Hesychius: Various Questions and Answers

FRAGMENT ON THE LETTER OF JUDE

Cap. I, v. 6. "And the angels who did not keep their own beginning." On these words: "Who will seek out his mercy and truth?" For who can comprehend his love for men, or attain to understand his truth by thinking? For on account of his truth he did not spare the angels who sinned; but on account of his love for mankind, he admitted harlots and publicans into his kingdom.

OF SAINT HESYCHIUS, PRESBYTER OF JERUSALEM: COLLECTION OF DIFFICULTIES AND SOLUTIONS, SELECTED IN COMPENDIUM FROM THE EVANGELICAL CONCORDANCE.

^BDifficulty 1. With what logic did Mark, beginning and saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ," add, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Behold I send my messenger before thy face," and the things that follow? For these things, even if with slightly different words, are not set down in Isaiah, but in Malachi.

Solution. This beginning of the Gospel must be read by hyperbaton, or transposition of words, as follows: "The beginning of the Gospel...

^A of Jesus Christ. Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you—as it is written in the prophet Isaiah: The voice of one crying in the wilderness." For it is the custom of authors to use hyperbaton, both in thoughts and in words; as in the first book of the Old Testament, I mean Genesis, after the formation of Adam and the creation of animals, the production of Eve is mentioned, although she was created from Adam immediately after him. ^B And in the 61st Psalm, the same figure of hyperbaton is found: "How long will you set upon a man? You all slay, as with a leaning wall and a broken fence?" For what wall is slain? But it is to be understood thus: "How long will you set upon a man, as against a leaning wall and a broken fence? Then afterwards, do you all slay." This custom regarding hyperbata, as with other obscurities, is used by writers for two reasons: primarily, they are concerned with tension and force, and then, so that we may not obtain the knowledge of the divine Scripture without difficulty, but rather through much ^C investigation and close examination, so that it may not become contemptible to us.

Difficulty II.

Why did John the Baptist, when asked by the Pharisees, "Are you Elias?" say, "No," even though Christ said of him: "He is Elias who is to come"?

NOTE.

^D ...shunned, although she was of a decent body, with a beautiful neck and flaxen hair; she wore her hair curled like radiant gold, falling down to her heels; her shoulders, arms, chest, and hands were composed in excellent proportion; her fingers imitated the luster and splendor of crystal, and her stature was erect and taller than medium. Furthermore, she had a most beautiful face, nose, eyes, and eyebrows; so that, according to the common proverb, she seemed like Lent in front, but like Easter behind. And surely the interpretation of the most excellent Bullialdus—that Sophia, shining in eximious and absolute beauty, is described ironically, and that her front parts were compared to Lent and her posterior parts to Easter because she was thin-faced and not florid or deformed—did not satisfy. But to me, after some meditation, the truth came to mind: that it ought to be read in a serious and open sense, so that the girl, being deformed in face, was vulgarly called "Lent," but being fair and elegant from the back, she was called "Easter." Whence Laonicus lib. IV, p. 109, calls her "ugly in appearance," but Phrantzes in lib. I, last chapter, makes her "deformed" from the better part. No less facetiously, our local wags say of women of this sort, *Tentative par derrière, repentance par devant*.

^A *Solution.* Christ did not speak about him absolutely: *This is Elias who is to come*; but he prefaced it: *If you are willing to receive it, this is Elias*. He said this because he had fulfilled the ministry of Elias. For John has become the Forerunner of the first coming of Christ, just as Elias will be of the second.

*Difficulties III.* How does John the Evangelist introduce the Baptist saying about Christ: *I knew him not*? For if he did not know him, why did he prevent him when he desired to be baptized, saying the things which are recorded by Matthew?

*Solution.* Since there are four types of knowledge: by sight, by prophecy, by hearsay, and by experience; he does not say that he was ignorant of him by the first three, but by the fourth, namely by experience. For by this he was ignorant of him until his baptism and the contemplation of the Spirit. Just as Adam also did not know good and evil by the knowledge of experience. For if he had been entirely ignorant, he would not have been punished for it being good to obey God, and evil to disobey.

*Difficulties IV.* For what reason did the evangelists set forth the calling of the apostles differently? For Matthew says that the Lord said: *Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men*. But Luke, after the catch of fish, reported that the Lord said to Peter: *From henceforth you shall be catching men*.

*Solution.* Both callings are true, having taken place at different times. For Peter, led by the words of Andrew, departed to the Lord; and hearing from him: *You shall be called Cephas*, and so forth, he still practiced fishing; then, as it seems to Matthew, while they were mending the nets, both he and Andrew, along with James and John, were called by Christ.

^D ...the persons of those elected. *Whence did the peoples know that they had received, for the merits of their own [actions], a perverse regimen of pontiffs?* Where I would wish for you to remove three errors, by rewriting: *Noverint populi meritis sui, regimen perversi suscepisse pontifices.* The same Boniface of Mainz, *De sancto Libero*, page 249: *Sed non ita injuriatus emigrabit*. It is poorly edited as "injuriatus." Finally, in the antepenultimate heresy of Philastrius: *Credentium recte atque paucorum perfecte lectio (electio) nuntiabatur per angelum affutura; ut dictum est: Multi vocati, pauci electi.*

An Anonymous Vatican author had cited the *Stromata* V of Clement of Alexandria, in the place which is held in the Paris edition, p. 573, before it had pleased the copyist to foist upon us a forty-fifth book of the *Stromata*, with an immense and ridiculous inflation after the testimonies of the ancients. Let it be placed therefore in the *Catena* for *vel* [or] Mark, book VII.

^A James and John were called by Christ. Then, as Luke narrates, after the catch of the fish, having gained experience of his power through his works, and having been filled with wonder, they followed him completely.

*Difficultas v.* For what reason did Matthew and Luke record in a different order the temptations brought to the Lord by the devil, when he was taken up to the pinnacle and to the high mountain?

*Solutio.* This is no contradiction; first, because each event happened in a moment of time, and second, because of the interconnection of vainglory, pride, and avarice, which are the vices the enemy brought against him, of which the pinnacle and the high mountain were symbols. By saying, "Cast yourself down," he was inciting him to vainglory; by the promise of the gift of the deceptive glory shown to him, he was urging him toward avarice and arrogance. But in each struggle, he was thrown down and put to shame.

*Difficultas vi.* For what reason did Matthew and Luke record the beatitudes in a different order?

*Solutio.* Because they were spoken at different times. Those of Matthew were spoken when the Lord had sat down on the mountain, and his disciples were standing around him, and the rest of the crowd was standing below and listening. But those of Luke were proclaimed by the Lord to the apostles in a level place. ^B

*Difficultas vii.* Why does Matthew, after the beatitudes and the centurion, say that the Lord entered into the house of Peter and healed his mother-in-law, whereas Luke says he healed her before the beatitudes had been proclaimed and before the centurion had approached? Also, why does Matthew say the Lord healed the paralytic in his own city of Nazareth, while Mark and Luke say Capernaum, and John says it was in Jerusalem?

*Solutio.* From these things, it is clear ^C that not only did the Lord deliver the beatitudes twice, but he also bestowed healing upon different lepers and paralytics.

NOTES

(6) *On the high mountain.* Certain people, not unlearned, have been undeservedly confused by the words of the *Catena* on Mark concerning the Lord’s temptation, which are not really so obscure: "For this reason, he ascends for the most part," that is, Christ is for the most part reported by the evangelists to have ascended a mountain: "Trusting in the solitude of the place, the devil might attack him more boldly." For he is accustomed to rush upon us always when we are separated from others and alone. Receive this notable passage from the 117th oration of St. John Chrysostom (Savile edition, p. 755, at the end), which he ^D examines: "Jesus went up into the temple. You nowhere find him descending. He went up from Jericho to Jerusalem, he went up onto the mountain. For where God is, there is also an ascent. Blessed is the man whose help is from thee, O Lord; in his heart are thy ascents. Where there is virtue, there is an ascent; where there is vice, there is a descent. Deliver me from those descending into the pit." That is, Jesus went up into the temple. You nowhere find him descending. He went up from Jericho to Jerusalem. He went up onto the mountain. For where God is, there also is an ascent. Blessed is the man whose help is from thee, O Lord; in his heart are thy ascents. Where there is virtue, there is an ascent; where there is vice, there is a descent. Deliver me from those descending into the pit.

^A For he addressed those in Matthew before the election of the twelve from the rest. Hence he also expounded them more universally. After which, descending from the mountain, he cleansed the leper, and the centurion’s boy, and Peter’s mother-in-law. But Luke, after the election of the twelve and the manifestation of their names, sets forth the Lord Christ standing on a level place, to proclaim the beatitudes unto them. Whence he also extends his address to their person. Likewise, each of the centurions—the one recorded by Matthew and the one by Luke—was a different person, even if both were inhabitants of Capernaum. For the one besought the Lord in person, while the other did so through the elders; and the one was on behalf of a servant, but the other on behalf of a son, for it is customary in Scripture for a son to be called "boy." And as for the paralytics, the one reported by Luke and Mark [(7)] as being let down through the tiles is one, and another is the one recorded by Matthew after his own [(8)] calling from the tax office, and yet another is the one set forth by John in the Probatica pool [(9)] in Jerusalem.

Difficulty.

Solution.

evangelists recorded whatever portion of these signs had been accomplished. Mark and Luke made mention of one, the one healed by Him in the region of the Gergesenes, but Matthew recorded the two who were healed in the region of the Gergesenes. ^A Hence, those who were not mentioned after their healing, having entreated the Lord that they might be with Him, are not the one who is recorded as having done so.

Difficultas IX. For what reason do Matthew and Luke say that the Lord declared the sin against the Son of Man is forgiven, but that against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven—when the Lord said regarding the Holy Spirit, "He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you"?

Solutio. B Blasphemy against the Son of Man, as being brought forward out of ignorance due to the sufferings attributed to the human composite of the Lord, He said is forgiven through repentance; but that against the Holy Spirit—which is either against His divinity, insofar as the Spirit is God ^B or against the substance of the life-giving Spirit—after the demonstration of signs and wonders worthy of God, He justly said is unforgivable, as it is no longer through ignorance, because of their having been given proof of His power; and furthermore, because the knowledge regarding the Spirit had already been clarified in the Old Testament. For it is difficult, or rather impossible, for those who willfully act impiously with knowledge, being as they are infected with a mind at war against God, to change, according to that which is written in Jeremiah: "If the Ethiopian will change his skin, or the leopard his spots." ^C These, the Theologian has called those sinning unto death. But the statement, "Neither in the present nor in the future," shows that while some sins are forgiven here through those who have received the authority to bind and to loose, others are forgiven in the future age, when, as thoughts are accusing or also defending ^D, the Judge will bestow the vote of victory upon those who have performed things worthy of that calculation.

VARIOUS READINGS. NOTES.

Difficulty X.

Solution.

Difficulty XI.

Solution.

Difficulty XII.

Solution.

Difficulty XIII.

^A

Solution. Because Christ did not wish to hide the doctrine from the crowds, but to make them more cautious and attentive by means of the mound of the earth; for the mountain was not high, so as to impede hearing, but only slightly raised from the ground; from which, having descended, He proposed other beatitudes at another time, those which are read in Luke, in a level place.

Difficulties XIV. ^B Why did one of the evangelists narrate that some, and others that others, were chosen by Christ to the dignity of disciples?

Solution. The evangelists in no way disagree with one another; but, while concordantly setting forth the names of all the apostles, they gave different appellations to only one; whom Matthew and Mark called Thaddaeus, but Luke called Judas of James, and elsewhere Lebbaeus; because he was tri-nominal. Just as Hebron was also called Dabir and the "city of letters," and Argob. Hence also, others called Simon a Cananaean from his country, while Luke called him a Zealot from his virtue. ^C

Difficulties XV. How could the Lord, who said to the apostles: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not," go Himself into Samaria, seek a drink from a Samaritan woman, and converse with a multitude of Samaritans who had come out to Him?

Solution. Wishing to cut off every pretext for the Jews, He gave this command to His disciples before the cross; but after this, He says: "Teach all nations," and the rest; so that the Gentiles might not be angry at Him, as if they had been despised. Furthermore, a "way" can belong not only to the Gentiles, but also to the Jews and to everyone; for it is not only the Gentiles who exclusively walk along it. But the "way of the Gentiles," by trope, is idolatry, and incantation, and astrology. As for the city of the Samaritans, He entered it while passing through. For certainly his mercy... ^D

^A required that He draw to Himself the Jews, who were rejecting Him, and that He reject the Samaritans, who were believing and drawing Him to themselves.

Difficultas XVI. Cur Joannes introduxit Dominum Judæis de Patre dicentem: Neque vocem ejus unquam audivistis, neque speciem ejus vidistis, cum Moyses dicat: Si audivit gens vocem Dei viventis, sicut tu audisti et vixisti?

Solutio. Hearing and seeing are not said so much of the power of the exterior ears and eyes, as of the comprehension of the mind. Hence Isaiah says: Who is blind, but my servants? and deaf, but they that have dominion over them? By these he indicated the disobedience of those who are now, and the incredulity of the Jews. Otherwise, God Himself, answering Moses, says: No man shall see my face, and live.

Difficultas XVII. Quam ob rationem Joannes, aliquando ait Christum Judæis dixisse: Et me scitis et unde sim scitis, aliquando autem iisdem: Nescitis unde venio, et quo vado. Et: Neque me scitis, neque Patrem meum?

Solutio. Since there is a double ^B mystery in Christ, He speaks to them differently; according to that which He is as man, saying they know both His fatherland and His mother; but according to the divine essence, they are ignorant that He is the Son equal to the Father; and they are ignorant also that the Father is the Father of the only-begotten Son.

Difficultas XVIII. Quemadmodum Joannes dicit: Nondum erat Spiritus, quia Jesus nondum erat glorificatus, siquidem in specie columbæ super Christum descenderat Spiritus sanctus tempore Baptismi?

Solutio. Since He calls the Spirit in this place not the substance, but the efficacy of the Spirit: in the same way as Paul, ^C when he says: Quench not the Spirit; which Spirit, before our first-fruits had ascended into heaven, was not about to descend, nor was it about to work the diverse and manifold virtues, of which Christ says: Rivers of living water shall flow from the belly—that is to say, from the heart—of those who believe in Him. Furthermore, he called the cross "glory" here, according to the saying: The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

Difficultas XIX. Quem patrem habere potest diabolus? Ait quippe Joannes dixisse Dominum; ^D A se cum loquitur mendacium loquitur.

(Joan. viii, 44). "For he is a liar, and his father." ^A Solutio. In this place he calls the devil ^B or the Antichrist, the son of perdition according to Paul (II Thess. ii, 3), who, whenever he speaks a lie, slandering Christ as an adversary to God and commending himself as God, speaks from his own, being a liar just as his father Satan is; or he refers to Cain, whose children he rightly called the Jews, for they had said they were sons of Abraham, because they had become imitators of the ways of Cain, who lied to God when he said: "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen. iv, 9), and who first produced envy and murder among men, just as his own father Satan did.

Difficultas XX. Why does Luke say that the Lord said to the seventy: "Behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves" (Luc. x, 3), and the following; while Matthew attributes these words to the twelve (Matth. x, 16)? And why does Luke alone make mention of the seventy?

Solutio. Because the Lord often brought forth the same teaching, not through a lack of words, but to strengthen his hearers. Therefore, he set forth the same things both to the twelve and to the seventy at different times.

Difficultas XXI. For what reason does the Lord say to Nicodemus: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Joan. iii, 13)? For if by the Son of man one must understand human nature, it did not descend from heaven; but if it refers to the whole incarnate Word, how can he be said to have been taken up into the heavens who had not yet been taken up? ^C

Solutio. The Lord, wishing to raise Nicodemus from his Judaic lowliness to the sublimity of the dogmas, and to initiate him into the mystery of spiritual regeneration, as he saw him laboring as if from vertigo at such a height, said: "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not" (Joan. iii, 12). Wherefore...

[index: entries preserved]

VARIOUS READINGS AND NOTES

(16) *Antichrist*. I shall not deny, ^D since I have omitted necessary observations and produced external notes of less utility, that I may be thought by the fair reader to whom I am owed indulgence, while I struggle with a constant illness and am unable to conduct new investigations, to be contending to push forward old notes, lest my meager labor in letters perish entirely. Therefore, now, having the occasion—barely the occasion—of Antichrist, I will remove a foul error from the Catena on Mark, ch. 13, v. 13: "A monster of a reading, but easily tamed." For who would not substitute "one of the horns"? For they say that the tyranny of the Antichrist will last for three years, because it was said to Daniel that for "a time and times and a half" power would be given to one of the horns, which signifies the Antichrist (Dan. vii, 25).

(17) *Men*. A most dear and illustrious common friend once pointed out to me this word in the great Glossary: "Antopius Anonymous Barensis in the Chronicle, year 1046: 'And the Greeks fell, and many antopii, etc.'" He expressed, if I am not mistaken, the Greek word for "men." And he said it could also be read *entopii*. But I, as the variety of opinions is pleasing, have retained *antopii*, that is, *men*.

^A He asserts that no one has ascended into heaven, except him who descended from heaven; indicating himself, through the ascension and the descent, because the God Word cannot be separated from the humanity to which he says he has come. ^B By ascension, however, he does not here mean that which took place with the flesh, but that which refers to the various ancient dispensations, concerning which the Scripture says: *God went up from Abraham*, when he ceased to speak to him, and things of that sort. But if, after the incarnation, he calls the God Word the Son of Man, it ought not to seem a wonder; since even a king or a general, who has bought a field or contracted a marriage before his reign or his command, is nonetheless later spoken of as a king or a general having acquired the field.

Difficultas XXII. In what manner did John report the Lord to have said to the Jews: *I and the Father are one*; when the same person said that the last day neither the angels nor the Son knew, but the Father alone?

Solutio. That it is impossible for the Creator of the ages to be ignorant of the final day or hour, is clear to all. Therefore, it is shown in three ways that the Lord expounded his teaching. And indeed, he says some things as man; such as the chapter set before us, and that: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death*. Likewise this: *Now my soul is troubled*. Sometimes, however, he speaks as God; when, indeed, he says: *I and the Father are one*. And: *All things that the Father has are mine*, and other things of the like. Sometimes as God and man; as when he says: *I am the bread which descended from heaven*. For the bread is the body, but the God is he who descended. And when he says: *I have power to lay down my soul, and power to take it again*. For to lay down and to take up by one’s own authority belongs to divinity; but the soul belongs to humanity. ^C Furthermore, in this passage he professed ignorance, so as to restrain the curiosity of the disciples; lest they should take it ill that not only they, but also the angels, were ignorant of that day.

Difficultas XXIII. Why did the Lord say to the Jews: *All who have come before me are thieves and robbers*? Were Moses and the prophets, therefore, robbers? ^D

^A Solutio. The devil, conjecturing the advent of Christ, stirred up, a little before He came, certain seditious men—Theudas and Judas with their followers—who snatched glory for themselves and incited those who listened to them to tumult; and these were dispersed, as has been said by Gamaliel. The Lord, therefore, designates through these words both them and those who have emulated them. But the sheep listened to Moses and the prophets.

Difficultas XXIV. Why did Matthew report that the mother of the sons of Zebedee asked the Lord for the seat at the right hand for her sons, whereas Mark narrated that not she, but the sons themselves, requested this?

^B Solutio. Matthew set forth the petition of the mother together with the sons more circumstantially; but Mark, being very studious of brevity, mentioned only the sons; which is not a contradictory account.

Difficultas XXV. In what way, since Luke reported that the Lord said to the Jews: *You shall not see me henceforth until you say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord*, does he describe the same Lord as conversing, eating, discoursing, and performing miracles among the Jews at great length? Moreover, how did He command the Pharisees to announce to Herod: *Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected*? For He suffered the punishment of the cross after many days.

^C Solutio. This difficulty has this solution: when the Lord was staying in Galilee, which was under the rule of Herod, and was performing miracles there, the Pharisees of that region, who saw that He was troublesome to them out of envy because of His miracles and doctrine, and were hastening to drive Him into Judea, said to Him: *Go out from here, because Herod wants to kill you*. To whom the Lord, understanding with what intent they said this to Him, answered: *Go, tell that fox*—meaning Herod, as one who is deceitful—*and the things that follow*. Therefore, that *I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow* indicates those two days in which He was staying there and performing miracles; after which He began His journey toward Jerusalem, on the third day, clearly, in which He also says He is "perfected," as on that day He was beginning the journey that was to complete the whole mystery at Jerusalem through the cross. But that *You shall not see me henceforth* was spoken to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, whom He had previously lamented, saying: *Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her*. And from that time she did not see the Lord, until they beheld Him sitting upon a foal and being celebrated with hymns by the crowd and the children. And *henceforth* can also be understood of the entire time, up until the Passion of the Lord; up until which time the Jews beheld the Lord,

^A no longer will they see Him, until, beholding Him coming in the glory of the Father to judge the world, they shall say: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

Difficultas XXVI. How does Luke say the Lord spoke to the disciples: *The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man*, when Matthew reports that He said: *Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age*?

Solutio. Fulfilling His promise, the Lord remained with the apostles after the Ascension, for which reason they stood unassailable and invincible against those who opposed them. Nevertheless, amid temptations, remembering their former association with Him, their partaking of meals together, and their constant companionship, they were seized with a longing for this. It is also likely that the faithful who are found at the end of the world, awaiting the advent of the Antichrist, will desire the time when the Lord, living among the disciples, worked miracles.

Difficultas XXVII. For what reason does Matthew say that ^B two blind men met the Lord at Jericho, but Mark says one, and Luke suggests they were different persons?

Solutio. At that time, Christ did not restore sight to one blind man, nor two, but to as many as four. One, indeed, concerning whom Luke narrated, as He was entering Jericho, after which He also called Zacchaeus; another, whom Mark describes, sitting by the side of the road, begging, and named Bartimaeus. The other two are those in Matthew, who met the Lord as He was leaving, and were healed by Him. There is nothing strange, however, in all of them calling the Lord the Son of David, because He had already become ^C famous on account of His miracles.

Difficultas XXVIII. Why, therefore, does Matthew say the Lord sat upon an ass and a colt; but Mark and Luke, only upon a colt; and John, upon a little ass?

Solutio. Matthew, wishing to show that the colt was unbroken and newborn, declared that its mother was also taken, not that the Lord sat upon the ass, but so that the colt might gain confidence from following her. Mark and Luke, however, recounted the events more simply, Matthew indeed, in accordance with the saying of the prophet. ^D

NOTES (20) Matthew indeed... Ad textum Matthaei, [see facsimile for extended textual note]. [index: entries preserved]

^A He said that He ascended upon an ass and a foal; because He sat upon the foal, and the ass was following and assisting the vehicle of the Lord. But if anyone should be distressed, for what reason Matthew says the prophet declared that the Lord sat upon an ass and a foal, while the Version of the Seventy contains that He sat upon the foal of an ass; let this person learn, that the apostles, using the Hebrew tongue, inasmuch as they were ignorant of Greek eloquence, and having used the Version of the Seventy, just as it was carried in their books, which had been set forth more anciently, so they set forth the prophetic testimonies; the Spirit having dispensed this, so that they might not appear to have written by prearrangement. However, the foal signifies the nations, but the mother of it signifies the Jews.

Difficulty XXIX.

Solution.

Difficulty XXX.

servants to receive the fruits from the farmers, whereas Luke says he sent them one by one?

*Solution.* Because the former indicated figuratively and as it were in summary the prophets who were sent at various times individually, whereas the latter indicated more precisely that they were sent one by one. From both, it is shown that those sent were many, yet they were sent one by one and not all at once. Hence, Luke, distinguishing them, says, "Some they beat, others they wounded in the head, and some they killed." This is not a matter of contradiction, but of a different mode of expression. ^B

*Difficultas XXXI.* For what reason does one [evangelist] narrate the history of the ointment six days before the Passover, and another two days before, although both declare that the event took place in Bethany? And why does one say that all the disciples complained against the woman, while the other says only Judas did, even though both mention the house of Simon?

*Solution.* From all these things it is evident that different persons anointed the Lord with ointment at different times. For the one [mentioned] by Luke is narrated as being earlier than the others; she did not do this in Bethany, but in Galilee, at the house of a certain Pharisee, who was not a leper, as Matthew and Mark suggest. That [other event] by the woman was done two days before the Passover. Likewise, the one in John is different from these; for she was the sister of Lazarus. By which it happened that at one time all the disciples rebuked [the woman], and at another time only Judas did, since not one woman, but different women were being rebuked. ^C

*Difficultas XXXII.* By what reasoning do Matthew and Mark report that Judas made a pact regarding the silver for the betrayal *after* the supper at Bethany, but Luke says it was when Christ finished His discourse on the consummation of all things; while John mentions the supper, but says nothing of Bethany? And concerning the time, he seems to disagree with the others, mentioning the night in which the Lord was seized by the Jews.

*Solution.* Nothing has been said by the evangelists with contradiction; rather, each one narrated what was missing from the others, moved by the Holy Spirit, so that the reading of all four might be necessary. Therefore, the Lord, having descended from the Mount of Olives after those discourses concerning the consummation of all things, came to Bethany, from whence Judas, after the offering of the ointment, being incited by the sickness of avarice, because he had not received the price of it, went away immediately and sold the Lord two days before the Passover. John, however, having omitted the discourses on the end of the world, [writes] of the counsel of the high priests to kill the Lord, that anointing at Bethany narrated elsewhere, and also the agreement regarding the ^D

^A betrayal of Judas; and he recorded what was said and done during that night, in which He was betrayed.

Difficultas xxxiii. How is it that Matthew relates that Judas confessed his betrayal, saying, "Is it I, Rabbi?" while John relates that Christ gave him the morsel as a sign of the betrayal?

Solutio. Since the Lord presented His teaching in various ways, and repeatedly—not just once or twice, but often—restrained Judas from his undertaking, sometimes by rebuking him obscurely, and at other times more clearly. Matthew recorded the earlier parts of the conversation that took place during the Supper for this reason; John recorded the final parts, beginning from the washing of the feet, and omitting the things mentioned in Matthew. Since it is written that, after the morsel, Satan entered into Judas, let us not be surprised. For the morsel did not cause this in him; ^B since the devil had already put the crime of betrayal into his heart; but then he altogether leaped upon him, seeing him to be unrepentant; for previously he had been attacking him gradually. The morsel, therefore, served the function of a surgeon’s iron instrument, or a plaster applied which lays bare concealed wounds.

Difficultas xxxiv. For what reason does Matthew teach that the supper took place on the first day of Unleavened Bread, while the others call it the day of the Jewish Passover; and John testifies that this happened before the feast of the Passover, mentioning the morsel which the Lord handed to Judas with these words: "What you do, do quickly," and adding that some thought that Jesus had said to him, "Buy those things we need for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor"?

Solutio. Scripture is accustomed to call the fourteenth day of the first month the Passover, because on it, between the evenings, the lamb was eaten with unleavened ^C bread; but the fifteenth day [it calls] not the Passover, but the feast of the Passover, or the feast of Unleavened Bread: as Moses says, "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, between the evenings, is the Lord’s Passover. And on the fifteenth day is the feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord." Therefore, before that day, on the fourteenth, when it was already evening, the Lord having supped with the disciples the typical Passover, then He also delivered the mystical Passover to them. They were in no way forbidden by the Law from selling or buying food, or from giving alms, because it is said: "Whatever shall be done for the soul, that shall be done for you."

NOTE. When all things that ought to have extinguished his evil had been applied by the Savior, it became ^D a superior medicine. Verum ubi, omnibus quæ malum ejus Judæ exstinguere ac sedare debuerant, a Salvatore adhibitis, medicina superior exstitit.

the soul, this shall be done for you. Hence the disciples suspected that Judas had been sent for such a ministry after the reception of the morsel. ^A

Difficulty XXXV.

How is it that Luke narrates as having happened during the supper some things which preceded the supper by a long time, and others which followed it; such as what Christ discoursed to the apostles regarding not contending for primacy; and what He said to Peter, foretelling the denial: of which events, Matthew and Mark taught us the former long before the supper, and the latter after the supper, when Jesus was already proceeding to the mountain?

Solution.

Because, above all commandments, humility was acceptable and pleasing to Christ, He often discoursed about it to the disciples, as He also demonstrated it by His works. First, in the Beatitudes, both once and twice; then when the sons of Zebedee asked to sit at His right hand and at His left; in addition to this, at the supper, when, as is reasonable, the rashness of Judas—who had dared to dip his hand into the bowl with the Lord—had incited the disciples to a desire for primacy. Therefore, Matthew and Mark necessarily set forth the earlier things, ^B while Luke set forth those which were at the supper, and John set forth the Lord’s practical teaching regarding humility through the foot-washing, each omitting what had been said by the others. In the same way, knowing the fervor of Peter, He repeatedly declares the matter to him; both at the supper foretelling the denial, and when proceeding to the Mount of Olives: but Luke and John wrote about the foretelling of Peter’s denial made at the supper, while Matthew and Mark narrated those things which occurred after the supper.

Difficulty XXXVI.

What is the reason that some record that Jesus took the disciples into Gethsemane and prayed, and was handed over there; but Luke [says] on the Mount of Olives; and John, in a certain garden across the torrent of Kidron? ^C

Solution.

Each reported it with different words, but with harmonious meanings. For after the supper, as it appears to Matthew and Mark, having sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives; at the roots of which Gethsemane is situated across the torrent of Kidron, where there was a garden, as was said by John. From there, withdrawing about a stone’s throw, and being established on the very summit of the mountain, He prayed again, and came to the disciples, who were heavy with sleep, in Gethsemane, where He was also arrested. ^D

Difficulty XXXVII.

In what manner do Matthew and Mark narrate that He prayed three times concerning the passion; Luke, once; and John did not even commit this to writing?

Solution. The Spirit took great care to use brevity, on account of our negligence. Wherefore, one [evangelist] spoke more extensively about that prayer; another, as if in passing, because he was hastening toward other matters; and another omitted it entirely, because it had been written by the rest, so that they would not repeat the same things. ^A

Difficulty XXXVIII. In what manner did John alone not mention the kiss of betrayal? And in what manner, when the others say that as soon as Judas kissed the Lord, the Jews seized Him, John does not [say] this, but wrote that He asked them, "Whom do you seek?" and cast them backward onto the ground, and what follows?

Solution. Judas came to the Lord with a crowd bearing clubs and swords, as all have declared with one voice. ^B Afterward, since various things were done, the evangelists divide the account of these events among themselves. For Christ, wishing to show that He is seized willingly, cast blindness—that is, a stupor—upon them. And after casting them backward, and saying, "I am He whom you seek," while they were in confusion, and even while Judas was pointing Him out with a kiss, He is seized by them.

Difficulty XXXIX. In what manner does John say that Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest, while the others simply said [it was] one of those who were with Christ?

Solution. Indeed, John, trusting in the love of Peter—in that he would not be offended by a declaration of the truth—reported the matter exactly. For in truth, the deed was a result of Peter's fervor. It is probable, however, that the others, out of reverence for Peter, narrated the event more simply. ^C

Difficulty XL. What reason did He have to rebuke the one who used the sword before the Lord, when Christ Himself, as Luke testifies, commanded them to buy swords, having heard them ask then whether they ought to use them?

Solution. The Lord commanded the disciples to buy swords, not so that they might use them for revenge, but by this means to make His passion credible, and at the same time to fulfill that prophecy, "He was reckoned with the lawless." For to carry purses and swords by night would be the equipment of a robber. ^D It is not, however, written that the Lord permitted [them], when the disciples asked, to use the swords. For at the very moment of the questioning, Peter immediately cut off the ear of the slave, not waiting for

the response. But if Matthew says the Lord said: “Return your sword to its place,” and the rest, while another says: “Permit them up to this point,” both signify the same thing, that the Lord did not at all approve of what had happened. ^A

DIFFICULTY XLI.

Solution.

DIFFICULTY XLII.

Solution.

Difficulty XLIII.

Solution.

^A a voice is emitted. Furthermore, the second crowing of the cock led Peter to the remembrance of the Lord's prediction.

Difficultas XLIV.

For what reason does John say that the Jews, when they delivered Jesus to Pilate, took care not to be defiled by entering the praetorium, but that they might eat the Pascha; even though others write that it was the first day of the Jewish Pascha, on which the Lord, having supped with the disciples, was taken by the Jews at night for the passion? And in proof of this, the same John says in another place: “The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the Sabbath; for that Sabbath day was a great day,” and the rest.

Solution.

Pascha ^B is properly called in Scripture (as those who read Deuteronomy will understand), the fourteenth day of the first month, on which the lamb was sacrificed toward evening, which they ate with bitter herbs and unleavened bread; but the feast of the Pascha is the day following it, as also the feast of Unleavened Bread. The day which follows that again is also notable, because on it the sheaf was offered, which was the Sabbath, of which John says that it was a great day of that Sabbath: first, because the Sabbath itself was honored for its own sake; second, because it was the second day of the feast; and third, because on it the new sheaf was offered, and threefold sacrifices were performed. Besides the fact that in general even seven days of the solemnity were called Pascha, ^C just as it is narrated in the Acts of the Apostles, that “after the Pascha,” that is, after the days of Unleavened Bread, Herod wished to kill Peter.

Difficulty XLV.

Why, then, does John narrate that the Lord bore his own cross, while the other three say Simon the Cyrenaean?

Solution.

Immediately in the beginning, the Lord carried the cross, while the soldiers, regarding it as an ignominy, disdained to carry it; but when they had entered upon the way, having met Simon coming from the field, they constrained him. Thus, there is no discrepancy, nor is any intentional ^D confusion brought about by the evangelists on this point.

Difficulty XLVI.

What is the reason why, from the words of Mark, the Lord was crucified at the third hour; but according to the account of John, the sixth?

Solution.

It is the custom for many to speak concerning the magistrates, “That

such and such a ruler put this man to death,” even though they do not inflict the punishments themselves, but make use of executioners as their ministers. This is what was done then, too. For at the third hour Pilate handed the Lord over to his sentence; but after three more hours had passed, until the sixth, while He was being scourged, and clothed in the scarlet cloak, and crowned with thorns, and mocked, at the sixth hour He was nailed to the cross.

Difficulty XLVII.

Solutio. Not once, but many times, they offered the aforementioned things to drink—not only to Christ when He asked, but even when He did not ask. Therefore, not all recorded everything, but each related part of the account. Thus, Matthew and Mark narrated the wine offered before the cross—the former with gall, the latter with myrrh—saying that both are equally bitter. Luke, however, describes the vinegar offered to Him on the cross. And John wrote that when the Lord had said, “I thirst,” some took a sponge, filled it with hyssop and vinegar, and gave it to the Lord to drink. From all of which it is evident that the aforementioned substances were offered to Him in different ways through the savagery of the Jews.

DIFFICULTY XLVIII.

Solutio. In the beginning, both were indeed reviling the Lord, casting insults at Him, thinking, as it seems, that the Jews would be appeased and they themselves would be taken down from the cross. But when this did not happen, the good thief, understanding Christ’s prayer to the Father as being to an Equal—when He said, “Father, forgive them their sin”—recognized the truth, and confessed Him as Lord and King: a fact which was omitted by the other evangelists, who were hastening to other parts of the history.

Difficulty XLIX.

Solutio. Some read it in this way: “Amen, I say to you today.”

^A And then they place a subdistinction. They then add: “With me you shall be in Paradise.” As if one were to say, “Amen, I say to you today, being on the cross, you shall be with me in Paradise.” But even if it should be read according to the prevailing usage, nothing contrary follows, since our Savior, by His uncircumscribed divinity, was present not only in Hades, but also in Paradise together with the thief, and in Hades, and with the Father, and in the sepulcher, as one who fills all things. ^B

Difficulty L. By what reasoning does Matthew report the resurrection on the evening of the Sabbath; Mark however very early, while the sun was still rising; Luke however at deep dawn; and John, while it was still dark? And how does John speak of one woman, while Luke and Mark say three, and Matthew two, coming to the Lord’s tomb? They have also set forth the names differently. For Luke, having mentioned three, says one of them was Joanna; but Mark, likewise mentioning three, says that one of them was Salome. ^C

Solution. We find much synonymy in divine Scripture, just as happens here too. Whence also the sister of the Theotokos was called by the same name, as well as Mary of James. It happened also that the Magdalenes were not one or two only, but three; one of whom had been cleansed from seven demons, with whom the rest, along with Joanna and Salome, having been benefited in various ways by the Savior, ran to the Lord's tomb at different times. It is therefore reasonable to assume also Mary of James, the son of Alphaeus, and another likewise called Mary, but the mother of James, the son of Zebedee. Hence, therefore, one must consider the classification of the appearances. For it is recorded by Matthew with no contradiction ^D that one of the Magdalenes, Mary, together with the other Mary, on the evening of the Sabbath, extending until midnight, ran into the monument, which was double according to the shape of the cave of Abraham, and having arrived in the outer house saw the angel, who at that very hour rolled away the stone, Christ having already risen from the monument; therefore it was written: “Behold, there was a great earthquake,” that is, at the time of His arrival; then to hear of the angel what...

they had heard; and having gone to report it to the disciples, to see the Lord, and to worship His feet, and to be brought to the disciples: meanwhile the guards reported what had happened in the city. ^A Since John mentions only Mary Magdalene, one must assume that this was a different woman, and one less perfect than the former, who, having run and come to the tomb, and finding the stone rolled away, suffering nothing more, went to Peter and John. They, having come and seen the burial cloths lying separately, departed marveling. But to Mary, as she was weeping in the outer cave and looking within, there appeared...

NOTE.

^B ...[the following is an analytical linguistic apparatus concerning various manuscript corruptions and lectionary errors, including citations from Nicephorus Callisti, Symeon Metaphrastes, the Code of Theodosius, the Council of Chalcedon, and others]...

^C ...[continuation of the scholarly notes discussing philological errors in various Greek and Latin texts, including the Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, synodal acts, and the work of Blastares]...

^D ...[conclusion of notes regarding the false epithet attributed to John of Constantinople and other miscellaneous textual corrections].

^A And those angels who appeared to Mary while she was weeping and looking within, caused her, ^B at the sight of Christ who had been standing outside (for He had risen), to turn around, saying to her, "Why are you weeping?" and what follows. Then, when she recognized Him and cried out, "Rabboni," He spoke to her the words, "Do not touch me," and the subsequent things. There is therefore nothing absurd if, after this vision, Mary, running toward the apostles, met those women recorded by Luke who were running to the tomb, namely, Mary of James and Joanna, and drew them to share in the vision with her. But when they were inside the tomb and saw no one, they were both anxious: the Magdalene, because the angels she had seen before she now did not see; and the other two, because they did not find the Lord’s body there. To them, therefore, the angels appeared again and spoke the things that are recounted by Luke. Coming, therefore, the three, together with the rest of the women who were mentioned by Luke in passing, reported to the disciples. But they, having heard from Peter and John that they had seen no one when they went to the tomb, considered the things said by the women to be nonsense. Peter, however, being fervent, went to the tomb a second time, and having seen only what followed from the first arrival, went away wondering at what had happened. Mark, indeed, describes a different Mary Magdalene than that reported by the two—the one recorded by Matthew, Luke, and John—along with Salome and Mary of James, as being different from the first, and as having run to the tomb last. And having seen the appearance of the one angel mentioned by Matthew, and being seized with fear, they fled from the tomb and dared to tell no one, because the sun had now risen, fearing the Jewish threat.

Question

Solution

had been laid. Therefore, what was passed over by them, Luke wrote down more accurately, saying: *They entered and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.* Hence, they have not said anything contrary to one another.

Difficulty LII.

Solution.

and they found it just as the women had said, but they did not see him. ^A

*Difficulty LIII.* What is the reason that John says the Lord said to Mary, "Do not touch me," and the rest, while Matthew narrates that they grasped his feet and worshipped him?

*Solution.* As has already been demonstrated, she was weaker in faith than the others. Therefore, thinking that she would live with Christ as before, and imagining nothing great regarding him, she was rightly rebuked and learned that he must return to the heavenly Father, from whence he had come. ^B

*Difficulty LIV.* What is the cause that Luke and John wrote that the women announced the resurrection of Christ to the apostles, while Mark testifies that they kept silent and said nothing because of fear; and Matthew passed over both of these statements in silence?

*Solution.* The matter of Matthew is easily solved. For he did not say that the women did not report what they were commanded, but that while they were on their way to report it to the disciples, the arrival of the soldiers in the city to the chief priests occurred, who were announcing the miracle that had happened at the tomb. Luke and John, agreeing with the preceding evangelist, recorded that they reported these things to the apostles. But Mark, concerning those who arrived last when the sun had already ^C risen, rightly says that they said nothing because of fear. For this reason, then, either they reported nothing, or one must understand that they said nothing until the Lord’s apparition was made to them.

*Difficulty LV.* For what reason, while John records that Peter and John ran to the Lord’s tomb, did Luke write that only Peter came to the tomb?

*Solution.* As has been written regarding this above, since the women’s arrivals at the tomb were different, the events that took place there are narrated differently. When, therefore, Mary Magdalene reported to Peter and John that the Lord’s body had been taken ^D from the tomb, both of them went there. But after this, when the women mentioned by Luke [reported] to the disciples that which

had been told them, and they were not believed by them, Peter, being fervent, went there a second time.

^A

Difficulty LVI.

Solution.

^B

Difficulty LVII.

Solution.

we are accustomed to call "late" that part of the day which extends deep into the night; and there the Lord appeared to them, just as [He did] to the others.

^A Difficultas LVII. Where did Christ eat the fish? For if it were in Jerusalem, how does John record that it happened in Galilee? And if it were in Galilee, how does Luke say that He commanded the disciples: "Stay in the city of Jerusalem?" And how, leading them out from there to Bethany, was He taken up?

Solution. Since the Lord frequently dined with the disciples during the forty days, John records one dinner that was prepared in Galilee, but Luke records two: the first in Emmaus, and the other at Sion, in which he also made mention of the broiled fish, but not [in the same way as] of the fish, or the coals, or the bread, just as in the dinner in Galilee described by John. ^B

Difficultas LVIII. When did the dinner recorded by Luke occur? For if it was long before the fortieth day—that is, [the day] of the Ascension—how did he write that He was immediately taken up, saying: "He led them out as far as Bethany," and the rest, and "He was carried into heaven"? But if it was on the fortieth day, how then was He touched by the disciples, [He] who had already been touched on the first and eighth day of the Resurrection?

Solution. That the Lord ate the fish at the dinner recorded by Luke on the first day of the Resurrection, is clear from what was written above. ^C And if Luke says, "He led them out as far as Bethany," and that "He was taken up," he does not strictly grant us [to understand] through these words that He was taken up immediately. For it is the custom of writers concerned with brevity to connect one history to another. Just as by Matthew, before the account of the return of the Lord from Egypt and His dwelling in Galilee had even been completed, the coming of John to the Jordan was described, and his preaching, which took place nearly thirty years later. And it is possible for those who wish to do so to collect many such things for the sake of establishing the harmony of the Gospels; not to mention the fact that, in the Acts of the Apostles, recapitulating the account concerning the Ascension, he records that it happened on the fortieth day. ^D

Difficultas LIX. How is it that Luke, having recorded in the Gospels that Christ led the disciples out into Bethany, and was taken up from there, says in the Acts...

^A that they returned from the mount called Olivet, as if from there the Lord was taken up? And how, having recorded in the Gospel that after the ascension the disciples remained in the temple, praising and blessing God, does he set forth in the apostolic Acts that they had gone up into an upper room and remained there?

Solution. It is one thing "into Bethany," and another "towards Bethany." For "towards Bethany" lets us understand the road that leads there, to which the Mount of Olives lies adjacent: this is what Luke set forth, saying "towards Bethany," and by these words signifying the part of the mountain bordering upon it, where he recorded that the Lord was taken up, describing the place in a manner like a map-maker. Now the second question has this solution: After the Lord’s assumption, the apostles returned ^B to Jerusalem, as is contained in the Gospel; and they were always in the temple, namely during the appointed time of prayer in which it was permitted to remain in the temple; but the remaining hours they spent at home, that is, in the upper room declared in the Acts of the Apostles; and indeed in it they were unceasingly praising and blessing the Lord. For to Him belongs the glory, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

Of Saint Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem

Because both happened. For simultaneously with the Lord being led away to be crucified, He went out bearing the cross Himself upon His shoulders, the soldiers not deigning to carry it, and there being no one else standing by who ought to carry it. But when they had taken up the journey, then Simon was conscripted by the soldiers, and having taken it from Christ, he carried it. And that the matter is so, the very words of the evangelists will teach us: namely, "they conscripted one passing by, Simon the Cyrenian, coming from the field." This indicates that to those persisting on the road to Golgotha, Simon, coming from the field, met them. For to "meet" happens to those journeying. Whence he did not carry the cross from the beginning, but being conscripted at that moment, he carried it.

SERMONS OF SAINT HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM

^A I. Ex Hesychio in Christi Natalem.

For in the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, on the 25th day of the month of December, on the 6th day, at the seventh hour of the day, our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary; the year according to the Antiochenes from the creation of the world unto the birth and crucifixion of Christ is 6000: for there are gathered from Adam unto Phalec, the son of Heber, 3000 years, and from Phalec unto the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, 1067 years; and afterwards the Savior dwelt among men for 33 years; so that there are from Adam unto the birth and crucifixion of Christ 6000 full years. For Phalec, according to the prophecy of Moses, is said to be the middle of the time of Christ’s appearance. For just as when God had fashioned man on the sixth day, he immediately fell into sin, so also in the sixth millennium He came into the earth and saved him. For this is what the divine Scripture also signifies, saying: “A day of the Lord is as a thousand years.” Which things also Clement, and Theophilus, and Timothy, those most god-loving chroniclers, have set forth, agreeing that in the sixth millennium of years the Lord appeared, fittingly corresponding to the number of the days of the fashioning of Adam, and saved the race of men. Others, however, say that the Lord came in the year 5500. But not many agree in this. But in the 6000th year all accurate writers agree that Christ appeared. For although some disagree about this, yet the prophetic voice is true, which teaches all the more that the Lord appeared in the 6000th year.

^B II. Sancti Hesychii de hora tertia et sexta, quibus Dominus fuisse crucifixus dicitur.

(Comberis, Auctar. nov. t. I, p. 775.)

For what reason does Mark indeed say the third hour...