158. Matthew proceeds thus: "Now when the even was come, He sat down with the twelve disciples; and as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?" and so on, down to where we read, "Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said." [1226] In what we have now presented for consideration here, the other three evangelists, [1227] who also record such matters, offer nothing calculated to raise any question of serious difficulty. [1228]
[1216] Matt. xxvi. 14-19.
[1217] Mark xiv. 10-16; Luke xxii. 3-13.
[1218] Matt. xxvi. 18.
[1219] Patrem familias.
[1220] Dominum domus.
[1221] Ite in civitatem et dicite ei. Turning on the identity of form retained by the Latin pronoun in all the genders of the dative case, this, of course, cannot be precisely represented in English.
[1222] Ad quemcunque aut ad quemlibet.
[1223] Ad quendam.
[1224] Lagenam, bottle.
[1225] Amphoram, large measure.
[1226] Matt. xxvi. 20-25.
[1227] Mark xiv. 17-21; Luke xxii. 14-23; John xiii. 21-27.
[1228] [No notice is taken by Augustin, in this treatise, of the most serious difficulty connected with the narratives of the Lord's Supper; namely, that of the day of the month on which it was instituted. The Synoptists distinctly declare that our Lord ate the passover supper with His disciples at the regular time (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7), but some passages in John (xiii. 1, 27-30; xviii. 28; xix. 31) seem to indicate that the proper time of its observance had not yet come. Hence many commentators think that the Lord's Supper was instituted on the evening of the 13th of Nisan, one day before the regular time of the paschal supper.--R.]
Book III.
This book contains a demonstration of the harmony of the evangelists from the accounts of the Supper on to the end of the Gospel, the narratives given by the several writers being collated, and the whole arranged in one orderly connection.
Prologue.
1. Inasmuch as we have now reached that point in the history at which all the four evangelists necessarily hold their course in company on to the conclusion, without presenting any serious divergence the one from the other, if it happens anywhere that one of them makes mention of something which another leaves unnoticed, it appears to me that we may demonstrate the consistency maintained by the various evangelists with greater expedition, if from this point onwards we now bring all the statements given by all the writers together into one connection, and arrange the whole in a single narration, and under one view. [1229] I consider that in this way the task which we have undertaken may be discharged with greater convenience and facility than otherwise might be the case. What we have now before us, therefore, is to attempt the construction of a single narrative, in which we shall include all the particulars, and for which we shall possess the attestation of those evangelists who, (each selecting for recital out of the whole number of facts those which he had either the ability or the desire to relate,) have prepared these records for us: [1230] this being done in such a manner, moreover, that all these statements, in regard to which we have to prove an entire freedom from contradictions, are taken as made by all the evangelists together.
[1229] The text gives: et in unam narrationem faciemque digeramus. For faciem the reading seriem, series, also occurs.
[1230] The text gives: ut aggrediamur narrationem omnia commemorantes, cum eorum evangelistarum attestatione qui ex his omnibus, etc. Some editions have cum eorundem evangelistarum attestatione quid ex his, etc. = the attestation of the same evangelists as to what, etc.
Chapter I.--Of the Method in Which the Four Evangelists are Shown to Be at One in the Accounts Given of the Lord's Supper and the Indication of His Betrayer.
2. Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by Matthew, [which runs thus]: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body." [1231] Both Mark and Luke also gave this section. [1232] It is true that Luke has made mention of the cup twice over: first before He gave the bread; and, secondly, after the bread has been given. But the fact is, that what is stated in that earlier connection has been introduced, according to this writer's habit, by anticipation, while the words which he has inserted here in their proper order are left unrecorded in those previous verses, and the two passages when put together make up exactly what stands expressed by those other evangelists. [1233] John, on the other hand, has said nothing about the body and blood of the Lord in this context; but he plainly certifies that the Lord spake to that effect on another occasion, [1234] with much greater fulness than here. At present, however, after recording how the Lord rose from supper and washed the disciples' feet, and after telling us also the reason why the Lord dealt thus with them, in expressing which He had intimated, although still obscurely, and by the use of a testimony of Scripture, the fact that He was being betrayed by the man who was to eat of His bread, at this point John comes to the section in question, which the other three evangelists also unite in introducing. He presents it thus: "When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, That one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked (as the same John subjoins) one on another, doubting of whom He spake." [1235] "And (as Matthew and Mark tell us) they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto Him, Is it I? And He answered and said (as Matthew proceeds to state), He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me." Matthew also goes on to make the following addition to the preceding: "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." [1236] Mark, too, is at one with him here as regards both the words themselves and the order of narration. [1237] Then Matthew continues thus: "Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said." Even these words did not say explicitly whether he was himself the man. For the sentence still admits of being understood as if its point was this, "I am not the person who has said so." [1238] All this, too, may quite easily have been uttered by Judas and answered by the Lord without its being noticed by all the others.
3. After this, Matthew proceeds to insert the mystery of His body and blood, as it was committed then by the Lord to the disciples. Here Mark and Luke act correspondingly. But after He had handed the cup to them, [we find that] He spoke again concerning His betrayer, in terms which Luke recounts, when he says, "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom He shall be betrayed." [1239] At this point we must now suppose that to come in which is narrated by John while these others omit it, just as John has also passed by certain matters which they have detailed. In accordance with this, after the giving of the cup, and after the Lord's subsequent saying which has been brought in by Luke,--namely, "But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table," etc.,--the statement made by John is [to be taken as immediately] subjoined. It is to the following effect: "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said unto him, [1240] Who is he of whom He speaketh? He then, when he had laid himself on Jesus' breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon [of] Scarioth. And after the sop Satan then entered into him."
4. Here we must take care not to let John underlie the appearance not only of standing in antagonism to Luke, who had stated before this, that Satan entered into the heart of Judas at the time when he made his bargain with the Jews to betray Him on receipt of a sum of money, but also of contradicting himself. For, at an earlier point, and previous to [his notice of] the receiving of this sop, he had made use of these terms: "And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray Him." [1242] And how does he enter into the heart, but by putting unrighteous persuasions into the thoughts of unrighteous men? The explanation, however, is this. We ought to suppose Judas to have been more fully taken possession of by the devil now, just as on the other hand, in the instance of the good, those who had already received the Holy Spirit on that occasion, subsequently to His resurrection, when He breathed upon them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," [1243] also obtained a fuller gift of that Spirit at a later time, namely, when He was sent down from above on the day of Pentecost. In like manner, Satan then entered into this man after the sop. And (as John himself mentions in the immediate context) "Jesus saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him; for some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and it was night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him: and if God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him." [1244]
[1231] Matt. xxvi. 26.
[1232] Mark xiv. 22; Luke xxii. 49.
[1233] [Luke's first reference to the cup belongs to the passover celebration, in distinction from the Lord's Supper.--R.]
[1234] John vi. 32-64.
[1235] John xiii. 21, 22.
[1236] Matt. xxvi. 22-25.
[1237] Mark xiv. 19-21.
[1238] [This explanation seems altogether inadmissible, and is equally unnecessary.--R.]
[1239] Luke xxii. 21, 22.
[1240] Innuit ergo huic Simon Petrus et dixit ei.
[1241] John xiii. 23-27. [Whether this preceded or followed the giving of the cup is still in dispute.--R.]
[1242] John xiii. 2.
[1243] John xx. 22.
[1244] John xiii. 28-32.