About the Harlot and the Pharisee

“A Collection of Perplexities and Explanations, Selected from the Gospel Symphony” (60 chapters) is an abbreviation of the lost work of St. Hesychius of Jerusalem “Gospel Symphony” (Εὐαγγελικὴ συμφωνία). The purpose of this treatise was to resolve the contradictions and disagreements between the Gospels. St. Hesychius rejected the possibility of errors among the evangelists: if some of the described events and miracles cannot be agreed upon in all details, it means that we are talking about similar, but different events. Some explanations are of a dogmatic nature and reveal Orthodox Christology: the doctrine of two natures in Christ, the identity of the hypostasis of Christ with the hypostasis of the Logos, and the communion of the properties of the two natures. According to researchers, the preserved catenas of St. Hesychia on the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Matthew, as well as the unpublished “Homily on the Resurrection of our Savior” are fragments of the “Gospel Symphony”. In this publication, the translation of the main text was carried out by Priest Roman Romanov, quotations from the Holy Scriptures are given according to the translation of Bishop. Kassian (Bezobrazov) and P.A. Yungerova. The words in square brackets are not in the original and were added for coherence. *The title of the work in Greek is Συναγωγὴ ἀποριῶν κα ἐπιλύσεων. *The title of the essay in Latin is Collectio difficultatum et solutionum. Confusion I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV XXXVI XXXVII XXXVIII XXXIX XL XLI XLII XLIII XLIV XLV XLVI XLVII ХLVIII ХLVIX L LI LII LIII LIV LV LVI LVII LVIII LVIX LX The original text of the “Gospel Symphony” has been lost. A later abridged version survives, known as the Collection of Perplexities and Explanations, printed in PG 93. pp. 1392–1448. Quotations from Holy Scripture, unless otherwise specified, are given according to the translation of Bishop. Kassian (Bezobrazov) and P.A. Yungerova. The words in square brackets are not in the original and were added for coherence. Translation: Priest Roman Romanov. Why did Mark, having begun [the Gospel] and saying: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (Mark 1:1-3), added: “as it is written in Isaiah the prophet - behold, I am sending My angel before Thy face” and so on. However, this [saying], although slightly different in words, is not found in Isaiah, but in Malachi (Mal.3:1)? This Gospel beginning should be read as stated out of the usual order of the Speech (καθ᾽ὑπερβατὸν): “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Behold, I send My angel before You, who will prepare Your way before You, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet - the voice of one crying in the wilderness” (Isaiah 40:3). For it is the custom of writers to use such an order of speech in thoughts and expressions, as in the first book of the Old [Testament], Genesis, after the creation of Adam and the dispensation of creatures, it is mentioned that Eve was brought, although she was created from him immediately after Adam (Gen. 1:27, 2:19, 21). And in Psalm 61, not in the usual order of speech, it is written: “How long do you press on a person? You all kill like a leaning wall and a fallen fence” (Ps. 61:4) 1. Which wall kills? For this is how it is supposed to be understood: “How long do you lean on a person, like on a tilted wall and a fallen fence?”, and immediately the following: “You kill all of you” 2. This custom of [using] a changed order of speech is also used by writers in other unclear [places], while [they], on the one hand, are concerned about the coordination [of speech], and on the other hand, so that we do not acquire superficial knowledge of the Divine Scripture, but through search and careful study, so that it is not quickly rejected by us. Why was John the Baptist asked by the Pharisees, “Are you Elijah?” , said “No” (John 1:21), but Christ said about him: “He is Elijah, who must come” (Matthew 11:14)? Not in an absolute sense, Christ said about him: “He is Elijah, who must come,” but added: “If you want to accept, he is Elijah.” For he said so because he served Elijah. After all, John became the forerunner of Christ’s coming, just as Elijah of the second [coming] will be. How does the Evangelist John state that the Baptist says about Christ: “I did not know Him” (John 1:31)? If He didn’t know, why did He hinder Him when He wanted to be baptized, speaking as Matthew tells us (Matthew 3:14)? There are four [types] of knowledge: [obtained] through sight, through prophecy, through hearing, through experience. He does not say that he did not know Him through three [types of knowledge], but through the fourth - through experience. By this [type of knowledge] I did not know [Him] until Baptism and contemplation of the Spirit. Just as Adam did not know good and evil through experienced knowledge (Gen. 3:5, 22). If he did not know at all that good is to obey God, and evil is disobedience, then he would not be subject to punishment. Why do evangelists present the calling of the apostles differently? For Matthew says that the Lord said: “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19). Luke wrote that after fishing, the Lord said to Peter: “From now on you will catch people” (Luke 5:10). John says it differently (John 1:39). Each calling is true, [but] happened at a different time. For by the words of Andrew Peter was brought and came to the Lord and, hearing from Him: “You will be called Cephas” and so on (John 1:42), again devoted his time to the fishing boat. Then, as Matthew believes, when they were mending the nets (Matthew 4:21), he and Andrew, James and John were called by Christ. Then, as Luke relates, after fishing, having experienced His power in practice and being filled with horror (Luke 5:9), they followed Him completely. Why did Matthew and Luke, in different orders, set out the temptations that the devil used against the Lord, who was exalted on the wing [of the church] and on a high mountain (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1)? There is no contradiction here, because in one moment each [of the temptations] happened due to the fact that vanity, arrogance and love of money, which the enemy offered Him (the symbol of these [passions] are the wing [of the church] and a high mountain), are connected [with each other], by what he said, “throw yourself down,” inciting Him to vanity, and by the promise of possessing the deceptive glory shown to Him to the love of money and pride Prompting him. But in all this struggle, the overthrown [devil] was ashamed. Why did Matthew and Luke write the beatitudes differently (Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20)? Because different [sermons of the beatitudes] were spoken at different times. One is when the Lord was sitting on the mountain, and the disciples surrounded Him, and the rest of the people stood below and listened. Another one, out of the blue, was pronounced to the apostles. Why does Matthew say that the Lord, after the beatitudes and the centurion, entered Peter’s house and healed his mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14), while Luke says that the Lord healed her before the beatitudes and before the centurion arrived (Luke 4:38)? Why also, according to Matthew, the Lord healed the paralytic in His city of Nazareth (Matthew 9:1), according to Mark and Luke - in Capernaum (Mark 2:1), and according to John - in Jerusalem (John 5:2)? From this it is clear that the Lord not only expounded the beatitudes twice, but also healed various lepers and the paralytic. [The beatitudes] set forth by Matthew were pronounced before the election of the Twelve from the rest [disciples], as a result of which he set them out for everyone in general (καθολικώτερον). After which, coming down from the mountain, he cleansed the leper and [healed] the centurion’s child and Peter’s mother-in-law. Luke, after the election of the Twelve and the announcement of their names, says that the Lord Christ, standing out of the blue, spoke blessings to them (Luke 6:17). Therefore, He turns to their face. In the same way, the centurions, one by Matthew, the other by Luke, were different, although both of them were residents of Capernaum. For one prays to the Lord himself, while the other through intercessors. And one is about a servant, the other about a son, for Scripture usually calls a son a youth (παῖδα) 3 . And of the paralytic, one, about whom Luke and Mark talk (Luke 5:19; Mark 2:4), was lowered through the roof, another by Matthew, after him called from collecting taxes, recorded (Matthew 9:2), and another who [was] at the entrance to the pool, about whom John talks (John 5:2). Why did Matthew write that two demoniacs appeared to the Lord in Gergesin (Matthew 8:28), and Luke and Mark write that there was only one (Luke 8:26; Mark 5:1)? Since many healings, surpassing word and mind, came from the Lord, [then] both of these signs were performed [by Him]. And Mark and Luke remembered one, who was healed by Him in the land of Gergesin, and two, who were healed in the land of Gergesin, were Matthew. Therefore, it is not mentioned that after healing they prayed to the Lord to stay with Him, as is said about one who did so. Why do Matthew and Luke convey the words of the Lord that sin against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven (Matthew 12:32; Luke 12:10), while the Lord spoke about the Holy Spirit “whatever he will take of Mine and proclaim to you” (John 16:14)? Blasphemy against the Son of Man out of ignorance, prompted by the suffering of the condemned humanity of the Lord 4, said [He] is released through repentance. But against the Holy Spirit [blasphemy], that is, either against the deity itself (θεότητα), according to [what is said] “God is spirit” (John 4:24), or against the being (οὐσίαν) 5 of the life-giving Spirit after the signs and wonders shown to God, rightly calls it unworthy of forgiveness, as no longer due to ignorance [perfected]. After all, His power was shown to them through experience, and through the Old [Testament] knowledge of the Spirit was revealed. Repentance is difficult, if not impossible, [for] those who voluntarily and consciously commit wickedness, doing [it] with an atheistic will. Just as it is written in Jeremiah: “Shall the Ethiopian change his skin and the lynx his spots?” (Jer.13:23). The Theologian called such as sinners unto death (John 5:16). And the fact that neither in the present age nor in the future [this sin] will be forgiven (cf. Matt. 12:32), means that some of those who sin now already receive forgiveness through those who have received the power to bind and loose (cf. Matt. 18:18), while others in the future, as “from thoughts that accuse or justify” (Rom. 2:15) the prevailing decision (ψῆφον) The Judge grants to those who have done something worthy of it (cf. Rev. 2:17). Why does Matthew narrate that the ruler of the synagogue tells Christ about his daughter as dead (Matthew 9:18) 6, while Mark and Luke say that she is in danger (Mark 5:23; Luke 8:42)? [And why] Matthew says that Christ, before healing, pleases for faith [bleeding] (Matthew 9:20), while Mark and Luke say that [she] was healed through touch, but was blessed after (Mark 5:29; Luke 8:41)? You should know that the evangelists recorded not one, but different signs. The first [chief, described] in Matthew, was simply an elder of the people, and therefore used flute players for mourning (Matthew 9:23), which is not typical of [religious] Jews. The same one as in Luke and Mark is the ruler of the synagogue named Jairus. And in the first case, [Christ] raised [her] up only by touching his hand; in the second, by saying [the words], he raised up the girl. Also, the sign [performed] over the bleeding woman according to the story of Mark and Luke was different, compared to the one found in Matthew. It is written about one [of them] that she spent all her property on doctors (Luke 8:43), but about the second it is not said that she did such a thing. Why do Matthew and Mark say that the Lord was transfigured six days after the promise to [His] disciples, and Luke says that after eight (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:28)? Because they take into account the days between the day of promise and transfiguration, Luke - with six more - on which [the Lord] made the promise, and on [which] he was transfigured. How does Luke call Levi Alphaeus the disciple called from collecting taxes (Luke 5:27; cf. Mark 2:14), but not one of the Twelve bears this name? He was probably one of the Seventy. After all, Christ called not one publican, but many, to be [His] disciples. Therefore, he was blamed as a friend of publicans (Matthew 11:9). It is not surprising that Christ used the same expressions to [call] each disciple (cf. Matt. 9:9) 7. Why did Matthew, having said that the Lord, when he expounded the beatitudes, ascended the mountain and talked only with the disciples, [then] added that when [Jesus] finished these words, the people were amazed at His teaching (Matthew 5:1, 7:28), while [the people] did not hear what [Jesus] said? Because Christ did not want to hide [His] teaching from the people, but to make these people more God-fearing (καταστῆσαι) and more attentive through their elevation above the earth. After all, that mountain was not high to be an obstacle to hearing, but close to the ground. Other beatitudes at another time, which are [recorded] in Luke, [He] set forth on the plain (Luke 6:17). Why do one of the evangelists list the disciples chosen by Christ (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:13)? The evangelists do not disagree at all among themselves, but the names of all the apostles are stated in agreement. The one [apostle] whom Matthew and Mark call Thaddeus, Luke calls Judas of Jacob, and otherwise Levi, [calls him Matthew], because he has three names. Just like Hebron is called Dabir and the city of sciences (πόλις γραμμάτων) and Agrob. Likewise, Simon [Matthew and Mark] is a Kananaite, from his fatherland, and Luke is called a Zealot, according to [his] virtue. How did the Lord, having told the apostles “Do not go into the way of the pagans and do not enter the city of the Samaritans” (Matthew 10:5), Himself, being in Samaria, asked for a drink [of water] from the Samaritan woman and, when many Samaritans came out to Him, talked [with them] (John 4:9, 30)? [Christ] gave this commandment to his disciples before the Cross, wanting to take away any reason [for attacks] from the Jews. After [the Cross], he says: “Teach all nations” and so on (Matthew 28:19), so that the Jews, filled with envy, would not be indignant at Him. Moreover, the path may not only be for the pagans, but also for the Jews and for everyone. After all, it is not only the pagans who follow the path in their own way. The path of the pagans in a figurative [sense] is idolatry, magic spells, astrology. [He entered] the Samaritan city, walking along the road [to Galilee] (John 4:4). After all, He was not distinguished by hardness of heart, so as to attract the Jews who rejected Him [to Himself], and reject the Samaritans who believed and were drawn to Him. Why does John write that the Lord said to the Jews: “You have never heard His voice, nor have you seen His form” (John 5:37), while Moses says [to the Jews]: “Have the people heard the voice of the living God as you heard and lived?” (Deut.4:33)? To the extent that hearing and seeing are not the actions of external eyes and ears, [this action] is called mental comprehension (τῆς διανοίας ἡ κατα νόησις). Therefore, Isaiah says: “Who is as blind as My servants, and deaf as those who own them?” (Isa.42:19) He said [this] because of the current deafness and rebellion of the Jews. In another case, God speaking to him said to Moses himself: “No one can see My face and live” (free paraphrase of Ex. 33:20). Why does John say that Christ once said [to the Jews]: “You know Me, and know where I come from” (John 7:28), but another time to them [Christ says]: “You do not know where I come from or where I am going” (John 8:14) and “you do not know either Me or My Father” (John 8:19)? Since the mystery comprehended in relation to Christ is dual, what is spoken about Him is also different. He who says that he [knows] Him by humanity knows His fatherland and Mother, but by divinity (θείαν οὐσίαν) does not know Him, the Son, equal to the Father, does not [also] know the Father, the real Father of the only begotten Son. Why does John say: “There was not yet the Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39), whereas [already] the Holy Spirit descended on Christ in the form of a dove in baptism (Matthew 3:16)? Because here [He] is not the essence of the 8 Spirit, but [the action] (ἐνέργεια) of the Spirit, as Paul does when he says: “Do not quench the Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 5:19), an action that should not have come before the Firstborn of us ascended into heaven, to descend and act with various and varied powers, about which Christ speaks: “out of the belly shall flow rivers of living water” (paraphrase John 7:38). From the womb - that is, from the heart of those who believe in Him. Here he called the Cross “Glory,” according to what was said: “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified” (John 12:23). Who can the devil have as his father? After all, John himself says that the Lord said [about the devil]: “When he speaks a lie, he speaks his own way, for he is a liar and his father” (John 8:44) 9. Here he calls the devil either the Antichrist, “the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3) according to Paul, who [the Antichrist], when he speaks a lie, slanderes Christ, as if [He] is an adversary to God (ὡς ἀντίθεον), and setting himself up as God, he speaks his own, being a liar, like his father, Satan; or Cain, whose children he rightly called the Jews, who said that they were the sons of Abraham. [He called it so] because they turned out to be imitators of the image [of being] of Cain, who lied to God with the words: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen.4:9), the first envious and murderer born among people. The same is true of his father, Satan. Why does Luke report that the Lord said to the Seventy: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves” and so on (Luke 10:3), while Matthew says to the Twelve (Matthew 10:16)? And why does Luke only mention the message of the Seventy? Because many times the Lord expounded this teaching, without difficulty in words, but confirming the listeners. Thus, both the Twelve and the Seventy at different times expounded this [teaching]. Why did the Lord say to Nicodemus: “No one has yet ascended into heaven, only He who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13)? If by the Son of Man we are to understand the humanity [of Christ], then it did not come down from heaven. If we understand the entire incarnate Word, then how is the not yet perceived 10 [humanity] perceived in heaven called? The Lord, wanting to raise Nicodemus from Jewish baseness (τᾰπεινότητος) to the heights of dogmas and initiate him into the mystery of spiritual rebirth, when he saw that from such a height [Nicodemus] was dizzy, he said: “If I have told you about earthly things, and you do not believe...” (John 3:12). Therefore [and] he says that no one ascended to heaven as soon as he descended from heaven, meaning himself both in the ascent and in the descent, since it is impossible for God the Word to be separated from [perceived] humanity, who [as He] says, descended. By ascension [He] here calls [what happened] not with the flesh, but through various economic [actions] in ancient times, about which Scripture speaks: “God ascended from Abraham when he stopped speaking to him” (see Gen. 17:22) 11 and similar [passages of Scripture]. If, after the incarnation, God the Word is called the Son of Man 12, this is not surprising, since about a king and a commander, [who] having bought property or married before becoming a king and a commander, similarly after that they say that the king acquired an estate or the commander [was married]. How did the Lord speak to the Jews, according to John: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), while [in another place] He said that neither the angels nor the Son know about the last day, but only the Father (Matthew 24:36)? That it is impossible for the Creator of centuries not to know the [last] day and hour is clear to everyone. From this it is clear that the Lord presented His teaching in three ways: as a man - when he is called a man, as in the previous chapter, and [in the words] “My soul is overcome with sorrow unto death” (Matthew 26:38) and “Now my soul is troubled” (John 12:27); when he is like God, he says: “I and the Father are one” and “everything that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15) and everything similar to this; when he is both God and man, he says: “I am the bread that came down from heaven” (John 6:41). The bread is the body, but the one who came down is God. And when he says: “I have power to lay down my life and take it up again” (paraphrase of John 10:18). With the power to put and accept is [the work of] the deity, but the soul is [the property of] humanity. And here, wanting to eliminate the empty curiosity of the disciples, [like a man] he covers himself with ignorance (προεβάλλετο), so that [the disciples] would not be indignant, as not only, but together with the angels, [the time of] that day who do not know. Why did the Lord say to the Jews: “All who came before Me are thieves and robbers” (John 10:8)? Therefore, Moses and the prophets are called robbers? The devil, guessing about the coming of Christ, shortly before His residence [on earth] raised up some rebels who [rallied] around Theudas and Judas, forming a [high] opinion of themselves, and raised up [the people] who believed them, [but] who were scattered, as Gamaliel said (Acts 5:36-37). [Christ] alludes to them here and to those who turned out to be their imitators. The sheep listened to Moses and the prophets. Why does Matthew narrate that the mother of the sons of Zebedee asked the Lord that [her] sons should sit on the right side (Matthew 20:21), but Mark wrote that it was not she, but the sons who asked for this (Mark 10:37)? Matthew outlined the petition of the mother and her sons in more detail, but Mark, striving for laconicism, mentioned only the sons, so there is no contradiction [here]. Why does Luke write that the Lord said to the Jews: “You will not see Me from now on until you say: Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Matthew 23:39; Luke 13:35), [although] he wrote that for a much longer time He communicated with the Jews, ate with them, talked and performed miracles? [And] why did He order the Pharisees to announce to Herod: “Behold, I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day is My completion” (Luke 13:32), although after more days [He] endured the Cross? First of all, this bewilderment has an explanation: When the Lord lived and performed miracles in Galilee, which was under the rule of Herod, the Pharisees there, looking with envy at [His] signs and teaching, which were a burden to them, and hastening to drive Him away to Judea, said to Him: “Get out of here, because Herod wants to kill You (ἀνελεῖν) 13" (Luke 13:31). [Them] the Lord, knowing with what intention they said this to Him, answered: “Go, tell this fox,” that is, Herod, as a treacherous [villain], and so on. The expression “I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow” - shows two days in which, while staying there, he performed miracles, after which he began the journey to Jerusalem, it is obvious that on the third day, on which He [as] said, reached completion (τελειοῦσθαι), as on this [day] He began the sacrament of all through the Cross in Jerusalem fulfilling the journey 14. The expression “you will not see Me from now on” was spoken to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, about which Jesus first complained, saying: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who were sent to her” (Luke 13:34). Otherwise, who from that time did not see the Lord, until they saw Him sitting on a foal and being sung by the crowd and the children? It is possible “from now on” to think in relation to all time until the Lord’s Passion, before which the Jews who saw the Lord will no longer see Him, until contemplating [Him] in the glory of the Father judging the world, they will say: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” Why does Luke say that the Lord said to the disciples: “The days will come when you will desire to see only the day of the Son of Man” (Luke 17:22), but Matthew narrates that He said: “Behold, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20)? The Lord fulfilled this promise and after the Ascension was with the apostles, therefore [they] were invincible and invincible for their opponents. But still, in temptations, remembering His former residence with them, joint meals and constant conversations, [the disciples] strongly desired to [see] Him. It is likely that believers who will be found in the last times, while awaiting the appearance of the Antichrist, will long for the time in which the Lord worked miracles while staying with the disciples. Why does Matthew [write] that two blind men met the Lord at Jericho, Mark and Luke are one, and [the evangelists] talk about these [blind men] as different (Matthew 20:30; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35)? Christ healed not one, not two, but four blind people. One, as Luke related when entering Jericho, after which he called Zacchaeus, the other, as Mark wrote, sitting by the road, begging, called Bartimaeus, the other two are found in Matthew (κείμενοι), who met the Lord coming out and were healed by Him. It is not surprising that they all called the Lord “Son of David,” since He became very famous because of [His] signs. Why does Matthew say that the Lord rode on a donkey and a colt, while Mark and Luke said that he sat on a colt only, and John that he sat on a colt (Matthew 21:7; Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14)? Matthew, wanting to show the unbrokenness and youth of the foal, wrote that his mother was with him, not so that the Lord was sitting on her, but so that she, with her accompaniment, encouraged the foal, while Mark and Luke stated what happened more simply. Matthew, in accordance with the saying of the prophet, said that [Christ] sat on a donkey and a foal (cf. Zechariah 9:9), because by means of a colt and on a donkey, [He] sat, following [with Him] and assisting [the movement] of the Lord as a guide (συνεργούσῃ τῳ τοῦ Κυρίου ὀχήματι). If anyone is perplexed why Matthew conveyed the words of the prophet that the Lord sat on a donkey and a foal, but in the translation of the Seventy it is written in “the foal of a donkey” (πῶλον ὄνου) 15, let him know that the apostles used the Hebrew dialect, since they did not know the Greek language, and that in the translation of the Seventy [written], so that they used their books, which were compiled earlier [than the translation of the Seventy], and set out the prophetic testimonies. This [happened] according to the dispensation of the Spirit, so that they would not say [about the evangelists] that they composed [their writings] by agreement [with each other]. At the same time, the foal covertly represents (αἰνίττεται) the pagans, and its mother – the Jews. Why does Matthew tell us that the fig tree withered up immediately (Matthew 21:19), while Mark says that the next day (Mark 11:20)? Also, [about] those selling and buying in the church, one [evangelist] says that on the day when the Lord entered the city, [He] drove out those who were selling, while another says that on the next day (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15). Each [of the evangelists], both in everything and in this [case], told the truth. In the morning, as the evangelist said, returning to the city, the Lord became hungry and, approaching the fig tree, found nothing but leaves (cf. Matthew 21:18–19). And, saying, “Let there be no fruit from you,” he immediately dried it up. Since the miracle was great and unusual, the next day the disciples examined it and saw that the roots and trunk and branches had dried up (cf. Mark 11:20), and were amazed at such confirmation of the miracle. The Lord dried it up, showing His strength to the disciples, in view of [His] expected suffering. After all, he had already shown [His] power in various types of good deeds, but the experience of punitive power did not yet provide him, and it was now necessary to show [it] on the soulless [fig tree]. At the same time, he expelled those selling and buying [in the church] on both days - on the first day and on the next, as shamelessly possessed by the disease of greed and profiteering (καπηλείας). Why do Matthew and Mark say that the owner of the house, who planted a vineyard, sent many slaves to take the fruits from the farmers (Matthew 21:33; Mark 12:1), while Luke says that one at a time (Luke 20:9)? Because some [evangelists] described collectively and all the prophets together, sent in their time one by one, while others described them as being sent separately, one by one. From both [stories] it is clear that the multitude were sent one at a time, and not all at once. Therefore, dividing [them], Mark says that some were beaten, some were wounded in the head, some were killed. Why do [the evangelists] tell, one that six days before Easter, the other that two days before the world happened (John 12:1; Matthew 26:2), and each writes that it happened in Bethany, and one that all the disciples were indignant at the woman (Mark 14:1), the other that only Judas, and both remember the house of Simon (Luke 7:37)? From this it is clear that different persons anointed the Lord with myrrh at different times. About one Luke, earlier than the others, says that not in Bethany, but in Galilee [she] did this, with a certain Simon the Pharisee, but not a leper. Also, Matthew and Mark believe that this was done by a woman two days before Easter. And according to John, another [was the anointed one], unlike those [who] was the sister of Lazarus. From this it agrees that once all the disciples reproached, once Judas was not one person, but different ones who were subjected to [their] reproaches. Why do Matthew and Mark write that Judas agreed on silver for betrayal after a meal in Bethany (Matthew 26:14; Mark 14:10), while Luke, speaking [about betrayal], kept silent about the previous [meal] (Luke 22:3), and John remembered the meal, but not in Bethany. And regarding the time [of the betrayal], he is believed to disagree with the others [evangelists], remembering the night on which the Lord was captured by the Jews (John 13:2, 30). The evangelists did not say anything discordant, but each, moved by the Holy Spirit, stated what others had missed. Therefore, Jesus, having descended from the Mount of Olives, after speaking about the end of [the age] (Matthew 24:3), came to Bethany, from where Judas, after the offering of [peace], inflamed by the disease of the love of money, because he did not receive the price of this world, went out [and] immediately sold the Lord two days before the Passover. John, having omitted the words about the end of [the century], and the decision of the bishops to eliminate the Lord (Matthew 26:4), and the story of [the anointing] with myrrh in Bethany, and the agreement of Judas about betrayal (Matthew 26:14-16), stated what was said and done on the night in which [the Lord] was betrayed. Why does Matthew write that He confessed Judas a traitor [when he] said: “Is it not I, Rabbi?” (Matthew 26:25), John - that Christ gave him a piece as a sign of betrayal (John 13:26)? Since the Lord set forth His teaching in a variety of ways, [then] Judas was kept from this enterprise not once, not twice, but often, either covertly denouncing, or more openly. The first [reproof] at the meal, [that occurred] in conversation, was stated by Matthew. The same as later - John, starting from washing [the feet] and omitting what Matthew said. And what is written: “Satan entered into Judas along with the piece” - let us not be surprised, for it was not the piece that caused him this. The audacity of betrayal had already been thrown into his heart, but then he focused entirely on it, seeing himself [already] incapable of repentance (τὸ ἀμετανόητον). Before this, he was quietly encouraged to do this. Therefore, this piece, according to the Lord’s intention, was a healing instrument or a plaster, applied and revealing a hidden wound. Why does Matthew write that on the first day of unleavened bread the Supper 16 took place, while the rest of the day is called the Jewish Passover (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7)? John testifies that this happened before the Easter holiday (πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα), remembering the piece that the Lord gave to Judas and said to him: “Whatever you are doing, do it quickly” and adding that some thought that Jesus was telling him: “Buy what we need for the holiday, or to give something to the poor" (John 13:27-29). Scripture usually calls the fourteenth day of the first month Easter, since on this day in the evening there was a lamb with unleavened bread, but the fifteenth day is not Easter, but the Feast of Passover (ἑορτὴν τοῦ πάσχα), that is, the Feast of Unleavened Bread (ἑορτὴν ἀζύμων), as Moses says, that “in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening was Passover to the Lord; and on the fifteenth day of the same month 17 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord (ἑορτὴ ἀζύμων)” (Lev. 23:5–6). Before this day came, the 18th, the fourteenth, when evening came, the Lord ate Easter with the disciples, and then taught them the mysterious Easter. The law does not in any way prevent [preparing] food, buying, selling or giving alms [during the holiday], because it is said: “Only do your own personal affairs” (Ex. 12:16) 19. Therefore, the disciples thought that Judas was sent to this service (διακονίαν) after [he] accepted the piece. Why does Luke write that the dispute [of the disciples] about which of them was greatest happened before the Supper (Luke 9:46-48), and [elsewhere] that later, during the Supper, when the apostles were told that they should not argue about primacy, and when Peter [the Lord] predicted denial (Luke 22:25, 34)? Matthew and Mark write that the dispute about who is greater [happened] before the Supper, and the second, [i.e. prediction about Peter's denial] - after the Supper, when Jesus was already going to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 20:25; Mark 10:42; Matt 26:30; Mark 14:26)? Since humility of mind is more desirable for Christ than all other commandments, [He] showed it from His deeds and often talked about it with His disciples. First in the Beatitudes (and once and twice) (Matthew 5:3), then after the request of the sons of Zebedee to stand on the right and left of His throne, and during the Supper, when the rashness of Judas rightly outraged the disciples, [as done by striving] for primacy, because he dared to plunge his hand into the cup with the Master (Mark 14:20; Matt.20:23). Hence, therefore, earlier [the previous conversation about primacy] Matthew and Mark set forth the same one that [occurred] during the Supper - Luke, but John actively, through the washing of [the feet], the teaching of the Lord about humility [presented], keeping silent about what the others [the evangelists] said. Also knowing Peter’s ardor, he constantly shows him [this]: both during the Supper, predicting renunciation, and during the journey to the Mount of Olives. But the first prediction of Peter’s denial during the Supper was stated by Luke and John (Luke 22:34; John 13:38), and the second, after the Supper, was stated by Matthew and Mark. Why do some [evangelists] narrate that Jesus took the disciples to Gethsemane and prayed and was handed over there [by Judas] (Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32), Luke - that on the Mount of Olives (Luke 22:39), and John - a certain garden on the other side of the Kidron stream (John 18:1)? In different words, but according to the meaning, each [evangelist] stated this. For after the Supper, as Matthew and Mark believe, “having sung a song of praise, they went out to the Mount of Olives” (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26), at the foot of which lies Gethsemane on the other side of the Kidron stream, where there was a garden, as John said. From where [Jesus], having gone within the distance of a stone's throw (Luke 22:41) and finding himself at the very top of the mountain and having prayed, again came to the disciples, burdened with sleep in Gethsemane, there he was handed over by [Judas]. Why do Matthew and Mark state that He prayed three times about [His] suffering, while Luke said that once, and John said nothing about it (Matt. 26:44; Mark 14:41; Luke 22:41)? The brevity of the speech [of the evangelists] causes considerable trouble to the Spirit because of our negligence ὀλιγωρίας ἕνεκα). After all, one spoke more extensively about prayer, the other - in passing, because he was in a hurry [to say] something else, and the other - nothing at all, because the others had already written it, so as not to repeat what was said. Why didn’t John alone remember the kiss that marked the betrayal? Why is it that when the other [evangelists] said that at the same time as the kiss of Judas the Jews seized the Lord, John did not [say] that, but that [Jesus] asked: “Whom are you looking for?” and he overturned them and wrote the rest in order (Matthew 26:50; Mark 14:46; Luke 22:54; John 18:4)? Judas came against the Lord with a multitude, armed with clubs and swords, as everyone agrees. Further, since the characters were different, the evangelists are divided in the story about them. For Christ, wanting to show that He voluntarily allowed Himself to be captured, into blindness, or rather into paralysis, throwing them over and overturning them, said that “it is I whom you are looking for,” since they [the Jews] were confused, and Judas also confirmed this with a kiss, then they [Christ] are captured. Why does John write that Peter cut off the ear of the bishop's servant, and the others - that [this was done] by one of those who were with Christ (John 18:10; Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50)? John, firmly relying on the love of Peter, that [he] would not be indignant at the announcement of the truth, laid out [this] exactly. For it was because of Peter’s ardor that this was done. It is likely that the others [the evangelists], out of respect for Peter (αἰδοῖ τοῦ Πέτροῦ), described what happened more briefly. What is the meaning of Christ’s reprimand to the one who used the sword, when [He] heard those asking whether they should be used (Luke 22:49), while the Lord Himself, as Luke narrates, commanded the purchase of swords (Luke 22:36)? The Lord commanded the disciples to buy swords so that they would not use them for revenge [on their enemies], but through them they would certify [the disciples] about the coming suffering, at the same time fulfilling the prophecy that “he is numbered with the transgressors” (Luke 22:37; Isaiah 53:12). After all, holding a bag and swords in your hands at night is appropriate for robbers. It is not written that in response to the disciples’ question the Lord gave permission to use swords, [but] along with the question, Peter immediately cut off the slave’s ear without waiting for an answer. If Matthew conveys the words of the Lord, “Put your sword back in its place” (Matthew 26:52), and another, “Leave it, enough” (Luke 22:51), both of them show the same thing - that the Lord did not approve of what happened. Why did John write that into the courtyard of Annas, and Matthew wrote that those who captured [Him] brought Jesus to the courtyard of Caiaphas (John 18:13; Matt. 26:57)? Annas was Caiaphas' father-in-law, and they probably shared the same house. Since it happens that one building has many rooms (διαίτας), Annas, having questioned the Lord, sent Him away, as it is written, bound to Caiaphas, [who] was in another room [of this house] (John 18:24). Why do Matthew mention two maidservants who appeared to Peter (Matt. 26:69, 71), Mark mention one, but twice (Mk. 14:66, 69), then another about one man (John 18:26) during [Peter’s] denial; Luke does not do the same, but speaks of one maidservant and two men (Luke 22:56, 58, 59)? That there was a woman in the courtyard who prompted Peter to recant, all [the evangelists] stated in agreement. When Peter went outside to the gate [where] the multitude [of people] were gathered, [as] John wrote, [then] those standing with him by the fire and warming themselves said to him: “Are you not one of His disciples?” ( John 18:25 ) It is clear that among them was the second maidservant whom Matthew mentioned, and the two men whom Luke spoke of. Why do some [evangelists] write that the Lord told Peter that he would deny before the rooster crows, but Mark says that before the rooster crows twice, he will deny (Matthew 26:34; Luke 22:34; John 13:38; Mark 14:72)? Everyone knows that the rooster is in the habit of crowing not once, but twice at the same time. Therefore, some briefly, while others stated [this] more precisely. For Mark said: “Before the rooster crows twice” (Mark 14:30), others vaguely: “Before the rooster crows.” In fact, if others had said “for the first time” or “once,” and Mark wrote “twice,” there would, of course, be a contradiction. If Mark said “twice”, and others write without mentioning the number, then there is no contradiction here. It is possible to understand [the words] “before he sings” - [in the sense of] repeatedly [singing]. He who sings once sings many times. The second rooster crow reminded Peter of what the Lord had prophesied. Why does John say that the Jews, when they betrayed Jesus to Pilate, were careful not to defile themselves by entering the praetorium, but [to] eat the Passover (John 18:28), however, the others [evangelists] wrote that the previous day was the Jewish Passover, on which the Lord, who had eaten with his disciples at night, was captured by the Jews to suffer (εἰς τὸ πάθος)? And to show this, John himself says in another place: “And since it was Friday, the Jews should not let their bodies remain on the cross on the Sabbath, for that Sabbath day was a great day” (John 19:31) and so on? Easter, in the proper sense, is what Scripture calls, as those who read Deuteronomy know, the fourteenth day of the first month, on which, in the evening, a lamb was slain, which was eaten with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Deut. 16:1ff.). The Feast of Passover is the next [day], as well as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. [This] next day is also outstanding, since on this day the [first] sheaf [of the harvest] was brought (Lev. 23:9-13), [and] this day was the Sabbath, about which John says “the great day was that Sabbath” - firstly because the Sabbath was revered in itself, secondly it was the second day of the holiday, and thirdly because the first sheaf [of the harvest] was brought, and thus that threefold in On this day the sacrifice was made (see Numbers 28). [After all], in addition to its own meaning [of the word “Easter”], the seven days of the holiday were called Easter, just as in Acts it is narrated that “after Passover,” that is, the days of Unleavened Bread, Herod wanted to kill Peter (Acts 12:3–4). Why does John write that the Lord carried His Cross, while others write that Simon the Cyrene (John 19:17; Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26)? At first the Lord carried the Cross, because the soldiers did not want to carry it, considering it shameful for themselves, but at the beginning of the journey, when they met Simon coming from the field, they forced him [to carry the Cross]. So the evangelists did not notice any disagreement on this. For what reason does Mark say that the Lord was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25), and John wrote that at the sixth (John 19:14)? Many have the custom of saying about superiors (περί τῶν ἀρχόντων) that such and such a superior destroyed such and such, although it is not they themselves who carry out the punishment, but through their subordinate people. The same thing happened here. In the third hour, Pilate pronounced judgment on the Lord, when the next three hours passed, and the sixth came, then after being scourged, clothed in a scarlet cloak, being crowned with thorns and [subjected to] mockery, at the sixth hour [the Lord] was nailed to the cross. Why does Matthew remember that they gave Him wine 20 with gall (Matthew 27:34), Mark - that with myrrh (Mark 15:23), John - that with hyssop (John 19:29), and Luke remembers [vinegar] not mixed with anything (Luke 23:36)? Not once, but many times, not only when Christ asked, but also when he did not ask, they brought Him the above-mentioned drink. Not all [the evangelists], but each one laid out [this] in parts. Matthew and Mark spoke about the wine offered before the Cross, one with gall, the other with myrrh, because each of them was equally bitter. John wrote that when the Lord said “I thirst!”, someone took a sponge and hyssop and filled it with vinegar, and gave the Lord something to drink. From this it is clear that the above-mentioned types of [drink] were brought to Him in different ways by the bestial disposition of the Jews. Why did Luke write that the thief confessed the Lord on the cross, while the others [evangelists] wrote that together with others he reviled the Lord (Luke 23:40; Matt. 27:44; Mark 15:32)? At first, each [of the thieves] reviled the Lord and scolded Him, probably honoring the Jews and [thinking that] they would be removed [for this] from the cross. Since this did not happen, the prudent thief, having heard Christ’s prayer to the Father as of equal honor, when Christ said: “Father, forgive them their sin,” came to know the truth and confessed Him as Lord and His kingdom. Other evangelists, hastening to describe other events, omitted this. How was the Lord’s promise to the thief fulfilled: “today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43)? After all, Christ, after the Cross, descended into hell to free the dead. It was necessary for the robber to descend into hell, as a subject to the law of nature. Some read like this: “Truly I tell you today” and put a comma, then continue: “You will be with Me in Paradise.” As if someone were saying that truly I tell you today, while I am on the cross, you will be with me in Paradise. If it should be read as is usually accepted, [and then] there is no contradiction. After all, our Savior, by His incomprehensible deity, not only found himself in hell, but also in Paradise with the thief, and in hell, and with the Father, and in the tomb, as the one who fills everything. Why does Matthew tell us that the resurrection [happened] “after the Sabbath” (Matthew 28:1), Mark that it was “early in the morning after the sun rose” (Mark 16:2), Luke that it was “early in the morning” (Luke 24:1), John that it was “still in the dark” (John 20:1)? And how does John speak about one woman, Luke and Mark - about three, Matthew - about two, who came to the tomb of the Lord? And their names convey them differently. Luke, mentioning three, calls one of them Joanna, but Mark, also remembering three, says that one of them is Salome. We find that the same names often appear in the Divine Scripture, as happened this time. Therefore, the sister of the Mother of God is called by the same name (John 19:25), and Mary of Jacob. [It also] happened that Magdalene was not alone and not two [of them], but three, of whom one was cleansed from seven demons (Mark 16:9), together with whom the others, together with Joanna and Salome, having been favored in many ways by the Savior, at different times rushed to the tomb of the Lord. This is probably why Mary of James, the son of Alphaeus [was not alone], but also another Mary [so] called, the mother of James of Zebedee. Therefore, the difference in the visions [that he had] should be examined. Without any contradiction, Matthew stated that one of the Magdalenes, Mary, together with the other Mary, after the Sabbath had passed, when the middle of the night had come, they ran inside the tomb, which was two-part, in the image of the cave of Abraham (Gen. 23:9) 21, and, finding themselves in the outer room, they saw an angel, at the same hour the stone [from the door of the tomb] rolled away, when he had already risen from Christ's tomb. Therefore it is written: “and then there was a great earthquake” (Matthew 28:2) - simultaneously with its appearance. Then [they], having heard from the angel what they had heard, and going to tell the disciples, they saw the Lord and bowed to His feet and rushed to the disciples. At the same time, the guards announced what had happened in the city (Matthew 28:1–11). Since John remembered one Mary Magdalene (John 20:1), the other [her], therefore, should be considered less dedicated (ἀτελεστέραν) than the first. She ran and approached the tomb, and finding the stone rolled away, seeing nothing more (οὐδέν πλέον παθοῦσα), came to Peter and John. They, having come and seeing the funeral [veils] lying separately, returned, surprised [by what had happened]. When Mary was crying outside the cave and looking inside, the angels appeared and prompted Mary to turn outward again to Christ, visible to them [from the dead], standing outside [the tomb]. The Lord says to her: “Why are you crying?” and so on. Then, when she recognized [Him] and called “Teacher,” “do not touch Me,” and then [He] answered her. There is nothing incredible in the fact that after this vision, Mary, running to the apostles, met with the [myrrh-bearers] mentioned by Luke, hurrying to the tomb - Mary of James and Joanna, and carried away [them] so that they too would see what she saw. When they found themselves inside the tomb and saw nothing, they were perplexed: Magdalene - because she did not see the previous angels, and the other two - because they did not find the body of the Lord there. The newly appeared angels told all of them what is stated in Luke. So these three, together with other women accompanying them, as Luke says, went to tell [this] to the disciples. They, having heard from Peter and John that they saw nothing when they came to the tomb, considered what the women told to be nonsense. But Peter, being hot-tempered, came to the tomb for the second time and saw the same thing as the first time, and came out, amazed at what had happened (Luke 24:12). At the same time, Mark writes about one Mary Magdalene, different from the two [previous ones] mentioned by Matthew, Luke and John, [who] together with Salome and Mary of James, the other [Mary of James], unlike the first, hurried to the tomb, apparently after the previous ones. And when they saw one angel, who was also in Matthew’s vision, [they] were afraid and fled from the tomb and did not dare to tell anyone, because the sun had already risen and they were afraid of the Jews (Mark 16:1-8). Why do Luke and Mark report that the women entered the tomb, but the others did not, but only looked in with fear (Luke 24:3; Mark 16:5; Matt. 28:8; John 20:11)? Matthew and Mark narrate what happened at the beginning, when they just approached [the tomb], but Luke tells what happened later, when they were already getting ready to leave the tomb. After all, since the Jews had two-part tombs in the [image of] the cave of Abraham, a stone rolled against the door separated the inner room in which the body of the Lord lay from the outside, [the women], entering the front part of the cave, saw an angel sitting on the stone, as Matthew believes. According to Mark, [the women saw] a young man dressed in a white robe and sitting on the right side, apparently at the edge of the cave. Each of [these] evangelists, both Mark and Matthew, [write] that an angel, visible to the women, exhorted them to look at the place where the body of the Lord lay. [And] what they kept silent about, Luke wrote in more detail, saying: “When they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.” Therefore, they do not say anything contradictory. Why do [evangelists] tell differently about the appearance of an angel and about the [appearance] of the Lord to women? The visions of angels do not contradict [each other]. Matthew and Mark, as we have already said, talk about one angel who appeared to the women, and Luke and John, passing over the first appearance in silence, talk about two angels who appeared inside [the tomb] - John, writing that Mary, standing outside the cave at the door and looking inside, saw two angels in white (John 20:11-12); and Luke - that when they went inside, not finding [the body], they saw two men in shining clothes, [thereby] showing that they were angels (Luke 24:3-4). The word “appeared” does not mean that they just appeared, but that like angels, and being present, not always, but when they wanted, they were visible 22. Therefore, they did not appear to Peter, who entered the tomb, although they were present [there], but the women who came separately, after they were perplexed, showed themselves to be of the weakest spirit. If you ask: “Why, according to John, did not an angel sitting on a stone appear to Mary when she came the second time?” [then] the reason for this is clear - the first time Mary, seeing the rolled away stone, without taking any further action, returned to Peter and John. The second time she had to meet two angels inside [the coffin], so there was no need for the angel sitting on the stone to appear to her. There is no need for women to investigate the appearance of the Lord, but to believe the truth. At different [times] rushing to the tomb, not equally to [all] women, but once to two of them, once to one, to the other, unlike those, once and to others in different ways, the Lord appeared. Of these [women], one, as being weaker, the other, as being more perfect, the Lord mutually measured His appearance. Therefore, Mark, having briefly told what happened before [the appearance of] one angel, stopped speaking, and Luke, keeping silent about the appearance of the Lord to the women, hinted only [about this] in the words: “Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women said, but they had not seen Him” 23 (Luke 24:24), with the story of Cleopas the evangelistic work was completed. Why does John say that the Lord said to Mary: “Touch me not” and so on (John 20:17), while Matthew says that they clasped His feet and worshiped Him (Matthew 28:9)? As has already been said, she was weaker than others in faith. From here, thinking about Christ in the same way as before, not thinking anything great about Him, she rightly received a prohibition and was taught that He must ascend to the Heavenly Father, from where He came. Why did Luke and John write that the women told the apostles of Christ about the resurrection, and Mark testifies that they were silent and did not say anything out of fear (Mark 16:8), while Matthew passed over all of the above in silence? What Matthew [concerns] has a ready solution. After all, he did not say that the women did not tell them what was commanded, but that when they went to tell the disciples, the soldiers came to the city to the bishop, reporting about the miracle that happened in the tomb. Luke and John, in agreement with the first evangelist, wrote what [the women] told the apostles. Mark, with sufficient reason, says that [the women] did not say anything out of fear, as they were the last to arrive when the sun had already risen. Either for this reason they did not announce anything, or this should be understood in the sense that they did not say anything before the Lord appeared to them. Why does John narrate that Peter and John ran to the tomb of the Lord (John 20:3), and Luke wrote that only Peter came to the tomb (Luke 24:12)? As it was already written about this above, since women came to the tomb at different [times], what happened to them is described differently. Therefore, when Mary Magdalene announced to Peter and John that the body of the Lord had been taken from the tomb, both of them were there. After this, when the women about whom Luke wrote told the disciples what they had seen, and they did not believe them, Peter, being ardent, appeared there for the second time. Why did [the Lord], having commanded through women that the disciples go to Galilee, as one intending to appear to [them] there, in Zion [to them] appears (Matthew 28:10; Luke 24:33, 36)? And how does Luke say that there were eleven [apostles] when he tells the story of Thomas? At first, of course, it was required that the Lord appear in Zion to the fearful apostles, who did not dare to leave Jerusalem because of the fear of the Jews, and remove their fear, teach them peace and assure them of [His] resurrection. However, the doctrine of life-giving baptism, together with the most perfect dogmas, in Galilee [should] have been handed over to them, [as they had already] shaken off the fear of Jewish insolence. Since in Galilee a great light appeared to those sitting in darkness (cf. Matt. 4:15–16), it is clear [that this is] a saving baptism, to which the exhortation [the Lord] said: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:15; Matt. 4:17). Luke mentioned the eleven disciples because although Judas fell away and Thomas was absent, Matthias remained all [the time], who instead of Judas received the lot [of apostleship], as all the time until the ascension of Christ [was with the apostles] and became a witness of His resurrection, as Luke relates. Why does John say that on the evening of the first day of the week Christ revealed Himself to all the disciples except Thomas (John 20:19), while Luke says that only to Peter, when Cleopas and his companion returned to Jerusalem in the evening of that day, having seen the Lord in Emmaus (Luke 24:34)? First, after the women, the Lord appeared to Peter and then to the apostles, just as Paul says that the Lord appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:5), not counting Thomas, since he was absent, but counting Matthias and Justus. 24 Thus, while Cleopas [and her companion] were still on their way from Emmaus, Christ appeared to Peter. When [they] came from Emmaus and announced to the apostles that [Christ] was known by them in the breaking of bread, then Christ appeared to all of them [again] in Zion, as Luke reports (Luke 24:36, 39). One should not be surprised that in one day they walked from Jerusalem to Emmaus and from Emmaus to Jerusalem. For it is not written that it was evening when they approached Emmaus, but that “evening was coming,” that is, the day was ending, which means it was perhaps the eighth or ninth hour 25. After all, from the seventh hour the sun gradually declines towards evening. In addition, because of the rejoicing [about the Resurrection], they ran to announce this miracle and managed to reach Jerusalem before late evening (late evening we usually call the time that extends to deep night - μέχρι πολλοῦ τῆς νυκτός). And there Christ appeared to them along with the other apostles. Where did Christ eat fish? If in Jerusalem, then how does John relate that [this] happened in Galilee (John 21:1)? If in Galilee, as Luke says, that [Christ] commanded the disciples: “Abide you in the city of Jerusalem” (Luke 24:49) and how from there, leading them to Bethany, ascended? Since often during the forty days [after the Resurrection] the Lord shared meals with the disciples, John spoke about one meal in Galilee, and Luke spoke about two, the first [of which] in Emmaus, and the other in Zion, during [the] time of which he mentioned baked fish (Luke 24:42), but no fish, no coal, no bread, as [was] at the meal in Galilee, recorded by John ( John 21:9–10). When did the meal told by Luke take place? If before the fulfillment of forty days, and therefore the ascension, how was he immediately taken up, since [Luke] wrote that he “led them out of [the city] as far as Bethany” and so on, and that “he began to ascend into heaven”? If on the fortieth [day], how then was it tangible by the disciples (Luke 24:50, 51, 39), because on the first day and on the eighth after the Resurrection it was already tangible [by the disciples] (John 20:20, 27)? That the meal told by Luke, during which the Lord ate fish with [the disciples], took place on the first day of the Resurrection, is clear from what is written. If Luke says: “He led them out as far as Bethany” and that “he ascended” (Acts 1:2), then this does not give us [reason] to think that He immediately ascended. For it is the custom of writers who care about the brevity of [speeches, different] stories to come into contact with each other. Just as it is recorded in Matthew, who, having not yet completed [the story] of the Lord’s return from Egypt and His settlement in Galilee, John’s coming to the Jordan, and his preaching, which took place almost thirty years [after the Lord’s return from Egypt, he immediately wrote down] (Matthew 2:19, 3:1). And many other similar [examples] can be given by those who wish to confirm the evangelical agreement. Therefore, let us accept without changes what he wrote about the ascension, who brought it together in the Apostolic Acts [this story], that it happened on the fortieth day (Acts 1:3). Why does Luke, having written in the Gospel that Christ led the disciples out to Bethany (Luke 24:50–51), where he was ascended, in Acts says that the disciples returned from the Mount of Olives, from which it was as if Christ had ascended (Acts 1:12)? And how, having written in the Gospel that after the ascension the disciples were in the Church, chanting and blessing God (Luke 24:53), in the Apostolic Acts he stated that they went up to the upper room and were [there] (Acts 1:13)? The other is “to Bethany” and the other “to Bethany.” The expression “to Bethany” implies a road leading there, on which the Mount of Olives is located, [the road] which Luke named, saying “to Bethany,” thereby hinting at the part of the mountain bordering it, and said that the Lord was exalted there, describing this area. The second study has the following solution: after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles returned to Jerusalem, as stated in the Gospel, and were in the Church all the time, it is clear that during prayer, which was the custom to spend in the Church. At other times they stayed in the house, in the upper room, which is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles, and in it they continually sang and blessed the Lord, to Whom belongs glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever. Amen. Here, as elsewhere, there are quotes from the Old Testament by St. Hesychius quotes from the LXX translation. Wed. interpretation of this verse. Theodoret of Cyrrhus: “The thought contained in this verse is not stated in the usual order of speech, and it is as follows: how long will you treat us cruelly, regardless of our common nature with you? Having this murderous intention, hasten to push us away and throw us down like some leaning wall and stronghold that is in danger of falling from the wind”; And St. Athanasius the Great: “He reproaches the opposing forces for attacking human nature, which is prone to evil and, due to natural weakness, resembles a bowing wall, ready to fall, and a stronghold raised.” From Matthew the centurion asks for the youth: ὁ παῖς μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός (Matthew 8:6). In Luke - for a servant: Ἑκατοντάρχου δέ τινος δοῦλος κακῶς ἔχων (Luke 7:2). The Lord’s suffering for humanity gives reason to the unreasonable to see in Him only a simple man, and not God. Here “essence” is used in the sense of Aristotle’s “first essence” or, in precise theological language, “hypostasis”, as opposed to “deity”. Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν - translated by bishop. Kassiana (Bezobrazova): my daughter just died. The Synodal translation here is inaccurate. Rev. Hesychius distinguishes the apostle of the Seventy Levi from the apostle of the Twelve, Matthew, who was also a publican (Matthew 10:3) Here “essence” (οὐσία) is also used in the sense of Aristotle’s “first essence”. ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ, ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ - this is how not only Rev. understands these words of Christ. Hesychius, but also St. Cyril of Alexandria (see his interpretation on John, book VI). Until the descent of the Word from heaven at the incarnation. This quote is from Rev. Hesychia differs from the LXX translation. All the actions that God the Word performed before the incarnation, now, after the incarnation, relate to the Son of Man, since the hypostasis of God the Word received this new name. ὡς ἐν αὐτῇ ἀπαρχόμενος τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς τό πᾶν διὰ σταυροῦ ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις τελειούσης μυστήριον. In the modern edition of the LXX translation it reads “on the yoke and young colt” – ἐπὶ ὑποζύγιον καὶ πῶλον νέον. Rev. Hesychius probably used the LXX version of the translation, with the reading “on a donkey’s foal (or young donkey).” Also St. Justin Philosopher quotes this expression of the prophet Zechariah: “on a donkey and a young donkey” - πῶλον ὄνου (see Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew 53:3). The Evangelist John, quoting this passage from the prophet, also writes “on a young donkey” - πῶλον ὄνου (John 12:15). Last (i.e. mysterious) Supper. At Rev. Hesychia is missing, but is in the LXX text. The Feast of Unleavened Bread or, what is the same, the Feast of Passover - that is, the 15th of Nissan. πᾶν ἔργον λατρευτὸν οὐ ποιήσετε ἐν αὐταῖς, πλὴν ὅσα This phrase in the LXX translation is understood as a prohibition to perform official duties (ἔργον λατρευτὸν), and permission to engage in personal affairs and charity. In the Synodal translation - vinegar, in the critical edition of NA and in Rev. Hesychia - wine. So in the Septuagint. Yungerov's translation: “let him give me a double cave.” Because they were already there, appearing to Mary Magdalene, as John writes. We are talking about the women in Matthew's story. That is, in our opinion, the second or third hour in the afternoon.