will give him the throne of David his father,” B clearly teaching that David was the progenitor of him who was to be born of her. For how else would it have been fitting for the angel to say these things to the virgin, if he did not acknowledge that he was from David? For he would not have said, “God will give him the throne of David his father,” if he were not from David. For what father? The virgin would reasonably have asked, acknowledging that she did not know a man, but having learned that she would conceive of the Holy Spirit, unless the word was clearly spoken to a daughter of David. Hence Luke reasonably says: “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, to be enrolled in the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being pregnant.” We shall no longer read this passage of the Gospel with ambiguity, as if Mary had come only to register her name; but we shall believe that she, no less than Joseph, was of the house and family of David. Since we interpret the Scripture in this way, using the arguments which we have presented so far, I believe it has been clearly demonstrated that the genealogy of Joseph was not recorded in vain by the glorious apostles of our Savior, and that Mary is shown to be from the seed of David, as is Jesus the Christ of God, who was born of her.
II. Why one evangelist starts the genealogy from above from Abraham; while the other goes up from below; and does not stop at Abraham, but reaches as far as Adam and God.
1. This was the second of the questions proposed by you: Matthew derives the genealogy from Abraham; but Luke, following the opposite path, begins from Joseph and leads up to Adam and God. C Yet it was required, if they were writing things consonant and consistent with each other, that either Luke, ascending, should stop at Abraham, or Matthew should not start the genealogy from Abraham, but from Adam, in whom Luke ended. But the solution to this question is also easy, and does not require much rhetorical artifice, for both evangelists follow one path. For no one would say that those who climb up a path and those who descend the same way are traveling on a different course, because, specifically, one road is trodden by both, that is, both those ascending and those descending. Therefore, the same principle applies to the succession of generations. And this custom was anciently favored by the Hebrews, and is solemn in the divine Scriptures. For behold, in the book of Ruth, the lineage of David is traced from above, from Judah, by these words: D “And these are the generations
of Phares (who was the son of Judah the patriarch). Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; and Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; and Salmon begat Booz; and Booz begat Obed; and Obed begat Jesses; and Jesses begat David.” Matthew therefore also followed this method of writing the genealogy.
2. But the first book of Kings, which follows the history of Ruth, ascends from below, just as Luke has done. For in recounting the lineage of Elkanah, who was the father of Samuel, it says: “And there was a man from Armathem Suphir, from Mount Ephraim; and his name was Elcana, son of Hieremiel, son of Eli, son of Thou, son of Sur, an Ephrathite.” B But even in the books of Chronicles, the narrative sometimes flows from the ancestors to the descendants, as happens in Matthew, and sometimes genealogies are written just as Luke does. Hear, therefore, these things also: “David,” says the aforementioned book, “was the son of Solomon; this one’s son was Roboam; this one’s son, Abia; this one’s son, Asa; this one’s son, Josaphat; this one’s son, Joram; this one’s son, Ochozias; this one’s son, Joas; this one’s son, Amasias.” And in such order it descends as far as Jechonias and the Babylonian captivity, just as Matthew does. But as for Luke, the same Scripture again ascends while narrating the lineage of Samuel. C For it says: “Samuel, son of Elcana, son of Hieroboam, son of Heliel, son of Thou, son of Sur, son of Elcana, son of Joel, son of Azarias, son of Sophonias, son of Thaar, son of Asir, son of Abiasar, son of Core, son of Issaar, son of Caath, son of Levi, son of Israel.” And see if Luke has not plainly imitated the manner similar to these. You yourself could find thousands of such examples; whence it follows that we must admit that the evangelists of our Savior have done nothing unusual: nor will anyone justly think that they disagree with one another. For each established his description by his own calculation; the one, taking his beginning from Abraham because of the special D reason of his discourse, which it is not the time to explain now; the other, having passed by Abraham himself, went as far back as the first man: and he does not stop at this, but links his entire history to God, while he lifts it to the heights by way of the mystery of the new birth in Christ.
III. How Matthew deduces the lineages from David and his successor Solomon to Jacob and Joseph; but Luke, from David and Nathan and his children to Heli and Joseph, writing the genealogy in a way contrary to Matthew.
1. It is time to examine the third of the proposed questions; let us therefore intently fix our mind upon the very words themselves. Let us see what Luke says: “And Jesus himself...”
A erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta, ut putabatur, filius Josephi, filii Heli, filii Melchi.” But Matthew did not use the phrase, “as was supposed.” What, then, does he say? “Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph.” Now, it is one thing to suppose, and another to affirm that the matter truly stands as stated. If, therefore, while Matthew affirms that Joseph was the son of Jacob and Matthan, Luke similarly contended that he was the son of Heli and Melchi, there would truly be a kind of battle and conflict, and there would be need of an arbiter to reconcile the evangelists. But now, since Matthew firmly asserts his account, while Luke does not contend for his own as the truth, but merely puts forward an opinion widely held among many, rather than that which held sway with him, there remains, in my opinion, no question.
B 2. For since various opinions were held among the Jews concerning Christ, and while all of them concordantly traced him back to David on account of the promises of God made to David, yet some thought Christ would come from David and Solomon and the royal lineage; others, however, withdrew from this opinion on account of the many accusations brought against those kings, and because of Jechonias having been proscribed by the prophet Jeremiah, who said that no one from his seed would rise to sit upon the throne of David. And because of these things, they pursued another path; and while agreeing that he was from David, they traced him not through Solomon, but through Nathan, who was also a son of David (which same Nathan is said to have been a prophet, according to what is related in the books of Kings)—and they asserted that Christ would come from his descendants—and since they traced the lineage of Joseph all the way back from that point, Luke, who relates their opinion and not his own, very necessarily added to his narrative, “as was supposed,” granting to Matthew C the task of recording not what was “supposed,” but how the origin of his lineage truly stood. And let this be the first answer.
3. There may also be another deep and arcana-filled reason for his narrative. For Matthew, in explicitly describing the human birth of Christ and wishing to demonstrate truly that Joseph was of Davidic descent, uses the introduction to his discourse that was appropriate. But Luke, I think, because he did not intend to describe the fleshly birth of Christ, acted in this way. For if this had been his purpose, he would not have been ignorant that it was necessary to set forth such an origin. But since, in that location of the Gospel, he makes mention of regeneration through the bath, and presents Jesus as the Son of God, he therefore strives to show by this example that anyone who is regenerated in God, even if he is truly considered a son of men on account of the flesh with which he is clothed, nevertheless does not remain within his carnal parents D according to his own nature, nor does he fail to extend beyond the progenitors of his body. For even if he is seen to be a son of men on account of the generation of the body, nevertheless he is not judged to be an alien to the adoption of God. Since, therefore, Luke was not setting forth his history according to the mind of Matthew, he naturally...
A passes over his own time, so that he might come to the regeneration through the laver, and there he sets forth the contrary succession of genealogies—at the same time proceeding from the last to the first, and at the same time avoiding the memory of the guilty and wicked men who are found with Matthew; because he who is regenerated with God becomes an alien to a carnal nature and to fathers who are sinners according to the flesh, being declared, of course, a son of God, and of all those who have lived without blame according to God.
4. By way of example, let Paul the apostle have a Jew as a father according to the flesh, who is, as is likely, an unbeliever; but let him also have one according to God, whose way of life he embraced. If, therefore, anyone wishes to narrate the genealogy of Paul according to the flesh, whom would he B rightly mention if not his father according to the flesh? If, on the other hand, someone wishes to show his birth in Christ, of whom should he rather make memory of a parent, than of him by whom he was regenerated according to God? Thus also it was said to Abraham: "But you shall go to your fathers having been satisfied in a good old age." This discourse surely does not point to carnal fathers, unless these also happen to be believed to have been pious; but it speaks of fathers according to God, on account of the similarity of piety. Thus the guilty sons of Abraham were indeed his sons according to the flesh, but in their ways they were sons of Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore it is said to them: "Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom, attend to the law of God, O people of Gomorrah," as if again there were going to be sons of Abraham C from these. We, therefore, who have believed in the Christ of God from the nations, although we were born of unbelieving fathers according to the flesh, have migrated into the house of Abraham, having obtained the adoption of Christ and of his disciples; and thus we have inscribed ourselves into another succession of lineage, much better than the carnal one, on account of the regeneration in Christ.
5. With good reason, therefore, Luke also, as he is recording the regeneration, does not follow the same path as Matthew; he does not make mention of Solomon, nor the wife of Uriah, nor Tamar, nor Ruth, nor Jechoniah, nor of any others among the guilty, but D goes forward through others who are free from reproach; and he exhibits Christ as having been originated from the prophet Nathan. And while he who is born according to the flesh in Matthew is reckoned as a son of Abraham—because to Abraham first the promise of the blessing of the nations had been given, which was to be fulfilled in no other way than through one coming from his seed—yet he who is regenerated in God, having claimed other fathers according to God, not indeed having truly had them as fathers, but as was supposed on account of the similarity of his morals, ascends to the true father, after all things being established as the Son of God.
Africanus on the genealogy which is in the holy Gospels (12).
A 1. Some, therefore, either being ignorant of the evangelical history or being unable to understand it, have in their laudatory error intensified their ignorance by saying that this diverse enumeration and mixture of names, both priestly and royal, occurred rightly, so that Christ might be justly shown to be both priest and king; as if someone were disobedient to this, or held some other hope—that Christ is the eternal high priest of the Father, offering our prayers to Him, and a supermundane king, nourishing those whom He liberated with the Spirit, having been made a cooperator in the ordering of all things. Yet they ought not to have been ignorant that each of the enumerated orders is the lineage of David, or the royal tribe of Judah. For even if Nathan was a prophet, nevertheless Solomon was one, and both were the father of each; and though prophets came from many tribes, priests were not just any of the twelve tribes, but only Levites. Any lie, therefore, has been fabricated in vain; nor will this argument prevail in the Church of Christ and B of the God of the fathers of accurate truth, that a falsehood is constructed for the praise and glorification of Christ.
2. That we may, therefore, refute the ignorance of him who said this, and stop anyone from being scandalized by ignorance, I shall set forth the true history of the facts. For since the names of the lineages in Israel were enumerated either by nature or by law—by nature, indeed, through the succession of genuine seed; and by law, when another begot children in the name of a brother who had died childless. For because the clear hope of resurrection had not yet been given to them, they used to imitate the future promise by a mortal resurrection, so that the name of the one who had departed might not be extinguished. C But since those who are included in this genealogy were partly succeeded by a son from a genuine father, and partly were born to others, but were nevertheless attached to others by name, memory is made of both, namely, of those who begot and of those who were held to be their fathers. Thus, neither of the Gospels lies, while it enumerates both nature and law; for the lineages, both those from Solomon and those from Nathan, have been intertwined.
D Let us set forth the history concerning these matters that has come down to us, which Africanus mentioned in his letter to Aristides concerning the harmony of the genealogy in the Gospels. Having refuted the opinions of others as forced and falsely constructed, he presents the history which he himself had received in these very words: "Because the names of the lineages," etc. You see, therefore, that the refutation of other opinions, as being forced and false, which Africanus made, is to be found nowhere else but in our epitome, immediately at the beginning, as it should be.
A legem. For the lines of Solomon and Nathan were interwoven with each other by the reparation of those who died childless, and by second marriages, and by the raising up of offspring: so that, with good reason, the same men are attributed to different fathers, namely, both to those who appear as such and again to those who are in reality the progenitors; and both narratives, being truly authentic, converge accurately, though in different ways, upon Joseph. But so that what I say may be clear, I shall set forth the permutation of the lineages. The natural generation is that of Matthew; the legal raising up of the lineage is that of Luke. Matthan, who was of the line of Solomon, begat Jacob. After Matthan died, Melchi, who was of the line of Nathan, begat Heli from the same woman. Therefore, Heli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother. When Heli died without children, Jacob raised up offspring to him, having begotten Joseph, who was his son by nature, but by the law, he was the son of Heli. Thus, Joseph was the son of both. B
V. Why does Matthew place David before Abraham in the genealogy of Christ, saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham"?
1. The reason is that to David first and alone was it confirmed with an oath that Christ would be born of him according to the flesh; for it is written: "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne." C And again: "I have made a covenant with my chosen; I have sworn unto David my servant: thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." And such was the promise of the one being prophesied. But the duration of the kingdom of Solomon is not unknown; for he is said to have held the scepter of Israel for only forty years. How then could it be true, if referred to him: "I will establish his throne for ever"? But if one should say that these things were spoken concerning his royal succession, it must not be ignored that the succession of the kingdom of David and Solomon only lasted until Jechoniah and the Babylonian captivity, with no one being established upon the throne of David after Jechoniah. D And observe how the prophecy added this also concerning the promised descendant, saying: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." And again in another place: "He shall call upon me: Thou art my Father; and I will make him my firstborn"; which would be incongruous for Solomon.
2. Moreover, one must set forth what is recorded about him in the Books of Kings in these words: "And King Solomon was a lover of women; and he took many strange wives; both the daughter of Pharaoh, and Moabites, and Ammonites,
EVANGELICAL QUESTIONS TO STEPHEN. — QUESTION V.
Idumeans, Syrians, Hittites, and Amorites: of the nations...A with whom the Lord God forbade the children of Israel, saying: "You shall not enter into them." To which he adds: "And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father." And a little later: "Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the idol of the Moabites, in the mountain that is before Jerusalem, and for Moloch, the idol of the children of Ammon, and for Astarte, the abomination of the Sidonians. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who burnt incense and performed sacrifices to their own gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from the Lord God of Israel." B If all these things are alleged as an accusation against Solomon, how then will you accommodate to him the oath in which, among other things, it is said: "I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son"? Indeed, these things are manifestly foreign to Solomon; but they are most fitly referred to him whose coming from the seed of David had been predicted, and who in reality emerged from the Davidic stem.
VI. Why does Matthew, after David, not proceed to the immediate successors of the lineage, but leaps to Abraham, and yet not to Adam, nor to any other of the men of old who were beloved by God?
Because, in the first place, various oracles regarding the calling of the nations had been delivered to Abraham. For even before the Mosaic legislation, and before the Jewish nation itself, nay, even before the circumcision, C Abraham was a foreigner: who, migrating from the Chaldean region, forsook his ancestral customs, and having known the God over all, he bore witness that he believed in God; and it was counted to him as righteousness. But he appeared as just and one beloved of God, not on account of the circumcision of the body, nor on account of the observance of the Sabbath, or festivals, or new moons, nor indeed by any of the will-worship brought in by Moses, but by the knowledge of the God over all, and by the manifestation of the Lord who appeared to him (who was indeed our Savior, the Word of God), and finally by his holy life endowed with virtues. D To him, therefore, who had followed such a mode of piety, the promise regarding the nations was given, as though they too would one day, according to the zeal of Abraham, be pious and would obtain a blessing equal to that of the God-beloved patriarch. Since these things are so, it was consistent that Abraham, the prince of the called nations, should be taken up by the Evangelist as the second after David. For these were the two illustrious men to whom first God graciously signified beforehand the coming of Christ and the calling of the nations. And it was right that he to whom the nativity of the Savior of all men was promised should be preferred in order to him who received the promises concerning the calling of the nations; yet the patriarch of the nations themselves was to be written second in the genealogy. Wherefore the book of Jesus Christ takes its beginning, first indeed from him who was the carnal progenitor of Jesus Christ; and then from...
A that One who by the Spirit was the Father of those to be saved through Christ. For the Savior was to go before the saved nations.
VII. [Z] B Why did Matthew, in making mention of Tamar, not also mention any other woman illustrious for the praise of her deeds?
1. If anyone attempts to calumniate Tamar as a harlot, let him hear Judas himself saying: “Tamar is more righteous than I, in that I did not give her to Silom my son.” For she did not stand upon the roof with the intention of playing the harlot, but with a chaste purpose, for the sake of bearing children, she hunted out Judas. Nor is the reason hidden. For Judas had commanded her to remain at home until Silom his son should grow up, intending that he himself would take her; and she had complied readily, remaining childless and a widow, waiting for the pledges of Judas. But when he did not bring his promises to an end—since the longing for children was then a matter of great concern to men of that time, and childlessness was reckoned by all then as the greatest of evils—perceiving that Judas had deceived her and that the hopes placed in his son had been taken in vain, she C sets upon the man. No law of Moses, nor of the prophets, nor of any other person, forbade such things at that time. And then she contrives the child-bearing from him; by not showing who she was, she managed to come together with him, at once exposing her own chastity and his incontinence. For she had remained a widow and childless, obeying him for many years; and although it was possible for her to marry another and to become a mother of children by some man of an alien race, she does not do this, desiring the kinship of the ancestors of Judas, Abraham and Isaac, and indeed that of Israel as well. But he, having left the girl in widowhood and having kept the maiden childless for D long years, was not able to restrain himself after the death of his wife. For no sooner did the wife of Judas die than he—with no law of such a kind yet forbidding it—supposing the aforementioned woman to be a harlot, was taken in by her while not acting rightly. Because, being such a man himself, he deprived her—who had for long years awaited his promises and had demonstrated a philosophical and temperate life—of the fruit of child-bearing.
2. Therefore, having submitted herself to the man in this way, she became the mother of twin offspring from him at the first encounter, God granting this to her as a reward for her good purpose. For, since she could have given herself to others and enjoyed lovers of alien races and of the gentiles, she plotted nothing of the sort; but rather she prayed to be made worthy of the race of pious men. And indeed, although she was of an alien race, she sustained such and so praiseworthy a character. Furthermore, Tamar did not dare to have relations with Judas before...
the death of his former wife. For she considered the undertaking to be impious before her death. She remained, therefore, in her own father's house, even though she was childless, and she would have remained barren to the end had she not considered that the time was right for her to conceive. Wherefore, as I said, she was deemed worthy of God as a collaborator, who from her single union with Judas gifted her with the abundant fruit of twin children, performing at once mysterious dispensations regarding the birth of these children. B For this reason, I think especially that the wonderful evangelist included the entire mention of them in the genealogy of our Savior. For to me, the account of Scripture does not seem to signify any ordinary events regarding the birth of the twin children born to her, Zara and Phares. And for this reason, Matthew mentions both of them along with their mother, saying: "Judas begat Phares and Zara by Tamar." For why did it not suffice him to say, "Judas begat Phares," passing over Zara, as he did in the case of Jacob, where, mentioning him alone, he left out Esau?
3. He adds also from what mother they were born, namely from Tamar, C by which words he urges us in a way to consider the history concerning them. For Moses writes in Genesis, saying: "And it came to pass when Tamar was about to give birth, that there were twins in her womb. And it came to pass in her bearing, that one put forth his hand, and the midwife having taken it, tied a scarlet thread around his hand, saying, This one will come out first. But as he drew back his hand, his brother straightway came out. And the woman said, Why was the barrier broken for thee? And she called his name Phares. And after this his brother came out, on whose hand was the scarlet thread; and she called his name Zara." 38 Dost thou see how many things the birth of the aforementioned contains? For which reason I think that the mysteries signified in these things by the wonderful evangelist were not passed over in silence. Therefore, the holy Apostle, interpreting the word "barrier" (perhaps in relation to where it was said, "Why was the barrier broken for thee?"), speaks thus in the Epistle to the Ephesians: D "For he is our peace, who made both one, and having broken down the middle wall of the barrier, the enmity in his flesh, having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, that he might create the two in himself into one new man, and might reconcile both in one body to God." 29
4. Now then, having fixed your mind on these things, see whether the single birth of the two aforementioned—both he of Phares, on account of whom the barrier was broken, and he of the first who put forth his hand but the second to come out—signifies the two modes of life which those who were deemed worthy of birth from God have used; living partly in the Gospel, and partly under the law of Moses. But indeed, the one according to the Gospel was the first to put forth his hand; yet he did not come out into the light first. But having withdrawn his hand, he allowed the one according to Moses, who was second, to come out first. Thus, that which was first,
the last, with the sign tied to his hand, by which the prior one is proved to be prior. A For the life of the God-loving men before Moses was [a life] according to the Gospel of Christ, in which Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchizedek, and Job are reported to have excelled, and long before these, Noah, Shem, and Japheth, and Enoch, and as many as were similar to these. All of these, therefore, were righteous and pious and beloved of God; and indeed others are told of, who are in confession alien to the Mosaic law. These, clearly, anticipating the Mosaic custom, shone forth with the same evangelical philosophy as we have.
5. And that former life was denoted by Zarah, which is interpreted as "rising" or "dawn." For the first rays of the dawn of piety shone forth through those who were the first to be religious among men; such were they who, before Moses, immediately from the first creation of men, practiced the holy worship of God. And they, not otherwise than Zarah, first put forth their hand, B making known a life of practical virtue, which, however, they did not hold fast to, since the character of those who followed them retreated from it. And meanwhile, the wall being as it were divided, his brother went forth—the life according to Moses, which the marvelous Apostle called the "middle wall." Wherefore he also was called Pharez, a name taken from the division of the wall, for Pharez is explained as "division." Hence, also, the Pharisees among the Jews excelled, because they had separated themselves from the commingling of the multitude by a certain faction. It would have been, therefore, much happier and far better for the wall not to have been divided, but to have remained one and undivided. And this would have happened if, to him who first put forth his hand, the following one had succeeded and lived in the same manner of life. C For it would have been far better if the followers of the circumcision had embraced the customs of the ancient men beloved of God; for thus there would have been one wall, and one edification of the first and the last.
6. But since the infirmity of the second [people] did not allow the first way to prevail, the division of the wall which is according to God having rightly come to pass, and the middle wall of the fence having been placed between, he who had of old first put forth his hand went forth second into the light, through our Savior Jesus Christ, who recovered the most ancient and primitive wall. Wherefore the prophecy also says of him: "And thou shalt be called a builder of walls." D This one also took away the aforementioned middle wall; because, being Lord also of the Sabbath, he makes both one, as the holy Apostle says: "For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of the partition." And explaining what the middle wall is, he adds: "Having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances," having removed from the way the middle wall of the Mosaic law, which kept us who are from the Gentiles from the piety according to God, because it was not possible for all the nations, even if they had wished, to live according to the Mosaic formula.
A Likewise, as we have established in the *Evangelical Demonstrations*, He set forth the life according to the Gospel for all, having made the generation of that first manner of piety perfect and more illustrious, while at the same time bearing in His hand the testimony that He Himself was the first to exist. For the life delivered to all nations through the saving Gospel was that very life which also had stretched forth its hand before Moses, and which had been demonstrated through the actions of the first men who were beloved by God. And this was Zara, who had established in human beings the first rising of the divine commonwealth; and he became the same, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, a small rising which at the last shone forth again to all men. However, it is also fitting to add to what has been said, that the book of the generation of Jesus Christ does not present the one being genealogized as originating from the first of the two—I mean from Zara—but from the second, namely Phares; since He was born according to the flesh from the clan and seed of the second, not only being born of a woman, but also being made under the Law, that He might redeem those who were under the Law, according to the testimony of the Apostle concerning this matter as well.
VIII. Why the Evangelist made mention of the wife of Uriah in the genealogy.
B 1. The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, when it says, "David the king begot Solomon from her who was Uriah’s," seems almost to declare and announce that the prayers and supplications of David would soon obtain their desired end. For the book contains the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Savior and physician of all, by whose work alone David hoped to be absolved from the sin concerning Uriah and his wife, and to be extricated from the sentence of death. C Therefore, David himself, prophesying in the Psalms about Jesus Christ undergoing death (by whose benefit the soul of David also was to be delivered), signified the Savior’s descent to the dead and his own salvation, saying, "O Lord, You have brought up my soul from Hades; You have saved me from those who go down into the pit." And that: "You who exalt me from the gates of death." And that: "You will not leave my soul in Hades." And that: "Turning back, You have quickened me, and from the deeps of the earth You have brought me up again." Who, then, was the one who descended and brought him up from the deeps? Who was the one who saved him from those who go down into the pit? None other than He concerning whom D the wonderful evangelist writes the book of the generation, bringing us tidings—among other good things—also of the good things regarding David.
2. Moreover, I believe that David fell into this stumble on account of this one utterance, which in the twentieth and
A twenty-ninth psalm he says escaped him: "I said in my abundance, I shall not be moved forever." For to be high-minded and to utter such a statement—that he would never be moved, but would remain unshaken and impassive in his abundance—was arrogant and proud, and not like this: "Unless the Lord build the house, in vain have those labored who build it; unless the Lord guard the city, in vain has the watchman been awake." Therefore, having come into an abundance of good things from God, and having progressed greatly in virtue, he dared to say, "I shall not be moved forever." And for this reason, he is immediately abandoned by the Lord who works the good things with him, and an alien spirit becomes attached to him. He says, therefore, in the same psalm: "I said in my abundance, I shall not be moved forever. But you turned your face away, and I became troubled. O Lord, by your will you granted power to my beauty." By this he teaches that having previously said, "I shall not be moved forever," he later, when God turned His face away on account of his boastful utterance, confesses that he became troubled; and then, having been benefited by these things, he no longer ascribes his former achievements to himself, but to God, saying: "O Lord, by your will you granted power to my beauty." For when, he says, you turned Your face away and I became troubled, then I knew that even before—by Your will—you had granted power to my beauty. For if there was any beauty existing in my soul before the sin, this very thing was present to me from Your grace and gift. And he confesses these things B after the realization of his own weakness.
3. Moreover, when Nathan the prophet came to him, at the time he had entered in to Bersabe, and he sends up the prayer in the fiftieth Psalm, saying: "To You C alone have I sinned, and done what is evil before You," saying, "To You alone have I sinned," he does not— D and again the prophecy: "Boast not, and do not speak lofty things into the height, nor let a boastful word come out of your mouth"; and Solomon also says: "Do not boast of tomorrow, for you do not know what the coming day will bring." But David, having come into an abundance of good things from God, and having progressed greatly in virtue, dared to say: "I shall not be moved forever." Therefore, he is immediately abandoned by the Lord who works the good things with him, and an evil spirit becomes attached to him; whence he says: "I said in my abundance, I shall not be moved forever. But You turned your face away, and I became troubled," teaching that having previously said, "I shall not be moved forever," afterwards, when God turned His face away on account of the boastful voice, he confesses that he became troubled; then, having been benefited by these things, he no longer ascribes his former achievements to himself, but to God, saying: "O Lord, by Your will You granted power to my beauty." For, "When You turned Your face away and I became troubled," then I knew that even before, by Your will and from Your grace and gift, the beauty existed in my soul. Wherefore he says: "I was lifted up and I was humbled and I was in despair; but it is good for me that You humbled me, so that I might learn Your statutes; and I knew, O Lord, that Your judgments are righteousness, and in truth You have humbled me."
A psalm is, he uttered: "Against You only have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight." But when he says, "Against You only have I sinned," he does not mean by this that he sinned against God alone; for his manner of sinning did not involve blasphemy, nor perjury, nor any such impiety as would lead one to think he had sinned against God alone. But, if one must speak plainly, he had sinned greatly against Bathsheba, and most of all against Uriah, and first of all against his own soul. Why, then, does he say here, "Against You only have I sinned"? I believe he says this because to You alone my sin was known. He therefore adds more clearly: "And done this evil in Your sight," for I had no fear of men, unless Your fear had come upon me. Having therefore cast his face to the ground, he says he will not rise before he obtains grace. And all who favor his well-being join in prayer with him, petitioning that he might be heard; wherefore it is said in the one hundred and thirty-first psalm: B "Remember, O Lord, David and all his meekness; how he vowed a vow unto the Lord, and prayed to the God of Jacob. If I shall enter into the tabernacle of my house, if I shall climb up into my bed, if I shall give sleep to my eyes, or slumber to my eyelids, until I find a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob."
4. While he prays and affirms that he will not go up into his bed, nor enter his house, and furthermore will not give slumber to his eyelids until he finds the future place of the Lord, the Lord shows him Bethlehem. Wherefore, after his prayer, the holy angels of God who pray with him add in sequence: C "Lo, we heard of it at Ephratha." Ephratha, moreover, is Bethlehem, as Moses records, saying: "And Rachel died, and was buried on the way to Ephratha; the same is Bethlehem." But Micah also states that Ephratha is Bethlehem, saying: "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, are by no means the least among the princes of Judah." Then David prays not only to know the place of the Lord, but also whence His tabernacle should be. The tabernacle is the wrapping and the body which the Word of God assumed. Regarding the place, they rightly foretold by saying: "Lo, we heard of it at Ephratha." But concerning the tabernacle, they immediately add for him: D "The Lord swore truth to David, and will not frustrate it; of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne." By these words David is instructed that the tabernacle destined for the Lord was to be the fruit that would be born from his own lineage.
IX.
Why the Evangelist made mention of Ruth
1. And how was the divine Apostle, who in the spirit foresaw the calling of the Gentile nations that was to come through his Gospel, not to mention the foreign woman? For Ruth was a foreigner and
A indeed one of those aliens whose intercourse Moses had forbidden, namely the Moabites. "The Moabites," he says, "and Ammonites shall not enter the Church of the Lord up to the third and fourth generation, and even forever." But yet, this woman, having become a lover of God, which is better than the law, entered into the Church of the Lord, since the Law speaks to those who are under the Law: "For the law is not laid down for the just, but for the unjust and refractory, for the ungodly and sinners." Ruth was not of this sort; even though by descent she was a foreigner, she surpassed the ordinance of the Law and entered into the Church of the Lord, and she was accounted of the Israelite race, and was deemed worthy to be included among the ancestors of our Savior, not because of the nobility of her body, but because of her character. She became a very great example to all of us foreigners who are from the nations, that if we do things similar to her, we shall obtain equal grace from God.
2. Therefore, as he was about to proclaim the calling and adoption of the foreigners, he rightly B placed this woman in the genealogy, instructing us who are foreigners from the nations, as it were, through her, that because we have abandoned our ancestral ways, the consequences will rightly be fulfilled in us too. For we shall no longer be counted among foreigners, nor shall we be named as coming from foreigners, but from the true Israel and the people who are the inheritance of God. And necessarily, the evangelist once again mentioned Ruth, having explained through her history the causes that dissolved the prohibition of the Law, which said, "The Moabites shall not enter the Church of the Lord." For the Moabitess became like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built up the house of Israel. But why would the mention of Ruth not be useful for the genealogy of our Savior Jesus Christ, concerning whom it was also said, "Do valiantly in Ephrathah, C and there shall be a name in Bethlehem"? For one might rightly say that these are clear prophecies: seeing the name from Bethlehem—which Matthew says is in the genealogy of Jesus Christ—proclaimed to every race of men, and the power that occurred in Ephrathah—by which power all the nations recognized the Christ of God who was genealogized from Ruth, and through Him parted from their ancestral rites just as Ruth did, and gave themselves to the God of Israel just like her. For these reasons, it seems to me that the mention of Ruth was not rashly taken up into the genealogy of Matthew.
X. Why the evangelist calls Jehoiakim by the name Jechonias.
1. This man was dual-named. But since, according to the prophet Jeremiah, he is reproached when called Jechonias—through the words which say, "Jechonias is dishonored as a vessel D of which there is no need; because he was cast out, he and his seed; Earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man down as proscribed, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, ruling still in Judah"—and because, on account of these things, it happened that the
A said person endured the Babylonian captivity along with the people, the marvelous evangelist, when recording the generation of the Redeemer and Savior of all, justly made mention also of this man who was held in contempt and cast out with his seed into the land of the Babylonians, who had become a proscribed man and a captive; teaching that He who was sent by the Father to preach deliverance to the captives, even He was Jesus Christ, concerning whom he writes the book, and to whom the oracle recited in the prophet refers: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim liberty to the captives." Concerning whom the same prophet also says elsewhere: "He shall build my city, and he shall bring back the captivity of my people."
B 2. Therefore, Matthew, who records the genealogy of the Son of God, announces the coming of the Redeemer to Jeconiah himself and his soul, and to those who had suffered the same ignominy and captivity of soul as he: and he brings down also the genealogy of other guilty and sinful men. For it is one and the same discourse that makes mention of David's crime concerning the wife of Uriah, and of the fornication of Judah, and of the alien woman, the Moabitess Ruth. The same discourse presents Jesus as living with publicans and sinners, and enduring most shameful things from men, and finally as being crucified with evildoers. And this was the discourse by which it was said: "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." For it was necessary that He who was to be the purifier of all past and future sins, C and who was about to lay down his soul for the souls of men—it was necessary, I say, that He should endure all those evils and, being innocent, sustain the punishments of sinners and the impious, so that the oracles spoken concerning Him, and the rest, might find their fulfillment. Concerning the same, the marvelous Isaiah also says: "He bears our sins, and suffers for us: he was wounded for our iniquities, he was made weak for our transgressions: by his stripe we all are healed."
3. But if the prophet says concerning Jeconiah to the land: "Write this man down as proscribed, for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David, ruling still in Judah"—he does not strictly deny that his seed would continue to exist, but affirms that no one of his D lineage would rule among the Jewish nation. And this truly came to pass. Therefore, he says: "Jeconiah has been held in derision, like a vessel for which there is no use. Wherefore he himself and his seed have been cast out into a land which he did not know"—by which words he clearly designates the land of Babylon. Yet He who was sent to proclaim liberty to the captives, and to loose the chains of sins and the bonds of souls long held captive by death, came indeed to effect the salvation of all these. Wherefore David prophesies concerning Him: "He sent his word, and healed them from their destructions. Let them confess to the Lord his mercies and his marvelous works."
A His wondrous works to the sons of men. For he hath broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder. And he took them up from the way of their iniquity. They were brought low: but he brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and hath broken their bonds in sunder. These things are said, indeed, concerning the redemption from death by Christ; to which another oracle agrees: "Death hath been swallowed up by might." And again: "God hath taken away every tear from every face." Moreover, it is to be observed that the prophecy which says, "There shall not rise from the seed of Jechonias one who sits upon the throne of David, ruling any more in Juda," does not fail; because no one, in fact, was a successor of the Davidic kingdom of the tribe of Juda after Jechonias. For after the Babylonian captivity, the whole nation remained subject to the high priests until the advent of our Savior Jesus Christ: while in the meantime, there were tetrarchs, such as those about Herod and Philip, a governor, Pontius Pilate, B and over all, Caesar the emperor.
XI. Why the evangelist uses distinctions in the genealogy, not connecting the forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ all at once, but dividing the successions along the segments which he writes.
Because of the different conditions of the people, which are manifest from history. For one condition existed from Abraham down to David, and another again from David down to the captivity, which is followed by a third down to Christ. For indeed, from Abraham down to David, it is evident that the Hebrews were not under kings, but after Moses and Joshua those called judges by them ruled the nation; and there was a certain peculiar manner of their succession. Furthermore, perhaps Jerusalem was not yet built, nor certainly was the temple there. Wherefore, the evangelist wisely, without disturbing the history, stopped at David while counting the descendants of Abraham separately. Then again, since from David down to the captivity the Hebrews used their own kings—partly the successors of David, and partly those C who ruled over the separated portion of the people—during which period of time the temple at Jerusalem persisted from its founding until the captivity, the evangelist rightly separated these also and concluded them in a distinct class. D Now, since after the captivity down to Christ there was no longer a kingdom of David, but the principality had fallen from the tribe of Juda to the priestly race—which governance lasted from the times of Cyrus down to the birth of Christ—he therefore also counted these successors in a separate class. These, then, were the causes on account of which the evangelist did not make the three distinctions without reason.
XII. Why, when from the times of David down to Jechonias or the Babylonian captivity there were seventeen kings, the evangelist says there are fourteen generations.
1. If it were his intent to record successions...
one might plausibly reproach him for having broken off the series of kings. For it is affirmed with constancy in the books of Kings and in Chronicles that after Joram son of Josaphat, three kings reigned in succession: Ochozias, Joasus, and Amesias; to whom succeed Ozias, Joatham, and Achaz. Nevertheless, the evangelist, having passed over the three former, immediately attaches Ozias, Jotham, and Achaz to Joram son of Josaphat, skipping those who were between them. A If, I say, he had done this while having determined to set forth the succession of kings, his writing might appear in a certain sense faulty. But in truth he did not propose to himself to enumerate successions, but generations: this is what the language of the speaker signifies, saying: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and again from David to Jechonias or the Babylonian captivity, fourteen generations," B and not fourteen successions; he will therefore deservedly be free from every reproach. Now because Matthew has not used the term successions, and the history of the Kings and Chronicles narrate successions and not generations, no contradiction appears in the comparison of these.
2. For one cannot call the term of a man’s life a "generation," since it often happens that some live briefly and are extinguished quickly at the age of an infant; others go on to boyhood; others to youth; others to virile age; and others even prolong their life to extreme C old age. What sort of thing, then, can one estimate a generation to be? Since one lives only to the tenth year, another to the twentieth, another to the fiftieth, another to the seventieth; and another, having exceeded even the hundredth year, is seen not only among the ancients but also among us. Why then do they think that a man’s life should be called a generation? Nor can it be allowed to call the time up to the first child-bearing a generation; for some, marrying before the twentieth year of age, beget children, while others do not do so even after the thirtieth year of age. D And among those of the same age you may see some still remaining in their first child-bearing, while others have already progressed to the fourth; so that at the fiftieth year some see grandchildren, while others, in the space of seventy years, do not obtain any child at all. In what way, then, were generations to be counted: from the long-lived or the short-lived? From those who beget early or late? From those who are in their first child-bearing, or from those who already have many children? Having weighed these things, the divine evangelist, not being eager to write successions, but enumerating generations according to the principle he had explored for himself, neglected the history of successions; he assumed for the genealogy as many men as sufficed him for completing the fourteen generations. Thus his account is preserved sound and is in no way contrary to the history of the Scriptures.
QUESTION XIII.
Why, when there are twelve in the genealogy from Jechoniah to Joseph, does the evangelist again say there are fourteen?1. The reason is the same. For he did not wish to register successions, but generations, as I said. It often happens in the case of long-lived men of great age that, whatever the number of successors may be, the number of generations is nonetheless full. For this reason, just as in the category of the patriarchs from David to the captivity, although the number of successors was somewhat greater, fewer generations were set forth by the evangelist—for in the successions of seventeen men, fourteen generations are stated—so now, too, by the same intent, in the successions of twelve men, fourteen generations are said to be completed, because, as is B likely, those twelve were long-lived and of great age, so that they sufficed for the completion of the fourteen generations. This is the first response to the question.
2. But you might find another explanation if you were to consider the history carefully, that fourteen are named in this present succession if, in addition to the twelve, you should count Jesus Christ Himself, the reputed son of Joseph, and add to these Jechoniah, namely the one who was carried away to Babylon, not the other who reigned in Jerusalem before the deportation. For there were two homonymous men named Joakim after Josiah: the one who was the son of Josiah himself, who reigned after him in Jerusalem, and another, his son, C also named Joakim. These men were also called Jechoniah, as their name was inclined toward the Greek form. The first Joakim, who was also the son of Josias, let him be reckoned among the generations before the captivity. But his son, the second Joakim, who is likewise Jechoniah, being the son of the first Joakim and grandson of Josiah, if he be reckoned with those who were between the captivity and Christ, the number of fourteen generations will be complete.
3. Now, that there were two Joakims, the Book of Reigns will bear witness, having matters in this way: "And Pharaoh Necho made Eliakim son of Josiah king over Israel, in place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Joakim." D To which it adds: "Joakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem." To which, after other things, it adds: "And the rest of the words of Joakim, and all that he did, behold, are they not written in the book of the words of the days of the kings of Judah? And Joakim slept with his fathers, and Joakim his son reigned in his place. Joakim was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Estha. And he did evil before
the eyes of the Lord, according to all that his father had done. At that time Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon, came up against Jerusalem, and the city was in siege; and the king of Babylon entered into the city, and his servants besieged it. And Joakim, king of Judah, went out to the king of Babylon, himself and his servants, and his mother, and his eunuchs; and he led away the mighty men of the land captive from Jerusalem to Babylon.” This, therefore, is the second Joakim who was carried away to Babylon; he is the same whom Jeremiah calls Jechonias, being the grandson of Josiah, but not his son. For this reason he is rightly reckoned in the third class of the fourteen generations which run from Jechonias to Christ; while his father, who was the son of Josiah, is numbered with his parent in the preceding generations. And thus the entire number of the last A fourteen generations is completed for us, with the father of the one mentioned above being counted in the former generations; and in this way the number of the final fourteen generations stands complete for us.
XIV. Why our Savior chose to be called the son of a carpenter, rather than of some noble and illustrious man.
He did not come to demonstrate His divine kingdom; therefore, He did not appear to us in a glorious or pompous manner. Moreover, His path to heaven was of such a kind that He might purify the life of men, while He gave Himself up from the flock of mankind as the Lamb of God, doomed to death and an offering for all of us. Wherefore, in order that he might tend toward this end without any hindrance, He took care to conceal and shroud in darkness most of His miracles, now forbidding that the things He had done should be brought to the notice of the crowd, now seeking out deserted places and sojournings in the mountains. Furthermore, He did not show His divine B transfiguration to all His disciples, but only to three; and He even commanded these same ones not to tell anyone of the vision until the Son of Man should rise from the dead. Nor would He have suffered for us those things which are written, if He had arrived in the likeness of a magnificent king, with a divine retinue or army, at once performing divine prodigies and demonstrating Himself to be superior to all nature. Rightly, therefore, according to the Apostle, “He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant,” and did not refuse to be called the son of poor Joseph. For thus the truthful sentiment speaking of Him appears: “Being rich, for our sake He became poor, that by His poverty we might become rich.”
XV. In what way Jesus is said to have sat upon the throne of David.
1. The throne of David is understood in different ways. In one way, as if someone were to say that it signifies C that [throne] upon which
a king sits, which perhaps was made of ivory and wood, and adorned with gold and royal stones. In another way, we are accustomed to call the rule itself and the leadership of the entire nation a throne of dominion. A third way, besides those already mentioned, is that by which the throne promised by God to David may be called his, not on which he himself sat, but which the divine Scriptures contain regarding him through heavenly prophecies. For it is written in the eighty-eighth psalm: "How I have sworn to David my servant, I will prepare your seed unto the age, and I will build your throne unto generation and generation." And again: "And I will set his seed unto the age of the age, and his throne as the days of heaven." And again: "Once I have sworn in my holy place, if I lie unto David, his seed remains unto the age, and his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon set up unto the age, and the witness in heaven is faithful."
B 2. Since, therefore, God had promised through these words that He would give to David a throne that would endure unto the age, just as the days of heaven and as the sun and the moon, there was, because of this, a great expectation among the whole nation of the Jews concerning the throne that had been indicated. But after David had ruled for a short time, and Solomon after him, and indeed their royal successors had come to an end with Jechonias and the captivity in Babylon, so that after that time the royal throne of David had been overturned, the promises of these divine oracles seemed not to be consistent with themselves. Wherefore, by the same divine Spirit, the aforementioned psalm again, after the preceding words, speaks thus: "Where are C your ancient mercies, O Lord, which you swore to David in your truth?" And it also openly signifies the destruction of his kingdom and of his succession, and the ruin of the throne, in what follows by these words: "But you have rejected and despised, O Lord, you have delayed your Anointed; you have overturned the testament of your servant, you have profaned his sanctuary unto the ground," and it adds: "and you have cast down his throne unto the ground."
3. All these things the Spirit gathers together at the same point, as if wishing to teach us that the promises made to David were not concerning a sensible kingdom, nor concerning a throne understood in a more corporeal way. D For those [prophecies] predicted a certain eternal throne, likened to the sun and the heaven, and remaining unto the age; but the sensible kingdom of David was dissolved in no long time. Rightly, therefore, having described the destruction of the throne of David’s sensible kingdom, and having said, "and you have cast down his throne unto the ground," he follows with a prayer concerning the eternal and heavenly throne promised by the divine oracles, saying: "Where are your ancient mercies, O Lord, which you swore to David in your truth?"—as if he were claiming that the outcomes of the things promised to him with the confirmation of an oath should attain their end.
A 4. This, indeed, is that throne which God swore to give to David, as the days of heaven and as the sun in the sight of God, and as the moon perfected forever, and which the whole nation longed to see established. And the great angel Gabriel announces to the Virgin that this is about to be given to the One to be born of her, and so he says to her: "And you shall call his name Jesus; he will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." He then continues and says: "And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." These things B harmonize with the interpretation of the oracles; for the one who predicted to David regarding the throne of an eternal and heavenly kingdom, and who likewise says that the One to be born of the Virgin will receive the throne of David—that is, the one promised to David but not yet given [(21)]—he, then, was the heavenly one who was to remain forever. This, therefore, was also the conclusion of a very great prophecy uttered to David, expected by the whole people, and fulfilled in our Savior Jesus Christ, according to the testimony of Gabriel, who said: "And he will reign forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." Wherefore even the Savior and our Lord himself, when he was asked if he himself were the King of the Jews, replied: "My kingdom is not of this world." For the throne of his kingdom conferred upon him nothing mortal or temporal; but he was like a light shining in the whole assembly of men, as the sun and as the moon perfected forever, illuminating intellectual souls through his divine and heavenly teaching.
C 5. But if it is said that he will reign over Jacob, do not think that the Jewish nation is signified by Jacob. Certainly, Luke the evangelist, who records these things, since he committed the words of Gabriel to his own writing after the ascension of our Savior into heaven, knew clearly that Jesus the Savior had by no means reigned over the Jewish nation, nor was he to exercise an eternal empire over them; indeed, he records their machinations and lethal crimes against him, and not only in the Gospel, but also in the Acts of the Apostles he writes of the hostile attacks of the Jews against the disciples of Jesus. Therefore, since he judged that it was signified by the very voice of Gabriel that Christ would reign over them, he would not have judged it to be truly stated unless he believed that all men, having been taken into the adoption of the sons of God through the calling D of our Savior from all nations, were signified by the house of Jacob. Whence also the divine Apostle, being clearly instructed, says: "For he is not a Jew who is one in the manifest, nor is that which is in the manifest in the flesh circumcision; but he is a Jew who is one in secret, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God."
QUESTION XVI
A How is it that Matthew relates that Jesus was carried by his parents from Bethlehem into Egypt, while Luke says he was taken to Jerusalem, and from there to Nazareth?1. Luke, while recording the time of our Savior's birth, mentions the reign of Augustus and the census described under him. He says that they lacked a lodging in Bethlehem, as it is probable that a multitude of the descendants of David were flocking there for the sake of registering their names; for which reason Joseph could not even find a house. Hence he says that Mary, after giving birth, wrapped the infant in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. And it is indeed reasonable that, due to the crowds flocking for the census, they were without a guest-chamber. Furthermore, he says, "When the days were completed for him to be circumcised"—which, of course, had to take place on the eighth day after birth—"they brought the child to Jerusalem, and having fulfilled the things prescribed by law concerning him, they departed to Nazareth." B Matthew mentions nothing of these things recorded by Luke, but having left these matters to Luke, he narrates other things himself. And what were these, if not the arrival of the Magi from the East? They were stirred from their own land at the very time of Jesus' birth, as a star indicated to them the knowledge of his birth, but they certainly did not complete such a long journey in a short time. For it is not credible that they arrived in Judea from the East within eight days, so that we should think the time of their arrival was the same as the time of our Savior's birth. Yet, when they inquire and say, "Where is he who is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star, and have come to worship him," they do not, as someone might suppose, mean the one born just recently, at the time they are making these inquiries; but they mean the one who was born C at the time when the star appeared to them.
2. And how long this interval of time was between the star that appeared to the Magi at the time of our Savior's birth and their arrival in Jerusalem, the evangelist himself will teach you by saying: "Then Herod, having secretly called the Magi, diligently learned from them the time of the star which appeared to them." And when, having accurately inquired from them, he learned who he was, after the Magi withdrew secretly and he saw that he had been mocked by them, "he was greatly angered, and sending forth, he killed all the children who were in Bethlehem, and in all its borders, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had accurately learned from the Magi." D Two years, therefore, had already passed from the birth of Jesus until the arrival of those mentioned. So the sacred evangelists are not in disagreement, even if Luke takes him with his parents to Jerusalem on the eighth day after his birth for the sake of fulfilling the lawful requirements and from there takes him to Nazareth, while Matthew writes that they were again in Bethlehem after a two-year period; and that from there they retreated into Egypt on account of the king's treachery. It is credible that they did not only once but often...
revisit that place for the sake of remembering the miracle; thus it is demonstrated A beyond doubt that the time when our Savior was born according to Luke is not the same time as the one in which the Magi from the East arrived according to Matthew.
3. That the time with both evangelists was not the same can be deduced by other reasoning as well. Luke says that they did not find lodging in Bethlehem; for this reason, when the child was born, she laid him in a manger, because there was no room in the inn—as is likely, on account of the census, with all those of the house and lineage of David streaming from everywhere into the aforementioned city, and because of the multitude of strangers staying there who could not find lodging. But Matthew says: "When they had heard the king, Herod, they departed for Bethlehem; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was with Mary his mother. And falling down, they worshipped him." B Yet the infant is not found lying in a manger by them, as he was by the shepherds, but is seen inside a house with his mother. If Luke said there was no room for them in the inn, how then does Matthew assign a house to them? But since Luke narrates the time of the birth—and this was the time of the census, during which those belonging to the same family were crowding in a body into the city of David—while Matthew narrates events after two years’ time (for this was the duration of time that Herod had ascertained from the Magi), it follows that, there being space in Bethlehem [by then], they were able to find lodging according to Matthew. Therefore, the Magi, having entered the house, saw the child with Mary his mother, and falling down, they worshipped him. And this is the solution to the question asked.
These things, most holy and hardworking son Stephen, are dedicated to you by us as proof of our genuine affection. C
[Note: The remaining paragraph and final lines contain critical commentary on Eusebius’s works and the interpretation of a fragment from the Emperor Julian, which does not constitute part of the *Quæstiones evangelicæ* itself.] D
SELECT EPITOME FROM THE SAME EUSEBIUS TO MARINUS ON THE QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS IN THE GOSPELS (24).
A Having already composed two books on the ambiguous questions and solutions that occur concerning the beginnings of the divine Gospels, I come now, having passed over the middle portions, to the final sections, which have always been a matter of controversy for everyone: perhaps by the divine will, which has prompted us to this through your commands, Marinus, my most honored and diligent son. You ask, first:
1. How does the Savior appear to have risen late on the Sabbath according to Matthew, but early on the first day of the week according to Mark?
1'. There would be a twofold solution to this. For one person, B by rejecting the very chapter itself—that is, the section in which this is narrated—would say that it is not contained in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. Indeed, the accurate copies [(25)] conclude the history according to Mark at the words of the young man seen by the women, where he says to them, "Do not be afraid; you seek Jesus the Nazarene," and the following, to which he adds, "And having heard, they fled, and told no one anything, for they were afraid." For in this place the end is marked in almost all the copies [(26)] of the Gospel according to Mark; but what follows, being seldom found in some—though not in all—would be superfluous, and especially so if they should have a contradiction to the testimony of the remaining evangelists. This, then, is what someone might say in rejecting and entirely removing the superfluous question [(27)]. But another person, not daring to reject anything C of those things found in the writing of the Gospels, says that there is a double solution: [alt-version omitted]
as is also the case in many other matters, and that each is to be accepted, since the judgment of believers and pious men inclines not to this one rather than that one A, nor to that one rather than this one (28).
II. How the Magdalene, who according to Matthew had seen the resurrection late on the Sabbath, the same woman according to John stands weeping at the tomb on the first day of the Sabbath.
1. There will be no question in these places if we do not understand "late on the Sabbath" to be said of the evening time after the Sabbath day, as some have supposed, but of the late and final period of the night after the Sabbath.
Age B truly, if it is conceded that the matter is so, the method and meaning of the reading must be cleared up. If therefore we divide the sense of the passage, we shall surely not find it contrary to those things which are said by Matthew, namely that the Savior rose "late on the Sabbath." For we shall read that which is in Mark, "Now when he had risen early on the first day of the Sabbath," with a distinction, and after "when he had risen," we shall place a mark; and we shall mark off the sense from what follows. Then, the "when he had risen," we shall refer to the "late on the Sabbath" in Matthew; for then indeed he had risen. The following part, which contains another meaning, we shall connect with what is added: "for early on the first day of the Sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene." John also declared this, testifying that Jesus himself appeared to the Magdalene early on the first day of the Sabbath. Thus, therefore, he also appeared to her in Mark early; not having risen early, but much earlier according to Matthew, namely "late on the Sabbath." For at that time he had risen and appeared to Mary—not at that time, but early. So that in these accounts, there are two times set forth: one of the resurrection, namely "late on the Sabbath"; and the other of the Savior’s appearance, namely "early," of which Mark speaks when he says (and this must be read with a distinction) C: "Now when he had risen," then after marking it, the following must be said: "early on the first day of the Sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."
[... A block of text containing critical notes and discussion regarding the integrity of the Marcan text and modern scholarly opinion, including references to Birch, Scholz, and Tischendorf, is present in the Latin column here. [alt-version omitted]]
(29) A notable statement of Eusebius regarding those parts of Scripture which have sometimes been controversial! Let those hear this who not only cut away the smallest parts—like the heavenly testimony in the Epistle of John v. 7—but even larger ones, and indeed whole deuterocanonical books.
(29) These questions about discrepancies in times and about the various Marys and the distinct angels were partly edited by Combefis in his *Novum Auctarium Patrum* and by Matthaei in his *Anecdota Moscuensia*, though not without variations. For these little studies of Eusebius occur everywhere in codices, both in others and in the Vatican ones, so that they were once translated into Latin also by Ambrose of Milan, a monk of Monte Cassino, as Sixtus testifies in his *Bibliotheca*.
after the Sabbath; for thus we are accustomed to say "late the hour," and "late the time," and "late the need," not signifying the evening, nor the time after sunset, but indicating by this mode that it is very late. Hence, as if interpreting himself, Matthew, after the "late the Sabbath," added "which begins to dawn," meaning, that is, at the hour which was now presently beginning to appear and dawn into the Lord’s Day, which was late and A already advancing far from the Sabbath. ¶ Furthermore, "late the Sabbath" has been spoken by the interpreter of the Scripture; for the evangelist Matthew indeed delivered the Gospel in the Hebrew language; but he who translated it into the Greek tongue, the hour dawning onto the Lord's Day, he called "late the Sabbaths," so that the same time is understood, or one very close to it, designated by the evangelists with diverse names; and it makes no difference that Matthew says: B "Now late the Sabbaths, which begins to dawn into one of the Sabbaths, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher," since John says: "And on one of the Sabbaths, Mary Magdalene comes early to the monument, while it was still dark." For they signify in a broad sense one and the same time by different terms; Matthew using "late" for "tardily," and instead of "late in the night" naming "early," the interpreter added "while it was still dark," lest anyone should suppose it to be called the dawn by him. Just as also Matthew, by the words "late the Sabbaths," lest anyone should think of the evening time, added "which begins to dawn into one of the Sabbaths." And indeed he expressed the late hour accurately, lest anyone should suppose the evening hour to be after sunset; for he says "late the Sabbaths."
2. It was however a custom to call the whole week "Sabbath," and to name all the days in this way. Thus it is said by the evangelists: "on one of the Sabbaths"; and in common usage, "second C of the Sabbaths," and "third of the Sabbaths," and "fourth of the Sabbaths." Thus, therefore, Matthew called the time dawning toward the morning of the Lord’s Day "late the Sabbaths," not saying "evening of the Sabbath," nor "late of the Sabbath"; since it would behoove us on the day of the Sabbath, after the setting of the sun and the evening having come, to break the fast; and no longer to rejoice on the Lord’s Day, but on the evening of the Sabbath, if the evangelist indeed intended that. But we are not accustomed to break fasts on the evening of the Sabbath, but when night has taken hold, at midnight itself, or about the cock-crowing, or around the dawn; so that both from the act itself, and from the custom prevailing in the Churches of God, the time signified by "late the Sabbaths" is not the evening hour, but this which Matthew himself D demonstrated by saying "which begins to dawn into one of the Sabbaths." For there was no reason for such wonders to be performed around the monument of the Savior during the evening of the Sabbath, lest all the inhabitants of the city should learn the things happen-
ing, and a crowd should gather at the monument, while everyone was awake. It was logical, after the stone had been overturned paradoxically, for the guards to hasten immediately to report what had happened, since the hour allowed them to do so. And they are instructed the next day by the chief priests to proclaim to everyone that his disciples came by night and stole him away while we were sleeping—which would have had no room to be fabricated if he had risen in the evening. But I think it is demonstrated through these things that the expression used by Matthew, "late on the Sabbath," does not signify the late hour of the Sabbath, nor the evening time; for Matthew himself added, "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week," which was morning, while it was still dark according to John. For thus the harmony of the evangelical voices would come together, as one time is signified by them, but the parts of that time are changed by each of the writers; since it is possible to conceive of the beginning, the middle, and the end of one and the same hour. B 3. You would not, then, be in error to say that the first things concerning the resurrection of our Savior are signified by John, with whom Mary Magdalene, in the morning while it was still dark, having come to the monument for the first and second time and not having found the body of the Savior, weeps because for no one yet was his resurrection explored. And the other part of that hour is the time of which Matthew speaks, when the same Magdalene comes for the third time to the monument with the other Mary, and no longer weeps, as she would have already seen the angels and the Savior himself according to John; for the things said by Luke and Mark would be indicative of other events, with whom more women arrive for the viewing. But consider that the Magdalene did not meet them at times far removed from one another, but near the same and at the same time, and that the first and second events occurred; the first, where she was alone; the second, with the other Mary. Thus the same Mary Magdalene viewed the things recorded by Matthew and the things recorded by John. And she was not excluded from the narrations of the other evangelists; for she did not depart from the place, but was present and stood there astonished at what had been seen, desiring that after the first C apparition, she might also enjoy the second and third; which she actually attained, as many women came to the tomb in various ways; and the angelic vision presented itself to them in different ways, while the Magdalene herself participated in each vision. And thus, Magdalene was a witness of the events written by the four evangelists: wherefore mention is made of her by all. And thus the time was the same which is presented by John and Matthew, but however, different intervals of this time are noted by each. 4. Do not let it trouble you that it is said by Matthew, after the two Marys came to view the tomb,
"For the angel of the Lord descended from heaven and rolled back the stone from the door." For one should not suppose that the angel rolled back the stone at that very hour; for how could that be, when the account in John precedes it, where he narrates that not only Mary, but two disciples also had entered the monument? Therefore, you might say that the discourse in Matthew is a narrative of things that happened before this. For indeed, according to him, two Marys came to view the tomb, and found it already opened, since a great earthquake had occurred before this, and the angel had rolled back the stone, who, standing by, then announced the good news to the women. This, then, is one solution A for the difficulties surrounding this place.
5. The matters proposed could also be resolved in another way, if you were to suppose that the Marys mentioned in Matthew are different from the one in John. For we find that there were four Marys in all present at the Savior’s passion along with the other women. B First, the Theotokos herself, the mother of the Savior; second, her sister, Mary of Cleopas; third, Mary Magdalene; and fourth, the mother of James and Joseph. Now, John mentioned the first three Marys, saying thus: "There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene." The fourth C Mary, the mother of James and Joseph, was mentioned by the remaining three evangelists, who associate her with the Magdalene. Matthew indeed speaks thus: "And many women were there, watching from afar, who had followed him from Galilee, ministering to him; among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary of James and Joseph, who watched the place where he was laid." And Luke also speaks of the other Mary thus: "And there were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the others who were with them."
6. Therefore, of these four Marys, if you were to consider that the two in Matthew, who came to the monument at the dawn of the first day of the week and saw the angel, are different from the one who came alone according to John while it was still dark D on the first day of the week, being ignorant of the resurrection, and for this reason weeping, nothing inconsistent would be encountered, since every [difficulty is resolved].
And late indeed on the Sabbath, according to what has been set forth, those things having been done which are written down in Matthew at the presence of the two Marys, and early on the first day of the week, those things having been looked upon by the other Marys which are in John, all these things, I say, are true, and there is no contradiction in the places, or in the times, or in the persons, or in the narration itself.
7. Now if the name of the Magdalene added in both evangelists confuses the understanding, B truly it is not right that divine Scripture should be disturbed for the sake of one word or name, which often happens when it is intruded through the error of a copyist. For either it must be thought that these two came from one city or village, Magdalo, or that the surname of "Magdalene" was rashly added to one of them, the copyist who wrote in ancient times having slipped into error, which subsequent transcribers have kept as a mistake. We shall demonstrate a little later that the same thing happened in other instances as well. Indeed, when in such matters it was written correctly at the beginning, but later a mistake crept in, and yet the amanuenses did not recognize the change in the writing, some questions arose. And thus you would say that this happened regarding the surname of the Magdalene, superfluously added to one of the Marys: with which removed, every question is taken away, no one any longer having doubts regarding these passages. Therefore, both late on the Sabbath, which is to say in the deep night, those things which are narrated in Matthew were seen by the Magdalene and the other C Mary; and early, while it was still dark, another Mary came to the same place; who was first anxious, the body of the Savior not having been found; but later she herself was also a spectator of him. It would be more commendable, however, if we do not even argue that there is a mistake in these places, but rather deem that there were two Magdalenes, just as we have already demonstrated that there were four Marys. Certainly no absurdity forbids us from saying that two Marys came from the same village of Magdalo: so that absolutely no perplexity remains, but that one is she who was late on the Sabbath in Matthew, and another, and she herself also a Magdalene, is she who comes early to the monument in John: which latter one it is credible is mentioned by Mark also, according to the faith of some copies; from whom, to be sure, seven demons had been cast out: and this appears to be the one to whom it was said, "Do not touch me," D and not the one in Matthew: for even if she too perhaps originated from Magdalo, yet the divine Scripture does not besmirch the same one with the same stain.
III. How she who according to Matthew late on the Sabbath, the Magdalene, together with the other Mary, touched the feet of the Savior, the same one early on the first day of the Sabbath according to John hears, “Do not touch me.”
1. If indeed there were one and the same Mary before both
A evangelists, we shall say that she repeatedly came to the same place, since the astonishment at what had occurred and the joy at the outcome drew her there. Therefore, the first one to arrive and the first to witness the things which John narrates, she returned hurriedly to the apostles, first announcing the opening of the sepulcher; then, although she had seen the resurrection, she was nevertheless distressed, suspecting that someone had taken the body of Jesus from the grave, not knowing where he had been laid. Afterward, she went a second time with them to the tomb. And when they returned home, she alone was left behind in the place, stood there weeping, then stooping to look into the tomb, she saw two angels; then she also saw the Savior himself. Since she stood there weeping, and was disposed in a human and lowly way—as if his body had been stolen—and was thinking unworthy things about him, he first addresses her as “woman,” rebuking and reproaching her feminine despondency; hence he says, “Woman, why are you weeping?” Then he says to her, “Mary,” reminding her by her name of himself and of the words he had spoken long ago to her and the rest of the disciples concerning his resurrection. She, having come to her senses and recognized from the voice and the power of the word who it was, says, “Rabboni,” which is interpreted as “Teacher.”
2. Then, because she was hastening to approach him as a teacher and not yet as God, he forbids and turns her away, saying, “Do not touch me.” For because she was still thinking mortal thoughts, she was not able to touch his divinity; nor, indeed, was it fitting that she, who was still weeping and seeking him down by the monuments and tombs as if he were a dead man, and was thinking lowly and human things about him, should become a partaker of his touch. Wherefore he reveals the cause, saying that he had not yet ascended—as far as she was concerned—to the Father, C since she did not yet believe that this had taken place, but supposed him to be lying dead somewhere. Wherefore he says to her, “Do not touch me,” being such a one as you are and thinking such things about me; for to you I am not yet believed to be God, but am still considered to be earthly. Thus, by the words “Do not touch me,” he rebuked her who was weeping and who thought him to be the gardener; just as he did by calling her “woman” and by saying, “Why are you weeping?” For to weep for the living—or rather, for Life itself—was of the utmost ignorance. By these means he rebuked her; but by what followed he taught her the theology concerning himself. She, having been greatly profited by these things, again leaves the tomb—this is the second time—and then, having told the other Mary the things she had seen according to John, she returned with her; this is the third time. And she became a spectator of the things recorded by Matthew, no longer alone, but with the other Mary; and no longer stooping to look inside the D tomb as in John, nor seeing two angels, but one sitting by the stone.
3. After these things, she again sees the Savior himself with the other Mary; this is the second time; and no longer
does she hear, "Do not touch me," but on the contrary is commanded by Him to rejoice instead of weep; indeed, she is even permitted to touch Him, since she also worships Him as God. For Jesus says to them, "Rejoice." And they, approaching, took hold of His feet A and worshiped Him. And thus the sacred Gospels tell the truth at once, in no way contradicting one another, introducing the same Mary Magdalene as not at first touching the Savior when she was weeping and unbelieving, but touching Him when she was bidden to rejoice. Now, that the events described in John are to be considered prior to those reported in Matthew, we have demonstrated in our previous arguments according to one of the interpretations, having clarified how that which is said in Matthew, "at the end of the Sabbath" (sero Sabbatorum), does not denote the evening hour, by the evangelist, but the time dawning into the first day of the week. This time, however, was later than that of which John speaks. And let these things be said B if anyone insists at all that it is the same Mary in both the evangelists, John and Matthew.
4. But if it be conceded that they are not the same, but that another, who came at the end of the Sabbath accompanied by the other Mary to the tomb, and another who—according to John—came alone to the same tomb early on the first day of the week while it was still dark, then every ambiguity would be dissolved. For the former, who arrived at the end of the Sabbath, being more diligent and faithful, were bidden by Christ to rejoice, and were deemed worthy to worship Him and to take hold of His feet; whereas the Mary in John, being different from the former, arrived later, that is, in the morning. And this is the same one C as in Mark, from whom He had cast out seven demons; and her soul was vehemently disturbed, and she was more unbelieving, so that she remained there weeping, and supposed that the body of the Savior had been taken away from the tomb and carried off to other lands. And her mind had been so disturbed that she did not even greatly regard the angels seen inside the sepulcher, nor did she recognize the Savior himself when He appeared to her eyes, but deemed Him to be the gardener (36-37).
IV.
Concerning the tomb and the apparent contradiction.
D How is it that, according to Matthew, Mary Magdalene with the other Mary saw one angel outside the tomb sitting on the stone of the tomb; and how, according to John, Mary Magdalene inside the tomb sees two angels sitting; and according to Luke, two men stood by the women; and finally, according to Mark, a young man was seen by them sitting at the right side of the tomb by Mary Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome?
1. The events according to Matthew come first; whence the two Marys just then saw the angel who had come there and rolled away the stone. And the events according to
John surely occur later, where two angels were seen inside the tomb, distinct from the one who appeared outside A and sat upon the stone, as Matthew relates. But as for what is said in Luke, that two men were seen in shining raiment, and moreover that youth in Mark who was clothed in a white robe and seen on the right, not on the left, who announced the glad and joyful tidings to the women: these—I say—are surely angels distinct from one another, and different from those whom the former evangelists commemorate. Hence, neither Luke nor Mark explicitly call these ones angels; indeed, those same evangelists do not even record the things which John and Matthew relate, I mean the visions of the Savior. But they leave it to the greater ones, Matthew and John, to relate the greater things B; they themselves relate the secondary things, supplying what was passed over in silence by the others.
2. It is possible, therefore, to say this: since there are four evangelists, there appear to be as many visions recorded by them; there are four times, and the individuals who appeared at each time were peculiar to those times. Likewise, the women who saw them were different, and the words spoken to them by those who appeared were at variance. How, then, is this so? The first time is that in Matthew, late on the Sabbath, when Mary Magdalene was with the other woman outside the tomb, at the time the earthquake occurred, and they saw one saying: "Do not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; for He has risen; come, see." The fourth and final time is that in Mark, when the sun had risen and there appeared the C youth who was seen by the women,
Question IV to Marinus
.[Note: The text continues with a section marked (38) inserted between columns]
(38) In the two Eusebian chapters as Combesis, as I have said, has published, just as very many things from these writings intended for Marinus are missing, so some are diverse, and some indeed seem more explanatory. However, the edition in this place holds as follows: "Having conceded to those greater ones, or as if to Matthew and John themselves, since they were apostles, to write and record the greater things, they themselves, in relating the secondary things, filled in what was passed over in silence by those others—things which were secondary and fell far short of the former history. Thus the Holy Spirit distributed the accounts proper and suitable to each. Therefore, the women who came to the tomb at deep dawn in Luke, bearing the spices they had prepared, might be others than those in Matthew and John. For it would not make sense for the Marys who had already seen so much to be bringing spices for the first time, as if not yet having learned of the resurrection. For this reason, we might say that those signified in Luke are others than the first ones. D This the evangelist himself records, saying: 'And it was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was dawning. And the women who had accompanied Him from Galilee followed,' and the rest; behold, he shows that these were others. Hence, the ones who appeared were also different from those previously declared; for they were neither inside the tomb according to John, nor sitting on the stone as the angel in Matthew. Moreover, Luke did not even call them angels, but two men, though in shining raiment, as symbols of the feast. And their words to the women are distinct; and there were more women, not just the one in John; nor the two Marys in Matthew.
"Regarding the one Mary in John, about dawn, while it was still dark, standing at the tomb and seeing the stone taken away from the tomb, whom the evangelist names Magdalene, a suspicion enters that there is some other Magdalene who knew nothing of what was seen by the two Marys. But if it is the one and the same woman who is mentioned by both evangelists, the history in John must necessarily precede that in Matthew; and the same Magdalene, having come alone at first, saw the two angels sitting inside the tomb; but after this, having come a second time to the same place with the other Mary, she saw the angel sitting on the stone. Of these two interpretations, I deem the former the truer: that the Mary in John is different from those in Matthew, even if the epithet 'Magdalene' is ascribed to her, as there were, as is likely, two women from the same Magdala. For if this is granted, every dispute will be resolved: the women mentioned in Matthew being distinct, and others in John, and the angel sitting on the stone being one, and the two angels seen inside the tomb in John being others; and the time being different, and the words both of the angel sitting on the stone and of the angels seen inside the tomb being different.
"According to Mark, very early on the first day of the week they go to the tomb, as the sun had risen; behold, these are again others, and at a different time, who said to themselves: 'Who will roll away the stone for us?' And that they saw a youth sitting, just as in Luke, they were men and not angels; so now also he is not named an angel, nor a man, but a youth. So this account is also distinct, as is the one seen, and the others who arrived, and the time, being likewise different, the one after the rising of the sun." The same narrative again varies slightly in the Vatican codices, according to the judgment of the abbreviators or those making excerpts.
A The young man who was seen by the women, Mary Magdalene and Mary of James and Salome, who had come with spices and heard, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified." Intermediary between these are those angels who appear individually in John and Luke. For late on the Sabbath an angel appeared alone outside the tomb; after whom the Savior himself [appeared]. Then, early in the morning, two other men appeared in Luke, not seen inside the tomb. Last of all is that young man, and before him, as well as before the men mentioned by Luke, those two [appeared] inside the tomb.
3. Luke says that on the first of the Sabbaths, early in the morning, two women who had followed him, who were from Galilee and had followed along when they buried him, came to the tomb with spices; and these saw two angels, who also said, "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen; remember how he spoke to you while he was still with you, saying that the Son of man must suffer," and the rest.
4. John says that on the first of the Sabbaths Mary Magdalene came alone to the tomb, while it was still dark; and she saw the stone taken away. She came to Simon and to John and said, B "They have taken the Lord from the tomb and I do not know where they have laid him." Therefore Peter and John came to the tomb, and the rest. Then the evangelist shows the Magdalene weeping, and as she stooped to look, she saw two angels sitting, one at the head and one at the feet; and they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" And she said, "They have taken my Lord and I do not know where they have laid him." Then she turned back and saw Jesus standing, and did not know that it was Jesus. But Jesus says to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?"
5. Some are perplexed as to how three days and three nights are fulfilled, as Christ said, before the resurrection took place. It is possible to answer in this way. Some count from C the time when Jesus was betrayed; others divide the Preparation into two, since there was night and again day, because on that day the sun was darkened and again shone forth. Then there is the entire day of the Sabbath and its night. Others count the whole of the Preparation, both day and night; the Sabbath also, the whole of it and its night; and the beginning of the Lord's day they count as a whole day, as it was at the time when Christ rose. And thus they say there are three days. Certainly, in the case of the dead and of newborn children, we are accustomed to measure a whole day in this way, whether the birth happened at the tenth hour D or at the beginning of the day. In this same way, for the dead, we perform the customary funeral rites on the third, ninth, and fortieth day—not the whole third day with its night, nor the whole ninth with its night, nor the fortieth similarly with its night; but by observing the beginnings of the final days, we perform what is to be done, measuring and accounting this whole day.
A 6. But since Christ said, "I shall be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights," it is permitted to argue thus: If someone, bound by a debt, had promised his creditor that he would pay the debt after three days, and we saw him pay it before the appointed time, would we judge him a liar or much more truthful? Moreover, if Christ rose sooner than He had pledged, His power shines forth all the more, and there is no room for blame. Suspicion, on the other hand, and falsehood would have resulted from delay: falsehood, because the stated deadline would have passed; suspicion, because, when the guards had departed, the matter would have been deemed a theft.
EXPLICIT EPITOME.
TO THE READER Hitherto we have edited the continuous and pristine, illustrious Epitome of the Eusebian work, as it exists in the most beautiful Palatine codex Vat. CCXX, from folio 61 to 96, where the work in fact concludes, with the subsequent pages left blank. There were, however, as we have seen, 20 questions; namely, 16 to Stephanus, 4 to Marinus. Although supplements of both parts were available to us from various sources, we did not wish to mix them with the Epitome, lest we disturb the series of a work in itself neat and perfect by their insertion. Now, however, the supplements which we have found, both of the questions to Stephanus and also to Marinus, must be appended. And first, certain fine parts from the great manuscript catena of Nicetas on Luke in codex A, or Vat. 1611, which it appears were culled not from the Epitome but from the complete work; although Nicetas himself also seems sometimes, as happens in catenae, to abbreviate Eusebius; an indication of which is that there are sometimes certain particles in the Epitome which Nicetas subtracts, even though otherwise, in the parts cited by Nicetas, Eusebius is for the most part intact, and everywhere fuller. Now therefore, in the first place, the supplements of the questions to Stephanus.
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA PARTS FROM THE MORE COMPLETE WORK OF THE GOSPEL QUESTIONS in the Catena of Nicetas, ms. on Luke.
B 1. That Matthew traces the successions from above, but Luke proceeds in the reverse order, since both travel the same road, there is no place for blame. For no one would say that those who travel the path upward, and those who conversely descend by the same road, are walking by a different path: because, clearly, one path is trodden by both, that is, by those ascending and by those descending. In like manner also, in recounting the successions of a lineage, it is permitted to anyone, according to their choice, to move either from the lowest [descendants] upward, or, having taken the beginning from the ancestors above, to finish at the latest [descendants]. And this mode was pleasing to the Hebrews of old, etc. But if, because neither did Luke in ascending stop at Abraham, nor did Matthew begin from Adam, in whom Luke finished; it ought not to have been omitted.
A If anyone should say that they are discordant with one another, he does not judge rightly. For each of the evangelists has set forth his description according to his own reckoning; one indeed beginning from Abraham, the other even passing beyond Abraham himself and ascending as far as the first man; and not persisting even in this, he connects the series of his history with God. But what antagonism is there in these things? If to Matthew indeed, because of the scope of his writing, it seemed useful to deduce the genealogy from Abraham and onwards; but to Luke it was pleasing, on account of the mystery of regeneration in Christ, to elevate the man regenerated by the laver beyond the bounds of any generation whatsoever. Observe, in fact, that he has in his entire discourse kept silent the word "generation," but carries Jesus upwards by regressive movement, until he stops not at some man, but at God himself, the author of all, to whom he joins him as one who is truly his Son. B 2. But come, so that we may even convict the ignorance of the one who says this, and that no one may henceforth suffer scandal through ignorance of the truth, I will set forth the genuine history of the facts. But first, it is time to examine the proposition set before us. Matthew indeed descends from Abraham to David, and so to Solomon and his successors even to Jacob, from whom Joseph, the reputed father of Christ, is sprung. Luke, however, says that Joseph is not sprung from Jacob, as Matthew does, but from Heli; then ascending from Heli, he proceeds to others, none of whom Matthew mentions. And thus, running as it were a lateral path, he arrives not at Solomon, the son of David, but at Nathan, who was likewise a son of David. Yet it would have been necessary, if both evangelists were weaving one and the same genealogy, for Luke to weave the same series as Matthew, or for Matthew to recite the same names that Luke has. But these are so far from agreeing with one another, that one says Joseph is the son of Jacob and of Solomon, born of David; while the other says not of Jacob, but of Heli and Nathan, likewise born of David; in which plan of writing they seem to disagree greatly among themselves. How then is the proposed objection to be countered? Come, opening the eye of the soul, let us fix our mind accurately upon the very words, and let us look into what Luke says: "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being as was supposed [the son] of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Melchi." C But indeed Matthew did not use the expression "as was supposed," etc. And this is the first answer. D 3. There is perhaps also another deep and hidden sense in the things before us. For Matthew, clearly narrating the carnal origin of Christ, and wishing to demonstrate Joseph as truly sprung from David, makes the opening of his discourse such as was appropriate, saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ," and the rest; and consequently he places the whole following history after the catalogue of his forefathers, namely, the Magi, Herod's [fury, the flight of Jesus into Egypt, the return from there, the […]]
and finally Archelaus. And [how] immediately after these things John, appearing in public to the sight of men, in the thirtieth year of Jesus' age, preached the baptism of repentance in the desert, and how among others Jesus also came there to be baptized by John in the Jordan. You see therefore in these matters the context and the sequence of the historical narrative which Matthew sets forth, a man who was a Syrian, a publican by profession, and a Hebrew by tongue.
4. But Luke was by birth from that renowned B Antioch, in which all the most learned men boast that they are descendants of the Ionians. But beyond the Hellenism innate to the citizens, Luke had progressed somewhat further in letters, because he was skilled in the science of medicine. And yet, such as he was, when beginning his writing of the Gospel, he narrates first the matters concerning Zacharias and Elizabeth. Then, adding the appearance of Gabriel to Mary, he sets forth those wondrous births in order, mentioning no genealogy of Joseph. Afterwards, recording the twelfth year of Jesus, he does not yet mention any genealogy. But after the times of Augustus, when Tiberius was holding the empire of the Romans, in his fifteenth year, he says that John preached in the desert the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; and he expounds his preaching; and after all these things, he says that when Jesus had been baptized and was praying, it came to pass that heaven was opened, and the Spirit descended in the likeness of a dove, and a voice was borne from there: "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." C Furthermore, having advanced to this point, as if waking from sleep, he introduces the mention of the genealogy unseasonably, as one might think, saying: "And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Melchi," and the rest.
5. Who then in this place would not be perplexed? Since it appears that Matthew composed his narrative skillfully, and used the genealogy at the proper time, but that Luke was of such thoughtlessness that, when he ought to have placed the genealogy in its own proper place, he omitted it then; and although he had written so great a part of the history, namely from the birth of Christ up to his thirtieth year, he recognized no suitable time for inserting the genealogy; but now at last, when Christ, having already reached thirty years of age, approaches the baptism of John, D contrary to all reason and timing, he introduces the genealogy as a kind of insertion into the writing. But truly, if anyone were to reproach him in this way, the divine evangelist would not allow his answer to be wanting; but he would speak, as is fitting, divine and wise things and things worthy of the divine Spirit that dwelt within him. For my part, I think that he, also wishing to record the genealogy of the fleshly birth of Jesus, did this now; for if he were doing this according to his own judgment, he was not ignorant of when he ought to set it forth. But since he now makes mention of the regeneration through the bath, introducing him as the Son of God, he desires that, as an example for
that which follows A that every one who is regenerated in God, even if he truly be supposed to be a son of men because of the flesh with which he is clothed, yet the things of the generation do not stand for him in the parents according to the flesh, nor do they reach as far as the progenitors of the body; but even if he be supposed to be a son of men because of the generation of the body, nevertheless he is not established as alien to the adoption of God. Wherefore I suppose that he also used the genealogy at the appropriate time, and also the addition of the phrase "as was supposed." For it was consistent, since the witness from heaven had said to Jesus, "Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased," no longer to proclaim him a son of men in the same way, but with the addition of "as was supposed." For he was proclaimed Son of God by nature, but he was not, as was supposed, the son of Joseph by nature, but he was supposed to be, yet was not naturally his son.
6. Since these things are so, it seems to me that I have also given the reason why Matthew, beginning his writing before the conception of Mary and before the incarnate generation of Jesus, appropriately places the genealogy according to the flesh at the beginning of his history B. Therefore he brings the generations downward, hinting at the descent from the better state of him of whom he speaks: for the incarnate Word of God did truly descend, seeing that being in the form of God, he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. But Luke, if indeed he had intended to demonstrate the advent of the Word in the flesh in the same way as Matthew, would himself also have written the history of the lineage at the time of the conception or certainly of the birth; and beginning in an orderly manner from the elders, he would have descended to the latest. But because he did not unfold his narrative according to the mind of Matthew C, he rightly transcends that time and arrives at the regeneration through the bath; and here he sets forth the contrary succession of generations, both rising from the last to the first, and at the same time avoiding the mention of the guilty and sinful men recorded by Matthew. Since he who is regenerated in God becomes alien to the fleshly origin and to the fathers who were sinners according to the flesh, after he has become the Son of God and of all those who have lived blamelessly according to God. Thus also it was said to Abraham: "But thou shalt go unto thy fathers," by which words are denoted, as if by an enigma, not the fleshly parents, but those who were like him in piety according to God, the Word hinting at the similarity of piety.
7. Rightly, therefore, does Luke, inasmuch as he is narrating the regeneration, not go the same way as Matthew D. Wherefore he does not make the enumeration of Solomon or of the wife of Uriah, or of Tamar, or of Ruth, or of Jechoniah, and of the men interspersed between them not without reproach, but proceeds through other blameless ones, and indeed introduces the regenerated one from the prophet Nathan. And he who in Matthew is born according to the flesh was the son of Abraham, the genealogy being deduced from that point, because to Abraham first the promise of the blessing of the nations had been given, in no other way than through the seed
which was to come from him. But he who is reborn in God, naming others as his fathers according to God, holding them not indeed as his true fathers, but as such accounted by reason of the similarity of their character, ascends to the true Father after all, having been named Son of God. But let this account be left for us among the mysteries. And so that no one may suppose that we are merely quibbling, I shall make use of a most ancient history from which it is possible to find the solution to the disagreement supposed to exist between both evangelists. The author of this history was Africanus, a learned man and illustrious among those who are trained in secular learning; among his many other excellent discourses, there is also an epistle to Aristides regarding the supposed disagreement of the evangelists concerning the genealogy of Christ, which is as follows. A
OF AFRICANUS (48)
8. Not accurately, however, do some say that this different enumeration and mixing of names—of the priestly, as they think, and of the royal men—has been rightly made, so that it might be shown that Christ was worthily both priest and king. As if anyone were in doubt about this, or had another hope, namely that Christ is not the eternal High Priest before the Father, offering our prayers to Him, and a super-mundane King, whom He freed by feeding them with the Spirit, having become a cooperator in the ordering of all things. And this was declared to us not by the catalog of the tribes, nor by the mixing of the recorded lineages, but by the patriarchs and prophets. Let us not, therefore, descend to such pettiness of religion, that by an exchange of names we should attempt to confirm Christ’s kingship and priesthood. For even otherwise, the priestly tribe of Levi was allied to the royal tribe of Judah, from which tribe Aaron took to himself Elisabet, the sister of Naasson, B as his wife, and again Eleazar took the daughter of Phatiel, and from them offspring were born. Therefore, say they, the evangelists lied, while they bring forward not the truth, but an imagined praise. And for this cause, the one, through Solomon from David, traced the genealogy of Jacob, who was the father of Joseph; but the other, from Nathan the son of David, brought down [the genealogy of] Heli, who was likewise in another way the father of Joseph. Yet it was not becoming for them to be ignorant that each of the ordered lists of the men enumerated is of the race of David, the royal tribe of Judah. For if Nathan was a prophet, then so was Solomon, and the parent of both of them (David). From many tribes, indeed, prophets arose, but priests were of none of the twelve tribes, save only the Levites. In vain, therefore, has this falsehood been fabricated by them; nor shall such a discourse prevail in the Church of Christ C against the accurate truth, namely that a lie should be stitched together for the praise and glorification of Christ. For who does not know that most holy word of the Apostle, preaching and proclaiming the resurrection of the Savior
and affirming the truth of the matter with great fear, when he says A: "If some deny that Christ has risen, but we declare and believe this, and we also hope and preach it, we are false witnesses toward God, because He raised Christ, whom He did not raise." If, therefore, he who glorifies God the Father fears lest he seem to be a liar, by recounting a wonderful deed, how would he not justly fear if, by means of a falsehood, he were to forge a standing for the truth, or compose a glory that is not true? For if the genealogies were divergent, and no genuine seed were traced to Joseph, but the matter were stated solely to provide support for the One who was to be born—namely, that the coming One would be king and priest—without proof, and with the entire ornament of the speech resulting in a futile hymn, it is certain that no praise would accrue to God from this, because it is entirely a lie; but rather, condemnation would be gathered by him who speaks it, because he boasted that what is nothing in reality is something. B
9. Matthew also positioned David before others in his genealogy, because to David first and alone did God promise with a firm oath that Christ would be born of him according to the flesh. It is written, therefore: "The Lord swore the truth to David, and He will not frustrate it: of the fruit of your belly will I place upon your throne." And again: "I swore to David My servant, until the age I will prepare your seed." And in Chronicles: "And it shall be when your days are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall be of your belly, and I will prepare his kingdom: he shall build me a house, and I will set up his throne until the age. I will be to him for a Father, and he shall be to me for a son." Things similar to these are also recorded in the second book of Kings. But while those might be drawn toward Solomon, that these things which are at hand pertain in no way to Solomon, one may understand thus. C Many years after the death of Solomon, Isaiah prophesying, foretells these things concerning the One to be born of the seed of David: "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse (this was the father of David), and a flower shall rise up from the root. And the root of Jesse shall be, and He who rises up to rule over the nations; in Him shall the nations hope." And he also prophesies as follows concerning the throne promised to David: "A child is born to us, a son is also given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called the Angel of great counsel; great is his government, and of his peace there is no end: upon the throne of David and his kingdom, to establish it." D By what has been set forth, it is said indeed that from the root of Jesse and from David someone shall rise, not so much to reign
A in Israel as among the Gentiles. It is also said that a child shall be born, and he shall be called the Son, being adorned with strange titles and such as transcend human nature, and that such a one shall take up the throne of David, and establish his kingdom.
10. That these things were prophesied after Solomon regarding some other person who was to come, is clear to everyone. Moreover, the oracles delivered to David could not apply to Solomon, if they are examined with careful scrutiny; for the oracle clearly declares that he who is prophesied will rise after the death of David. But Solomon, while David was still alive, by his direction and will, became his successor in the kingdom; it is said, for instance, that he reigned over Israel for only forty years. How, then, could that be applied to him: "I will establish his throne forever"? But if someone should say that these things were spoken concerning his posterity, one must not be ignorant that the royal succession of David and Solomon lasted until Jechonias and the Babylonian captivity, yet no one sat on the royal throne of David after Jechonias. By what manner, therefore, could the words of the oath be accommodated to the woman-loving Solomon, whose heart was not perfect before the Lord his God? And likewise those words: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? B Nay, these things are far removed from Solomon, but they truly and strongly befit Christ, who, having arisen from the seed of David, built for God a Church worthy of Him, not from inanimate stones, nor in some corner and part of the earth, but throughout the whole world and among all nations, from living and intellectual stones. To Him alone will that saying fitly apply: "He shall be to me a son," since in other places of Scripture too, He is heralded as the Son of God; where it is said: "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten thee"; and where it is said: "The Lord said to me, Thou art my son"; again where it is written: "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works, and before all the hills he begat me." With these, therefore, the voice brought down from heaven upon Him also agrees, which said: "Thou art my beloved Son." And those things contained in the seventy-first Psalm, "He shall endure with the sun," and, "All nations shall call him blessed," would surely coincide with the things revealed by God concerning our Saviour. That these things are so, the testimony from Isaiah is indisputable, who, after the death of Solomon and after very many other successions of the lineage, prophesies that one would come forth from the root of Jesse and David, C and that this one would be the Saviour of the Gentiles, saying plainly thus: "And there shall be the root of Jesse, and he that shall arise to rule over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles hope."
11. But since such oracles were delivered to David alone, and with a sworn affirmation concerning
the generation from his seed of the One who was prophesied, and since the whole of Israel, as was to be expected, was daily awaiting the Savior and Redeemer of all men who was to be born of David, Matthew, in proclaiming the arrival of those who were awaited, rightly took the beginning of his discourse from that very expectation which was in hope, calling him the son of David who had recently appeared. From David, however, he ascends to Abraham, because to Abraham first, in turn, various oracles had been delivered concerning the calling of the Gentiles. For before the legislation of Moses, and before the Jewish nation, nay even before circumcision, Abraham, being a foreigner and sprung from the land of the Chaldeans, left behind his ancestral customs and, knowing the God who is over all, was testified as having believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness; and he appeared both just and dear to God, not through the circumcision of the body, nor through the observance of the Sabbath day, of feasts, or of calends, nor through any other will-worship introduced later by Moses, but through another manifestation of God and of the Lord who appeared to him (this was the Savior), and through a life adorned with virtues. To him, therefore, who practiced this kind of religion, the promise concerning the calling of the Gentiles was given, namely, that they too would one day worship God with a fervor equal to that of Abraham, and would be deemed worthy of a blessing no different from that B of the man dear to God. Thus it was said to him: "And all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in thee"; and again: "The Lord said, I will not hide from Abraham my servant what I do; 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 consistent that Abraham, being the forefather of the calling of the Gentiles, should be taken up by the evangelist second, after David. For it was necessary that he who had received the promises concerning the birth of the Savior should be given precedence in order over him who had received the pledges concerning the Gentiles; and that the patriarch of the Gentiles should, I say, be placed second in the genealogy.
12. For John, indeed, in the writing of the Gospel according to him, delivers the events which took place before Christ while the Baptist had not yet been cast into prison. But the other three evangelists recount the deeds after the imprisonment. To one who examines these, the Gospels will no longer appear to disagree with one another, because C indeed the former are in John, while the rest pertain to the latter history.
*Ex Possini catena in Matthæum tom. I, p. 12.*
13. Eusebius. That the Theotokos was found pregnant, and that it was to no one else but to Joseph, the evangelist declared; for it was from the Holy Spirit. To the just man, however, D
he says, this is evident; for since Joseph was a righteous man, it was not to be wondered at that he should be made to know through the Holy Spirit, from whom the conception had also taken place. A
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE QUESTIONS TO STEPHANUS
14. Eusebius. I encountered an anonymous interpretation which says that Elizabeth was called a kinswoman of the Virgin by the angel, not because she was of the same tribe, but because they both sprang from the same ancestors and, in common, from the same Jewish race; just as the Apostle says: "I could wish that I myself were accursed for my brethren, my kinsmen by the flesh." Many approved interpreters, however, say that the priestly tribe was truly connected by relationship to the royal tribe from the times of Moses. B For that Elizabeth, the wife of Aaron, was the sister of Naasson, son of Aminadab, who traced his origin from Juda, son of Jacob, from whom the royal lineage of the Jews was propagated. And in the subsequent time likewise, Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias, had her origin from the tribe of Juda, being the daughter of Jacob, who is the father of Joseph. Therefore, from the stock of this Naasson, the Lord was born according to the flesh. The divine prophet did not teach the mixing with the royal tribe in vain, but to show that the Lord Christ sprang from both, as He who was to function as both King and High Priest according to the human nature; C or else one calls them kinswomen because they were descended from the same forefather, Jacob.
15. Eusebius. It is fittingly asked why Matthew composed the genealogy of Christ from above, and Luke from below and from the opposite direction. And it must be said that it is not absurd to traverse the same path both from above and from below; for this was an ancient custom of the divine Scripture. For thus also David is genealogized from above in the book of Ruth, just as Christ is in Matthew; and in the first book of Kings, the father of Samuel is genealogized from below, similarly to Luke. D
16. Eusebius. Regarding this, Eusebius in his *On Matthew* speaks as follows: They say that Nathan also prophesied, as is apparent from what is contained in the books of Kings. I myself, says a certain one, have also learned the reason that deterred Luke from the royal line; because the kings, beginning from Solomon, with very few exceptions, were defiled by the crime of idolatry. For this reason, Luke abstained from deriving the genealogy through them.
17. Eusebius. David's repentance over
his sin the evangelist mentions, along with the woman with whom he committed the transgression. For had he not obtained forgiveness for his sin by the merit of repentance, he would not have been counted worthy to become an ancestor of Christ. 18. Eusebius. It was brought as a charge against Jeconiah that he had been proscribed and taken captive; for this reason, he was in contempt among many. This matter divided the genealogists of Christ in two ways, so that some traced the lineage of the family from Solomon, while others traced it from Nathan. For this reason the evangelist mentions Jeconiah, and says that the Redeemer of the captives came to receive them unto Himself through baptism.
ADMONITION
We have already stated, on the testimony of Ebedjesu, that the books of Eusebius’ *Gospel Questions* were formerly translated from Greek into the Syriac language. Behold, however, in the Syriac codex CIV of the Vatican Library, written in the year of Christ [1042], Joseph Assemani noted in his catalogue (vol. III, p. 22) that some portions of this work survive in the manner of excerpts. From this codex, I am now taking only two fragments, which pertain to the sixteenth question written to Stephen, concerning the adoration of the Magi and the guiding star. These I willingly append here, translated by the most learned Maronite scholar Matthew Sciahuano, in order to enrich Eusebius as much as possible. And indeed, we shall mention later that a small portion of the second fragment may be read in Latin, without the author’s name, in the works of Saints Ambrose and Jerome.BY THE SAME EUSEBIUS
A I. How is that which Luke wrote to be understood, saying that Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea in a cave and placed in a manger, when Matthew says that the Magi, when they came to adore Him, found the same child in a house, into which they entered and offered Him gifts?
19. First of all, it must be understood that the events narrated by Matthew are different from those that happened at the time of Christ’s birth, of which Luke wrote. For Matthew omitted those things which Luke had already narrated; and conversely, Luke supplied what had been omitted by him. Therefore, Luke wrote of what manner the conception of our Savior was, when the angel was sent as a messenger to Mary; B and for what reason Joseph, along with Mary who was pregnant, went up so that they might register their names. He came, therefore, from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, the city of Judea, which is the native place of David, because he himself was born of the house and lineage of David: where... [original-script column: see facsimile]
A while they were staying, the days were fulfilled that Mary should give birth; and she brought forth her firstborn son, and laid him in a manger, because of the lack of room in the inn, due to the great crowd of the people of David, who had flocked to Bethlehem for the sake of the census. They, therefore, since they had not found a suitable dwelling, withdrew into a cave, where, as they lingered, the time for the holy birth came upon them, and the mother wrapped the child in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger. To this place the shepherds of the cave came, warned by the message of the angels, and they saw the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. Thereafter, after eight days, the parents brought the boy to Jerusalem to be circumcised, according to the rule of the law; which having been done, they immediately departed for their native town of Nazareth.
C But Matthew did not commit this account to writing, but another. For he speaks first of the nativity, then of the coming of the magi, and of the slaughter of the infants; omitting any mention of the Caesar under whom the census took place; and likewise he is silent about the shepherds. Now, you must understand from these things that the time when the magi arrived is different from that of the census of the race of David and the arrival of the shepherds. Therefore, the holy evangelists do not contradict one another: for if you reflect with yourself, you will find Luke bringing Christ with his parents to Jerusalem on the eighth day after his birth, to fulfill the requirements of the law; and from thence moving him to Nazareth. But Matthew begins the matter two years later than Luke, namely at that time when the parents returned with Jesus to Bethlehem, to the same place of holy memory; and this is what we also do, when, having heard of the sacred
A readings of the pages, we strive to visit the holy places, and there we perform our prayers. Nor is it a wonder that they desired to recall things before their eyes, not once but often, things which had previously occurred in Bethlehem at the birth of our Savior, and of which they themselves had been the instruments. Furthermore, when they returned thither from Nazareth, they found a dwelling vacant of crowds and foreign people: and thus, with only the inhabitants of Bethlehem themselves remaining, they entered the town, and lodged in the house of men known to them; to which house, indeed, the magi came at this time, that is, after two years; and because, as we have said, the town of Bethlehem was then empty, they obtained housing. When the magi had betaken B themselves thither, they found the child with his mother, and falling down they offered gifts.
OF THE SAME.
Concerning the star which appeared to the magi.
II. These who are called magi, as is known from a certain history, were of the lineage of Balaam, whom Moses mentions; for he too was a magus, and he himself narrates that he came from the mountains of the East. From his prophecy, moreover, arose the fame of the star which was to rise, and of the man who was to be born of the stock of Israel, and who was to rule over all nations. Moses indeed, in the books, speaks as if by the mouth of Balaam: “From Mesopotamia, Balac, king of the Moabites, called me, from the mountains of the East.” C Then this same man says in his prophecy: “A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a leader shall arise from Israel, who shall rule1 over many peoples.” These things [are written] in the books of Balaam. D [original-script column: see facsimile]
A And from this point, the subject follows: how the Magi, who were contemporaries of the Savior, having observed the star just as Balaam had prophesied, undertook a journey for the sake of visiting the newborn King whom the star heralded. Having set out, they came to Jerusalem, the star indicating the region and the place and the child himself, until it came and stood where the child was. When he says “it stood,” beware of thinking that it descended from heaven to the earth and remained above the roof of the house; for he who believes this is insane. But because it was a star, and also acted as a guide for the journey above the Magi, it traveled on high, yet not very far removed from the earth. B Nor should you imagine that it followed the same path that the Magi took; for it followed another path known to itself, pursued an unusual course, and made itself visible to them in different ways, specifically providing the Magi—who were more skilled in such observations—with a direction for the path they were to follow. Therefore, in accordance with the various stations, it made its course variable, moving from one station to another, shifting through celestial centers and places, until it came near to the house and stood suspended above it, without proceeding any further. And the Magi, when they observed what they had not seen before, rejoiced greatly. C D
SUPPLEMENTS TO EUSEBIUS’ QUESTIONS TO MARINUS
PARTS FROM THE COMPLETE BOOK OF QUESTIONS TO MARINUS BY EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA
In the manuscript Catena of Nicetas on Luke.
I.
A Since the disciples of the Savior were fearful of the Jews, John says that they 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 while a military guard was present there, keeping watch over the place, as Matthew testifies; for the "watch" [custodia] is a company of soldiers.
To this we reply that the apostles went to the tomb boldly, having previously been informed by the Magdalene that no one who was guarding the place remained there, which was evident from the fact that the stone had been removed from the sepulcher. And the stone had not been removed otherwise than by an angel from heaven lighting up the place with great brightness, and himself rolling away the stone, and terrifying the guards so that they were almost turned to stone by fear. B And after this, as was natural, they took to flight, so that no one of them remained, and the place was left open for those who came to see the resurrection of the Savior. And this was the primary reason why the angel appeared there. For the angel did not roll away the stone to assist the resurrection, nor did he intervene in the aforementioned manner because of the stone, but so that he might drive away the guards and, receiving the women who were coming to witness it, might announce the resurrection to them. Of these events, Matthew is the witness, saying that the guards, shaken by the fear of the angel, became as dead men.
Certainly, the Savior had risen before the angel and had not waited for the rolling away of the stone. But while it was still attached to the entrance, and sealed with the seals of the chief priests, C and while the guards were surrounding the place, He, becoming invisible, emerged from the tomb, having accomplished His resurrection from the dead by divine power. But at what hour of the day this happened, no one of the evangelists has indicated, so that someone might aptly apply to this matter also those words which were said by Christ concerning the consummation of the universe, namely: "Of that day no one knows anything, not even the angels of God." Thus, therefore, He Himself, having become the first fruits of the resurrection,
A rose at an hour which no one knew, escaping the notice of all, and He rose while the stone remained in its position. The angel, the messenger of good news, stood by the people; he contributed nothing to the resurrection itself by his presence, yet he served the salvation of men a great deal. For this reason, he shone with a brilliant figure, showing himself clothed in white, and was the first to make a beginning of the resurrection of the Savior. And even as venomous serpents and wild beasts, which are lovers of night and darkness, flee the sunrise, while men, as if related to the light, willingly welcome it; in the same way, the angel, radiating with the splendors of his light, dispelled B the enemies of truth and life—the familiars and friends of death—while he announced the resurrection of the Savior to those awaiting it, offering them free access after the expulsion of the guards. He therefore offered the friends to behold twin proofs: namely, the rolling away of the stone, with the door of the monument now lying open, and the flight of the guards. Magdalene, seeing these things, announced them to the disciples, and they, having learned these things from her, boldly and with swift running hastened thither, with no one standing in their way.
II.
How, while darkness was still drawing in, as the evangelist John says, did the two disciples see the things that were inside the monument? For the same man also designated the hour, saying: "Early, while it was still dark." C And soon, that the two disciples had seen the things that were inside the monument. "For they entered," he says, "and believed."
At the first twilight of the day, Scripture says there was still darkness at the tomb; but it was already morning, at which dim time Mary alone returned to the disciples. Then the angel appeared to them. Now, it is probable that in this intervening time, after her first arrival at the apostles, the hour had nearly passed; then, as they went to the tomb, more time had elapsed, so that there was no longer darkness, but pure day; at which time, as the aforementioned disciples set out thither and remained outside the monument, they were able to discern the linen cloths lying inside; and much more so having gone inside, as the bright day now illuminated the place. To me, indeed, the linen cloths D placed inside seem to provide a demonstration simultaneously that the body had not been carried off by men, just as Mary supposed; for neither would those who were stealing the body have left behind the linen cloths, nor would any thief have waited until he might undo the shrouds and thus be caught in the act of theft. Moreover, they were proofs of the body raised from the dead. For He who will transform the bodies of our humility, God, so that they may be conformable to the body of the glory of Christ, then also transformed the body, which was the instrument of the power of the Word inhabiting it, reforming it to a state more divine; but the linen cloths, as useless and [components of the body's substance]
A alien, he put aside. Moreover, it seems opportune to me that it so happened that Peter and John came to the tomb in the clear and shining light of day, so that they might not, by arriving in the night and darkness, provide a suspicion of that which the high priests were already lying about—namely, that they had come by night and carried off the Lord. Therefore, these men did not come by night, nor while darkness still prevailed, but when the day was already brightly dawning. But if someone, citing the Gospel where it says that the disciples were gathered together for fear of the Jews, should oppose this, saying: "How then did those who had shut themselves in go out to the tomb in the bright light of day?" we answer that for those who lived in the midst of the city of the Jews, it was likely that they all remained gathered together shut up in one house; but that those who went to the tomb, because they were outside the city, were far from fearing the Jews, since they had come to a solitary place and one empty of men. Perhaps also, having cast aside the fear of the other disciples, Peter and John dared to go forth from the house with confidence, while the others did not dare to do this at all, except for these two alone, to whom also elsewhere greater honor is attributed than to the rest of the apostles.
III.
How is it that, according to John, when Mary had spoken to the disciples, they then went to the tomb and believed; whereas according to Luke, it is said that these words seemed to them as nonsense, and they did not believe the women?
That Mary B who is in John reported what she had seen as a secret, as it were, only to the foremost of the apostles, Peter and John. And they, in turn, secretly from the rest of the disciples, went running to the tomb alone, and seeing, they believed; and it was no wonder that these two foremost apostles, having seen, believed, while the others, to whom the women were messengers, and who had not seen with their own eyes, did not place faith in them. For behold, even when the Savior had appeared to the disciples themselves gathered together, as John relates, they indeed rejoiced at seeing Him; but Thomas, because he was not present and did not see, would not allow himself to be persuaded of the matter. But if he did not believe the apostles, we should rightly be reproached for finding fault with the others, who, because they had not seen, did not believe the women. C Indeed, the Scripture demonstrates the great investigation and carefulness of the disciples, who did not easily consent to the words of others, but first suspended judgment, until, having known the truth most fully and clearly, they could say afterward: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life." But this passage could also bear another meaning. For someone might perhaps say that, when the women were announcing the resurrection of the Savior, as if from the report of the two men who had appeared to them according to Luke, they were not
A believers. The eleven, among whom were Peter and John, had not themselves believed. But as for Mary, according to John, when she said, "They have taken away my Lord from the tomb," the two disciples did not previously believe this very thing—that the Savior had been taken away—before coming to the place and perceiving this by fact. When, therefore, these had entered into the tomb and saw only the linen cloths, and the body nowhere, then they believed. And to what did they believe, if not the words of Mary saying, "They have taken away my Lord"? Wherefore he adds next: "For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."
IV.
How then might it be said that two disciples came to the tomb—Peter and John—while Luke affirms that one person went there? The question is thus resolved. B Peter was always of great fervor; he who alone of the apostles said to the Savior: "Even if I must die with thee, I will not deny thee"; and who alone desired to walk upon the waves; and who alone answered and said to him: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"; and wherefore he alone of the disciples heard: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah." Wherefore he is also the first to dare to enter into the tomb, having come with the other disciple whom Jesus loved, according to John. But at that time, having heard from the Magdalene that the body of the Lord had been taken C from the tomb, he had gone with the other disciple. Soon he departed with him, having seen the linen cloths inside the tomb and having been made certain of the true state of affairs. But according to Luke, while the other disciples were disbelieving, he alone again believes the women who said they had seen the angels who had appeared. For, not disbelieving the testimony of the women, he comes alone again to the tomb; and having looked in again, he sees the linen cloths only, as also before. Then he went away, wondering to himself at the event. He was indeed silently D wondering at the event, because he was one of fervent mind and demonstrated more zeal than all others, being active and running about; and everywhere looking at the Savior with the open eyes of the soul, searching and looking around on every side, he did not lose his hope, but was himself also deemed worthy of his own manifestation. A witness of this is the same evangelist Luke, who in what follows presently says that the Lord truly rose and appeared to Simon. The witness of the holy Apostle writing to the Corinthians also agrees with this, that "He appeared to Cephas, then to the eleven." And Cephas is the same as Simon or Peter, to whom, even before the other eleven, the Savior appeared alone to him alone, on account of his zeal, which surpassed that of all others.
V.
Moreover, someone might inquire how, according to Matthew...
Mary Magdalene, with another of the same name, is said to have seen only one angel sitting upon the stone outside the monument; but according to John, she beheld two angels sitting inside the monument; and according to Luke, A two men met the women; and finally, according to Mark, a young man was seen by them?
The solution to what is said in John and Matthew is this. I believe that the account in John precedes that in Matthew, and that Magdalene, coming for the first time, saw the two angels sitting inside the monument; and after these things, coming for a second time to the same place with the other Mary, she saw the angel sitting upon the stone. Or perhaps the angel in Matthew is different, and the time and place of the angelic vision are different; and the angels who appeared to the women are different, and likewise the two angels seen inside the monument in John are different from the one sitting outside before the monument upon the stone, as Matthew narrates. For if, when Matthew said "late on the Sabbath," and recorded one sitting before the door of the monument upon the stone, John, while preserving the same time and place, had said that "late on the Sabbath," before the door of the monument, two were seen sitting upon the stone, it would truly be necessary to charge a discrepancy. B And likewise, if Matthew, affirming the morning hour as John does, had also said that only one angel was seen inside the monument, he would reasonably have seemed to write things contrary. But if the evangelists have distinguished the times, and the manners, and the persons of the spectators, as well as the words of the angels, no one could reasonably blame the Scripture for disagreement, since each narrative is true in its own way and provides an exposition of different events. But let the angels among these evangelists (Matthew and John), and the appearances of the Savior after the resurrection—reported, I say, by these alone as the superior witnesses, for they were eyewitnesses and auditors of the Savior himself—hold this order. Indeed, the two men seen by Luke in dazzling clothing are symbols of the solemnity; and the young man by Mark, who was himself also clothed in a white robe, and seen on the right side and not the left, and with a joyful and right-hand message to the women, should again be considered different, both from one another and from the first ones. C Wherefore they did not even call them angels, nor did they mention the visions of the Savior, but they allowed the superior historians, Matthew and John, to write and commit to history the superior things, while they themselves narrated the secondary events—those which had occurred after the things previously narrated. And having omitted the things which the eyewitnesses had already stated, they supplied by their silence the things that had been passed over; these were indeed secondary, and far inferior to the earlier history; the Holy Spirit, of course, suggesting to each the appropriate and suitable narratives.
VI.
As for what is in Luke, early in the morning at the monument... DA women arriving and carrying spices they had prepared, these would be different from those mentioned by Matthew and John. For it would not make sense for the Marys, having already seen such things, to be bringing spices for the first time, as if they had not yet been instructed about the resurrection. He clearly shows, by what he says, that the ones seen were different from those previously described; and the place where they were seen was different: for they were not inside the monument, as John taught, nor sitting on the stone, as the angel with Matthew; but Luke did not even call them angels at all, but two men, although they too were in dazzling apparel, because of the signs of the feast; and their words to the women are also peculiar. The women were also more numerous, not just the two Marys mentioned by Matthew, but simply those who had come with him from Galilee. B These were also more slothful, not showing as much diligence as those who had persisted all night and remained by the monument. Matthew, at any rate, testifies to the great strength and constancy of the Magdalene and the other Mary, saying after his passion: "And there was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary there, sitting opposite the tomb." But they were there sitting opposite the monument on the day of Preparation; therefore, they also, more quickly, see first the herald of good things, and then the Author of life himself. The one with John also sees the angels first, and after them the Savior himself; yet these women were not carrying spices, nor had they gone for that purpose. But those women who had followed him from Galilee, being many according to Luke, having returned on the day of Preparation, prepared C the spices, since they had not yet learned anything about the resurrection. Therefore, to these, two men in dazzling apparel appear and announce the resurrection. And the Savior no longer appeared to them, as he had to the one with John and those with Matthew; so that one must consider this a distinct history. According to Mark, very early on the first day of the week, they come to the monument when the sun had risen, others again, at a different time, who were also saying to themselves, "Who will roll away the stone for us?" And they come, and find it rolled away, and entering in, they see a young man; where again, in Luke's account, there are men but not angels—just as even here he is not named an angel, but a young man. So this narrative also is distinct, both the one seen being different, and the others who arrived, and likewise the time, which was after the rising of the sun; D if this time were also maintained in Luke, one could reasonably demand the two men from him, and the same words. But since Luke anticipated the hour of the day before the sunrise, he rightly speaks of the two men who were seen, and does not relate the one young man.
VII.
Since there are four evangelists, we find an equal number of visions recorded by them; the times, likewise, are four; and those, too, who appear at each time are distinct; likewise the women who behold them are different; and ...
the words of those who appear to them are divergent. For the first time was that which is A spoken of by Matthew as “late on the Sabbath”; the fourth and last is that which is recorded in Mark as having occurred when the sun had risen; middle times are those in the accounts of John and Luke; wherefore also those who appear at each time are distinct. For late on the Sabbath, there is one angel from the monument, after whom the Savior Himself also comes. But early, while it was still dark, there are two angels inside the monument; after whom again the same Savior comes. At deep dawn, there are others, according to Luke, named as two men, who were not seen inside the monument. Then, last of all, the young man who presented himself to those who arrived when the sun had risen. If, therefore, all had claimed one time and recorded the same place, and yet had not set forth the same appearances, perhaps one would rightly find fault. But since they have distinguished the times and have assigned to each time its proper place, it follows that they have described different B appearances as well. Just as, on the contrary, if all had commemorated one appearance and said there was one angel, or had concordantly said there were two angels, or again two men or one young man, and then had varied the times and not indicated the same place, thus also there would be room for reprimand. But now the discourse remains exact and irreproachable, introducing visions that change according to different times and places, and the beholders of these also as different—the two former ones being distinct from the second, and the third similarly different from the fourth. C And so, immediately after the discourse of the young man with the last women (whose names are not mentioned), Mark adds: “And having heard this they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” These women were indeed of such a kind, fearful and exceedingly terrified, inasmuch as they did not even listen to the young man saying to them, “Go, tell his disciples and Peter, Behold, he goes before you into Galilee.” For having heard these words, they did the opposite. But those in Luke, having returned from the monument, reported all these things to the eleven. Similarly, also in John, the woman comes to the disciples reporting the things she had seen. Only those in Mark, coming last of all and truly late, D so that they arrived there after the sunrise, were not deemed worthy to see the Savior, nor the one shining angel, nor the two inside the monument, nor those two men whom Luke speaks of, but they saw only a certain young man clothed in a white robe, having obtained a vision proportioned to the smallness of their understanding; and though they saw this one clothed in white for the sake of the feast, they were nevertheless struck with awe; for Mark bears witness to this concerning them, whereas in the previous accounts there is no mention of amazement. Now, concerning the Magdalene, who remained consistently in the place, it is credible that she saw not only the former appearances of the angels who had presented themselves to her alone, but also the young man who was seen by the rest of the women in Mark. You may say the same also concerning the history in Luke, who, after the arrival of many women, and after the two...
A men appearing to them, narrates, saying: "And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven," to which he adds, "And there were Mary Magdalene," and the rest. For it is not unlikely that the Magdalene, who had arrived there before and had steadfastly remained at the tomb, was found there again when those many women, who had come together from Galilee, encountered the tomb, bearing the spices; so that she also, along with the others, saw the two men and heard their words, and then returned with the many and reported it to the eleven. The argument may also be put another way: to attribute the first matters to the women from Galilee—I mean the arrival at the tomb, the carrying of the spices, and the resulting apparition of the two men to them, and their words to them—but that the report brought to the eleven was not made by these women alone, but by all of them together, as each recounted what she had seen; among whom it is to be believed that the Magdalene was present, joining the others in reporting to the disciples those things which she had seen individually and on her own.
VIII.
I, however, also ask this: how is it said in Mark that after the Sabbath had passed, they prepared spices, whereas in Luke they do this before the Sabbath, on the day of Preparation itself? This question, too, included among the previous ones, would receive the same explanation as those. For we have demonstrated that they are not the same, but different: some, who before the Sabbath, on the very day of Preparation on which the Lord suffered, devoted themselves to that care; and others, who did so after the Sabbath. For Luke clearly testifies that the latter did this on the very day of the Passion, without mentioning the name of any woman, but speaking simply of "the women who had come with Him from Galilee." Mark, however, wrote down three by name, who were taking care of the spices on their own—not on the day of Preparation, but after the Sabbath had passed. Furthermore, that these are different from those in Luke, the subsequent events also demonstrate. For these women in Mark see a young man sitting on the right side, who also says to them: "Do not be afraid; you seek Jesus the Nazarene; He is risen; He is not here." But to those in Luke, two men appeared in dazzling apparel, and spoke other words, saying: "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" and the rest. And those in Mark, having been bidden to report the commands to the disciples, said nothing to anyone; but those in Luke, having gone, reported them to the eleven. Wherefore, from all these things it is gathered that they were not the same women, and therefore the things that are recorded were not performed at one time.A As they were speaking these things, Jesus himself stood in their midst and says to them, "Peace be with you." B Here, someone might raise the question how it is that when the Lord appeared to the eleven disciples assembled together after the resurrection, he is not recorded as doing and saying the same things according to both Luke and John, who both testify to these events in agreement. That both evangelists recorded the same vision occurring at one and the same time and day must first be established. And this will become clear to you if you observe the Scripture accurately. For John, having said first, "On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene comes, reporting to the disciples that she has seen the Lord and that he said these things to her," then proceeds to add, saying, "When it was evening on that day, the disciples being assembled, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said, 'Peace be with you.'" Thus it is clear from these accounts that the things recorded by John were performed on the very day of the Lord's resurrection in the evening. And the same day and hour will be found in Luke. For he also says, "On the first day of the week, at early dawn, the women came to the tomb." Then subsequently, that having seen angels, they returned and reported to the disciples what they had seen. Peter also, having hastened to the tomb, meets it and sees the linen cloths; and these things happened at early dawn on the day of the resurrection. The Scripture then proceeds to add: "And behold, two of them were going on that same day to a village." These were the ones with Cleopas, with whom Jesus, having entered into Emmaus, taking bread, blessed it, and as he was giving it to them, he disappeared. Then it adds: "And rising up, they returned at that same hour to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together." Then, while they were speaking, Jesus stood in their midst and says to them, "Peace be with you," and what follows. It has therefore been demonstrated, even from Luke, that it was the same day, and the same hour is confirmed by the fact that those with Cleopas were in Emmaus on that one day and had returned from there to Jerusalem, C when now, in any case, the evening had overtaken them; then the appearance took place. D Since, therefore, the appearance is shown to be the same according to both evangelists, come, let us see how it is that the Savior is said to have done and said some things according to Luke, and others according to John. Alike, therefore, it is stated in both that standing in their midst, Jesus said to them, "Peace be with you." But it is added specifically in Luke that they thought they saw a spirit, and what follows. Even if these things are not said in John, yet the subsequent events in both are in harmony. For in John, after the words "Peace be with you," it is added, "And having said this, he showed them his hands and his side." Yet the reason is not set down in John, which had already been stated by Luke; this was that they supposed they were seeing a spirit. And while the hands and side
and his feet had been shown to them, because of their persistent unbelief he asked for something to eat and ate before them. These things, being more bodily and accusing the apostles of great unbelief, and demonstrating the indulgence of the Savior himself, who was persuading them and clearly showing that he was indeed himself, the Holy Spirit assigned to be written by Luke, as one of a secondary order; but the higher things, and those indicative of divine power, he set forth through John, who also himself writes next, "The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again, Peace be to you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them," and the rest. The account of both evangelists would have a sequence if we suppose that the things in Luke happened first, and then after that we join the things in John. For while they were still unbelieving, he asked for food, and not being content with the eating of the fish, he confirms them with words, reminding them of his former teaching according to Luke. But when at last, having been persuaded, they were assured that it was truly he, and were at last full of joy, then he gives them a second, different, and better peace than the first, and charges them to be ready for the apostleship, promising that they would be almost like him through the similarity of the work. Then following this, he consistently breathes into them the Holy Spirit, as if they were in need of this for the promise coming up next; and this was the power to be able to remit sins through the power of the Holy Spirit. B And thus, out of both the evangelists, one common discourse will be completed: those things which were told by Luke being passed over in silence by John, and those things which were handed down in writing by John being kept in reserve by the silence of Luke; first of all those told by Luke, and next to them those by John being joined, and thus both of them preserve one mind and one thought. So much for this.
I.
How is it that according to Matthew an angel, appearing to the women, commanded them to announce to his disciples that "He has risen from the dead, and goes before you into Galilee, there you will see him," C just as it is shown similarly according to Mark?
A And the young man whom they saw sitting on the right side spoke these things to the women. But according to Luke, in Jerusalem itself, when the eleven disciples were gathered together and were relating to one another the matters concerning his resurrection, Jesus stood in their midst, and spoke with them, and ate a piece of broiled fish before them. And further, according to John, in Jerusalem itself again, he appeared to the eleven not once, but a second time, first indeed on the very day of the resurrection, in the evening; then after eight days. How then, when he was seen so many times by the disciples in Jerusalem itself according to Luke and John, are they commanded by the women, according to Mark and Matthew, to go away into Galilee, as though they were to see him there, and not be about to behold him in Jerusalem?
B Furthermore, if the scripture of the Gospels acknowledged only the eleven disciples of the Savior, one might say that the account is in no way lacking if, for the time being, he confirmed his disciples who did not believe the reports of the women, by appearing to them once and a second time while they were hidden in Jerusalem; yet in Galilee, no longer hidden, neither once nor twice, nor trapped by fear of the Jews, but with great boldness he deigned to grant his theophany and the manifestation of his divinity, showing himself to them living after his passion, with many proofs, appearing for forty days and speaking of the kingdom of God and living among them, as Luke says in the Acts. And let this be the first solution. C Since, however, the chosen and preeminent ones of the apostles filled the number of the twelve; and there was another order of disciples beyond these, the seventy, concerning whom Luke says in the Gospel: "After these things the Lord appointed also others seventy"; and apart from this number there were many others who adhered to the Savior, whom the holy Apostle also hints at, saying: "Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren," who themselves were also graced with the name of disciples, to whom it was not possible that the Lord could show himself after the resurrection when they were all gathered together at one time in the city of Jerusalem: therefore, the two evangelists, Luke and John, rightly write that he appeared to the eleven alone in Jerusalem. D The other two, however, say that the command was given by the Savior himself and the angel seen before, not for the eleven to go into Galilee, but for all the brethren without exception; that is, they say the command was given to all, indefinitely and absolutely. Moreover, the former solution is better and truer. Jesus therefore appeared many times and in many ways to the disciples after the resurrection. And some say that Christ promised these visions, while others say that he also fulfilled them. Sometimes also, in the narration of a certain matter, if one historian has omitted any point, another supplies it.
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE QUESTIONS TO MARINUS. IA'.
(72) Someone might say: how can Matthew say that the eleven, having gone into the mountain of Galilee, saw Jesus, while John, after the two apparitions in Jerusalem, relates that He was seen a third time not on the mountain of Galilee, but by the sea of Galilee?
A [XI] I, too, confess that the Savior truly appeared to the disciples a third time. The first was on the very day of the resurrection, when Mary Magdalene saw Him in the morning; Luke also narrates this first apparition. Second, after eight days, namely on the next Lord’s day, on which the Savior appearing again healed the unbelief of Thomas, showing him His side and His hands. And since the eleven had been commanded to go together to Galilee, B and the eleven were fulfilling the command with the others, and each one of them was gathering, while the eleven were not yet assembled but were still expecting, He appeared a third time by the sea of Galilee, not to all the eleven, but only to the seven mentioned by John. These were Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the two sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples of His. Thus, this was truly the third time He appeared to these, while the eleven were not yet gathered. Wherefore, John, not at all excluding the others from the vision of the Savior, noted that after the first and second apparition, the third occurred only to those named, by the sea of Galilee. C And it is not unlikely that after these things, He appeared a fourth and fifth time, and at other times and often. For this reason, John does not circumscribe all the deeds of the Savior, but proceeding further, says, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did." After He had appeared this third time to the seven mentioned, you would not be in error to call the fourth apparition that which Matthew recorded as having been granted to the eleven on the mountain. And after these, you would not be mistaken in saying that He was seen by all gathered together in one place, namely the eleven and seventy others. Paul also relates that the Savior was seen by even more than these after the resurrection, D a fact he had learned from others: "For He was seen," he says, "by Cephas, then by the twelve, then by five hundred, then by James, then by all the apostles, and last of all He was seen by me as well." Do you see how many and how often He appeared after the resurrection? Thus, He also appeared to those hiding in Jerusalem, and before these, to those with Cleopas going to Emmaus, and before all, to Simon among the men, and to the Magdalene among the women. Hence Luke in the Acts, since Jesus showed Himself many times to the disciples, deliberately says, "appearing to them for forty days and conversing, He delivered the teachings concerning the kingdom of God," and advised them to hasten to Jerusalem, and there to preach the word first to the Jews, and not to depart from the city before that, but to wait for the promise of the Father, concerning which we shall treat a little later.
MINER SUPPLEMENTS
I. From the unpublished chronicles of George Hamartolus and John Siculus
1. Eusebius says in his work *To Marinus*: A “For the Church of Christ prescribes two ways of life: the one, supernatural and exceeding the common human lifestyle, which admits neither marriage, nor the begetting of children, nor the possession of wealth, but is altogether and in every way estranged from the common and customary conduct of worldly men, and dedicated solely to the service of God, impelled by a transcendent love of heavenly things. For those who pursue this way of life, appearing already dead, carry about on earth a life morti- B fied, and possessing only the body, while their spirit has already been translated to heaven; like celestial beings, they observe human affairs, since they are themselves consecrated to God for the common salvation, purified not by bloody victims or libations and fats, but by the correct dogmas of true piety, by a purified disposition of soul, and furthermore by works and words in accordance with virtue. By these means they reconcile the Divine to themselves and perform a priesthood on their own behalf and on behalf of their fellow men. And this is the perfect and primary way of the Christian life. The second way of life is more lowly and labors under human frailty, and it cannot altogether be compared to the former: indeed, it allows for modest marriage and the procreation of children, and exercises care for household affairs with justice, and commands the performance of military duties, and conducts agriculture, commerce, and other public business not without piety. Otherwise, these men have fixed times for religious worship and instruction, and vacant hours for hearing the divine utterances: and to these a second degree of piety is allotted, providing the utility appropriate to such a life.” C
II. From the Greek scholiast on Mark, in *Criticial History of the Interpreters of the New Testament*, ch. 6.
2. This prophetic text belongs to Malachi, not to Isaiah. It is therefore a scribe’s error, as Eusebius of Caesarea states in his work *To Marinus* concerning the apparent disagreement in the Gospels regarding the resurrection.