Matthew 9

1 AND entering into a boat, he passed over the water, and came into his own city. 2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in bed. And Jesus seeing their faith, said to the sick of the palsy, Have a good heart son, your sins are forgiven you. 3 And behold certain of the scribes said within themselves, He blasphemes. 4 And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think you evil in your hearts? 5 Whether is easier, to say, your sins are forgiven you: or to say, Arise and walk? 6 But that you may know that the Son of man has power in earth to forgive sins, (then he said to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up your bed, and go into your house. 7 And he arose, and went into his house. 8 And the multitudes seeing it, were afraid, and glorified God that gave such power to men.

Mark 2

1 AND again he entered into Capernaum after some days, and it was heard that he was in the house. 2 And many came together, so that there was no place, not even at the door, and he spoke to them the word. 3 And they came to him bringing one sick of the palsy, who was carried by four. 4 And when they could not offer him to him because of the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was: and opening it they did let down the couch wherein the sick of the palsy lay. 5 And when Jesus had seen their faith, he said, to the sick of the palsy, Son, your sins are forgiven you. 6 And there were certain of the scribes sitting there and thinking in their hearts, 7 Why does he speak so? He blasphemes, who can forgive sins but only God? 8 Which by and by Jesus knowing in his spirit, that they so thought within themselves, said to them, Why do you think these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Your sins are forgiven you? Or to say, Arise, take up your couch, and walk? 10 But that you may know that the Son of man has power in earth to forgive sins, he said to the sick of the palsy, 11 I say to you, arise, take up your couch, and go into your house. 12 And forthwith he arose: and taking up his couch, went his way in the sight of all, so that all marveled, and glorified God, saying that we never saw the like.

Luke 5

17 And it came to pass one day, and he sat teaching. And there were Pharisees sitting, and doctors of law, that came out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem: and the virtue of our Lord was to heal them. 18 And behold, men carrying in a bed a man that had the palsy: and they sought to bring him in, and to lay him before him. 19 And not finding on which side they might bring him in for the multitude, they went up upon the roof, and through the tiles let him down with the bed into the midst, before Jesus. 20 Whose faith when he saw, he said, Man, your sins are forgiven you. 21 And the scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying, Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but only God? 22 And when Jesus knew their cogitations, answering he said to them, What do you think in your hearts? 23 Which is easier to say, Your sins are forgiven you: or to say, Arise, and walk? 24 But that you may know that the Son of man has power in earth to forgive sins, he said to the sick of the palsy, I say to you, Arise, take up your bed, and go into your house. 25 And forthwith rising up before them, he took that wherein he lay: and he went into his house, magnifying God. 26 And all were astonished: and they magnified God. And they were replenished with fear, saying, That we have seen marvelous things today.

Cornelius a Lapide Sedulius thinks Bethlehem is meant because he was born there. S. Jerome, with more probability, understands Nazareth, where He was brought up. The best opinion is that of S. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Maldonatus, and many others, who say, Capernaum is to be understood, in which Christ often dwelt. And (chap. iv. 13) S. Matthew says that, leaving Nazareth, Christ dwelt there. And S. Mark teaches that the healing of the paralytic, which is now to be related, look place at Capernaum. (Mark ii. 3.) As Christ ennobled Bethlehem by His birth, Nazareth by his education, Egypt by His flight, Jerusalem by His Passion, so he adorned Capernaum, by His dwelling, preaching, and working miracles there.

St. Augustine Hereupon Matthew proceeds with his recital, still preserving the order of time… Mark and Luke have also told the story of this paralytic. Now, as regards Matthew’s stating that the Lord said,” Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee;” while Luke makes the address run, not as “son,” but as “man,”—this only helps to bring out the Lord’s meaning more explicitly. For these sins were [thus said to be] forgiven to the “man,” inasmuch as the very fact that he was a man would make it impossible for him to say, “I have not sinned;” and at the same time, that mode of address served to indicate that He who forgave sins to man was Himself God. Mark, again, has given the same form of words as Matthew, but he has left out the terms, “Be of good cheer.” It is also possible, indeed, that the whole saying ran thus: “Man, be of good cheer: son, thy sins are forgiven thee;” or thus: “Son, be of good cheer: man, thy sins are forgiven thee;” or the words may have been spoken in some Other congruous order.

Weaved Together Mark 2:1 And after some days Jesus entered into Capernaum again. Mark 2:2 And when they heard that he was in the house, many gathered, so that it could not hold them, even about the door; and he made known to them the word of God. Luke 5:17b And there were there some of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, sitting, come from all the villages of Galilee, and Judæa, and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. Luke 5:18 And some men brought a bed with a man on it who was paralytic. And they sought to bring him in and lay him before him. Luke 5:19 And when they found no way to bring him in because of the multitude of people, they went up to the roof, and let him down with his bed from the roofing, into the midst before Jesus. Luke 5:20 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the paralytic, My son, your sins are forgiven you. Luke 5:21 And the scribes and Pharisees began to think within their hearts, Why does this man blaspheme? Who is it that is able to forgive sins, but God alone? 18 Mark 2:8 And Jesus knew by the spirit that they were thinking this within themselves, and he 19 said unto them, Why do ye think this within your heart? Mark 2:9 Which is better, that it should be said to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven you, or that it should be said to him, Arise, and take your bed, and walk? Mark 2:10 That ye may know that the Son of man is empowered on earth to forgive sins (and he said to the paralytic), Mark 2:11 I say unto you, Arise, take your bed, and go to your house. Mark 2:12a And he rose immediately, and took his bed, and went out in the presence of all. Luke 5:25b And he went to his house praising God. Matthew 9:8a And when those multitudes saw, they feared; Luke 5:26a and amazement took possession of them, and they praised God, who had given such power to men. Luke 5:26c And they said, We have seen marvelous things today, Mark 2:12c of which we have never before seen the like.

Matthew 9

9 And when Jesus passed forth from there, he saw a man sitting in the custom house, named Matthew: and he said to him, Follow me. And he arose up, and followed him. 10 And it came to pass as he was sitting at the table in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and his Disciples. 11 And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his Disciples: Why does your Master eat with publicans and sinners? 12 But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health, need not a physician, but they that are ill at ease. 13 But go your ways and learn what it is, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.  For I have not come to call the just, but sinners.

Mark 2

13 And he went forth again to the sea: and all the multitude came to him and he taught them. 14 And when he passed by, he saw Levi of Alphaeus sitting at the custom place: and he said to him, Follow me, and rising up he followed him. 15 And it came to pass, as he sat at the table in his house, many publicans and sinners did sit down together with Jesus and his Disciples, for there were many who also followed him. 16 And the scribes and the Pharisees seeing that he did eat with publicans and sinners, said to his Disciples, Why does your Master eat and drink with publicans and sinners? 17 Jesus hearing this said to them, The whole have not need of a physician, but they that are ill at ease, for I came not to call the just but sinners.

Luke 5

27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican called Levi, sitting at the customhouse, and he said to him, Follow me. 28 And leaving all things, he rose and followed him. 29 And Levi made him a great feast in his house: and there was a great multitude of publicans, and of others that were sitting at the table with them. 30 And their Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying to his Disciples, Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? 31 And Jesus answering, said to them, They that are whole, need not the Physician: but they that are ill at ease. 32 I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance.

St. Augustine Matthew next continues his narrative in the following terms:—“ And as Jesus passed forth from thence, He saw a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed Him.”(Mt 9:9) Mark gives this story also, and keeps the same order, bringing it in after the notice of the healing of the man who was sick of the palsy. His version runs thus: “And He went forth again by the sea-side; and all the multitude resorted unto Him, and He taught them. And as He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed Him.”(Mark 2:13-14) There is no contradiction here; for Matthew is the same person with Levi. Luke also introduces this after the story of the healing of the same man who was sick of the palsy. He writes in these terms: “And after these things He went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed Him.”(Luke 5:27-28) Now, from this it will appear to be the most reasonable explanation to say that Matthew records these things here in the form of things previously passed over, and now brought to mind. For certainly we must believe that Matthew’s calling took place before the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. For Luke tells us that on this mountain on that occasion the election was made of all these twelve, whom Jesus also named apostles, out of the larger body of the disciples.(Luke 6:13) Matthew, accordingly, goes on to say: “And it came to pass, as He sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and His disciples;” and so on, down to where we read, “But they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”(Mt 9:10-17) Here Matthew has not told us particularly in whose house it was that Jesus was sitting at meat along with the publicans and sinners. This might make it appear as if he had not appended this notice in its strict order here, but had introduced at this point, in the way of reminiscence, something which actually took place on a different occasion, were it not that Mark and Luke, who repeat the account in terms thoroughly similar, have made it plain that it was in the house of Levi—that is to say, Matthew—that Jesus sat at meat, and all these sayings were uttered which follow. For Mark states the same fact, keeping also the same order, in the following manner: “And it came to pass, as He sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus.”(Mark 2:15) Accordingly, when he says, “in his house,” he certainly refers to the person of whom he was speaking directly before, and that was Levi. To the same effect, after the words, “He saith unto him, Follow me; and he left all, rose up, and followed Him,”(Luke 5:27-29) Luke has appended immediately this statement: “And Levi made Him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.” And thus it is manifest in whose house it was that these things took place. Let us next look into the words which these three evangelists have all brought in as having been addressed to the Lord, and also into the replies which were made by Him. Matthew says: “And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto His disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?”(Mt 9:11) This reappears very nearly in the same words in Mark: “How is it that He eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?”(Mark 2:16) Only we find thus that Matthew has omitted one thing which Mark inserts—namely, the addition “and drinketh.” But of what consequence can that be, since the sense is fully given, the idea suggested being that they were partaking of a repast in company? Luke, on the other hand, seems to have recorded this scene somewhat differently. For his version proceeds thus: “But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against His disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?”(Luke 5:30) But his intention in this certainly is not to indicate that their Master was not referred to on that occasion, but to intimate that the objection was levelled against all of them together, both Himself and His disciples; the charge, however, which was to be taken to be meant both of Him and of them, being addressed directly not to Him, but to them. For the fact is that Luke himself, no less than the others, represents the Lord as making the reply, and saying, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”(Luke 5:32) And He would not have returned that answer to them, had not their words, “Why do ye eat and drink?” been directed very specially to Himself. For the same reason, Matthew and Mark have told us that the objection which was brought against Him was stated immediately to His disciples, because, when the allegation was addressed to the disciples, the charge was thereby laid all the more seriously against the Master whom these disciples were imitating and following. One and the same sense, therefore, is conveyed; and it is expressed all the better in consequence of these variations employed in some of the terms, while the matter of fact itself is left intact. In like manner we may deal with the accounts of the Lord’s reply. Matthew’s runs thus: “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; but go ye and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark and Luke have also preserved for us the same sense in almost the same words, with this exception, that they both fail to introduce that quotation from the prophet, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.” Luke, again, after the words, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners,” has added the term, “unto repentance.” This addition serves to bring out the sense more fully, so as to preclude any one from supposing that sinners are loved by Christ, purely for the very reason that they are sinners. For this similitude also of the sick indicates clearly what God means by the calling of sinners, —that it is like the physician with the sick,—and that its object verily is that men should be saved from their iniquity as from disease; which healing is effected by repentance.

Matthew 9

14 Then came to him the Disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your Disciples do not fast? 15 And Jesus said to them, Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast. 16 And nobody puts a piece of raw cloth to an old garment. For he takes away the piecing thereof from the garment, and there is made a greater rent. 17 Neither do they put new wine into old bottles. Otherwise the bottles break, and the wine runs out, and the bottles perish. But new wine they put into new bottles: and both are preserved together.

Mark 2

18 And the disciples of John and the Pharisees did use to fast: and they came, and said to him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast: but your Disciples do not fast? 19 And Jesus said to them, Why can the children of the marriage fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? So long time as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. 20 But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them: and then they shall fast in those days. 21 Nobody sows a piece of raw cloth to an old garment: otherwise he takes away the new piecing from the old, and there is made a greater rent. 22 And nobody puts new wine into old bottles: otherwise the wine bursts the bottles, and the wine will be shed, and the bottles will be lost, but new wine must be put into new bottles.

Luke 5

33 But they said to him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and of the Pharisees in like manner: but yours do eat and drink? 34 To whom he said, Why, can you make the children of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? 35 But the days will come: and when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, then they shall fast in those days. 36 And he said a similitude also unto them, That no man puts a piece from a new garment into an old garment: otherwise both he breaks the new, and the piece from the new agrees not with the old. 37 And nobody puts new wine into old bottles: otherwise the new wine will break the bottles, and itself will be shed, and the bottles will be lost. 38 But new wine is to be put into new bottles: and both are preserved together. 39 And no man drinking old, will new by and by, for he says, The old is better.

St. Augustine Matthew’s words are these: “Then came to Him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft?”(Mt 9:14) The purport of Mark’s version is similar: “And the disciples of John and the Pharisees used to fast. And they come and say unto Him, Why do the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?”(Mark 2:18) The only semblance of a discrepancy that can be found here, is in the possibility of supposing that the mention of the Pharisees as having spoken along with the disciples of John is an addition of Mark’s, while Matthew states only that the disciples of John expressed themselves to the above effect. But the words which were actually uttered by the parties, according to Mark’s version, rather indicate that the speakers and the persons spoken of were not the same individuals. I mean, that the persons who came to Jesus were the guests who were then present, that they came because the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, and that they uttered the above words with respect to these parties. In this way, the evangelist’s phrase, “they come,” would not refer to the persons regarding whom he had just thrown in the remark, “And the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting.” But the case would be, that as those parties were fasting, some others here, who are moved by that fact, come to Him, and put this question to Him, “Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?” This is more clearly expressed by Luke. For, evidently with the same idea in his mind, after stating what answer the Lord returned in the words in which He spoke about the calling of sinners under the similitude of those who are sick, he proceeds thus: “And they said unto Him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees, but thine eat and drink?”(Luke 5:33) Here, then, we see that, as was the case with Mark, Lc has mentioned one party as speaking to this intent in relation to other parties. How comes it, therefore, that Matthew says, “Then came to Him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast?” The explanation may be, that those individuals were also present, and that all these various parties were eager to advance this charge, as they severally found opportunity. And the sentiments which sought expression on this occasion have been conveyed by the three evangelists under varied terms, but yet without any divergence from a true statement of the fact itself. Once more, we find that Matthew and Mark have given similar accounts of what was said about the children of the bridegroom not fasting as long as the bridegroom is with them, with this exception, that Mark has named them the children of the bridals, while Matthew has designated them the children of the bridegroom. That, however, is a matter of no moment. For by the children of the bridals we understand at once those connected with the bridegroom, and those connected with the bride. The sense, therefore, is obvious and identical, and neither different nor contradictory. Luke, again, does not say, “Can the children of the bridegroom fast?” but, “Can ye make the children of the bridegroom fast, while the bridegroom is with them?” By expressing it in this method, the evangelist has elegantly opened up the self-same sense in a way calculated to suggest something else. Forth us the idea is conveyed, that those very persons who were speaking would try to make the children of the bridegroom mourn and fast, inasmuch as they would seek to put the bridegroom to death. Moreover, Matthew’s phrase, “mourn,” is of the same import as that used by Mark and Luke, namely, “fast.” For Matthew also says further on, “Then shall they fast,” and not, “Then shall they mourn.” But by the use of this phrase, he has indicated that the Lord spoke of that kind of fasting which pertains to the lowliness of tribulation. In the same way, too, the Lord may be understood to have pictured out a different kind of fasting, which stands related to the rapture of a mind dwelling in the heights of things spiritual, and for that reason estranged in a certain measure from the meats that are for the body, when He made use of those subsequent similitudes touching the new cloth and the new wine, by which He showed that this kind of fasting is an incongruity for sensual and carnal people, who are taken up with the cares of the body, and who consequently still remain in the old mind. These similitudes are also embodied in similar terms by the other two evangelists. And it should be sufficiently evident that there need be no real discrepancy, although one may introduce something, whether belonging to the subject-matter itself, or merely to the terms in which that subject is expressed, which another leaves out; provided only that there be neither any departure from a genuine identity in sense, nor any contradiction created between the different forms which may be adopted for expressing the same thing. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 2.27)

St. Augustine Mark and Luke, in like manner give this same account, only they do not keep by the same order now. For they bring up this narrative in a different place, and insert it in another connection; to wit, at the point where He crosses the take and returns from the country of the Gerasenes, after casting out the devils and permitting them to go into the swine. Thus Mark introduces it, after he has related what took place among the Gerasenes, in the following manner: “And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto Him: and He was nigh unto the sea. And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw Him, he fell at His feet,” etc.(5:21-43) By this, then, we are certainly to understand that the occurrence in connection with the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue did take place after Jesus had passed across the lake again in the ship. It does not, however, appear from the words themselves how long after that passage this thing happened. But that some time did elapse is clear. For had there not been an interval, no period would be left within which those circumstances might fall which Matthew has just related in the matter of the feast in his house. These, indeed, he has told after the fashion of the evangelists, as if they were the story of another person’s doings. But they are the story really of what took place in his own case, and at his own house. And after that narrative, what follows in the immediate context is nothing else than this notice of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue. For he has constructed the whole recital in such a manner, that the mode of transition from one thing to the other has itself indicated with sufficient clearness that the words immediately, following give the narrative of what actually took place in immediate consecution. For after mentioning, in connection with the former incident, those words which Jesus spake with respect to the new cloth and the new wine, he has subjoined these other words, without any interruption in the narrative, namely, “While He spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler.” And this shows that, if the person approached Him while He was speaking these things, nothing else either done or said by Him could have intervened. In Mark’s account, on the other hand, the place is quite apparent, as we have already pointed out, where other things [left unrecorded by him] might very well have come in. The case is much the same also with Luke, who, when he proceeds to follow up his version of the story of the miracle wrought among the Gerasenes, by giving his account of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, does not pass on to that in any such way as to place it in antagonism with Matthew’s version, who, by his words, “While He yet spake these things,” gives us plainly to understand that the occurrence took place after those parables about the cloth and the wine. For when he has concluded his statement of what happened among the Gerasenes, Lc passes to the next subject in the following manner; “And it came to pass that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received Him; for they were all waiting for Him. And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue, and he fell down at Jesus’ feet,” and so on.(Luke 8:40-56) Thus we are given to understand that the crowd did indeed receive Jesus forthwith on the said occasion: for He was the person for whose return they, were waiting. But what is conveyed in the words which are directly added, “And, behold, there came a man whose name was Jairus,” is not to be taken to have occurred literally in immediate succession. On the contrary, the feast with the publicans, as Matthew records it, took place before that. For Matthew connects this present incident with that feast in such a way as to make it impossible for us to suppose that any other sequence of events can be the correct order. In this narrative, then, which we have undertaken to consider at present, all these three evangelists indeed are unquestionably at one in the account which they give of the woman who was afflicted with the issue of blood. Nor is it a matter of any real consequence, that something which is passed by in silence by one of them is related by another; or that Mc says, “Who touched my clothes?” while Lc says, “Who touched me?” For the one has only adopted the phrase in use and wont, whereas the other has given the stricter expression. But for all that, both of them convey the same meaning. For it is more usual with us to say, “You are tearing me,” than to say, “You are tearing my clothes;” as, notwithstanding the term, the sense we wish to convey is obvious enough.At the same time, however, there remains the fact that Matthew represents the ruler of the synagogue to have spoken to the Lord of his daughter, not merely as one likely to die, or as dying, or as on the very point of expiring, but as even then dead; while these other two evangelists report her as now nigh unto death, but not yet really dead, and keep so strictly to that version of the circumstances, that they tell us how the persons came at a later stage with the intelligence of her actual death, and with the message that for this reason the Master ought not now to trouble Himself by coming, with the purpose of laying His hand upon her, and so preventing her from dying,—the matter not being put as if He was one possessed of ability to raise the once dead to life. It becomes necessary for us, therefore, to investigate this fact lest it may seem to exhibit any contradiction between the accounts. And the way to explain it is to suppose that, by reason of brevity in the narrative, Matthew has preferred to express it as if the Lord had been really asked to do what it is clear He did actually do, namely, raise the dead to life. For what Matthew directs our attention to, is not the mere words spoken by the father about his daughter, but what is of more importance, his mind and purpose. Thus he has given words calculated to represent the father’s real thoughts. For he had so thoroughly despaired of his child’s case, that not believing that she whom he had just left dying, could possibly now be found yet in life, his thought rather was that she might be made alive again. Accordingly two of the evangelists have introduced the words which were literally spoken by Jairus. But Matthew has exhibited rather what the man secretly wished and thought. Thus both petitions were really addressed to the Lord; namely, either that He should restore the dying damsel, or that, if she was already dead, He might raise her to life again. But as it was Matthew’s object to tell the whole story in short compass, he has represented the father as directly expressing in his request what, it is certain, had been his own real wish, and what Christ actually did. It is true, indeed, that if those two evangelists, or one of them, had told us that the father himself spake the words which the parties who came from his house uttered,—namely, that Jesus should not now trouble Himself, because the damsel had died,—then the words which Matthew has put into his mouth would not be in harmony with his thoughts. But, as the case really stands, it is not said that he gave his consent to the parties who brought that report, and who bade the Master no more think of coming now. And together with this, we have to observe, that when the Lord addressed him in these terms, “Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole,”(Luke 8:50) He did not find fault with him on the ground of his want of belief, but really encouraged him to a yet stronger faith. For this ruler had faith like that which was exhibited by the person who said, “Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief.”(Mark 9:24)Seeing, then, that the case stands thus, from these varied and yet not inconsistent modes of statement adopted by the evangelists, we evidently learn a lesson of the utmost utility, and of great necessity,—namely, that in any man’s words the thing which we ought narrowly to regard is only the writer’s thought which was meant to be expressed, and to which the words ought to be subservient; and further, that we should not suppose one to be giving an incorrect statement, if he happens to convey in different words what the person really meant whose words he fails to reproduce literally. And we ought not to let the wretched cavillers at words fancy that truth must be tied somehow or other to the jots and tittles of letters; whereas the fact is, that not in the matter of words only, but equally in all other methods by which sentiments are indicated, the sentiment itself, and nothing else, is what ought to be looked at. Moreover, as to the circumstance that some codices of Matthew’s Gospel contain the reading, “For the woman is not dead, but sleepeth,” while Mark and Luke certify that she was a damsel of the age of twelve years, we may suppose that Matthew has followed the Hebrew mode of speech here. For in other passages of Scripture, as well as here, it is found that not only those who had already known a man, but all females in general, including untouched virgins, are called women. That is the case, for instance, where it is written of Eve, “He made it into a woman;”(Gen 2:22) and again, in the book of Numbers, where the women who have not known a man by lying with him, that is to say, the virgins, are ordered to be saved from being put to death.(Num 31:18) Adopting the same phraseology, Paul, too, says of Christ Himself, that He was “made of a woman.”298 And it is better, therefore, to understand the matter according to these analogies, than to suppose that this damsel of twelve years of age was already married, or had known a man. (St. Augustine harmony of the Gospels 2,27)

27 And as Jesus passed forth from there, there followed him two blind men crying and saying, Have mercy on us, O son of David. 28 And when he came to the house, the blind came to him. And Jesus said to them, Do you believe that I can do this unto you? They say to him, Yes, Lord. 29 Then he touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith, be it done to you. 30 And their eyes were opened, and Jesus threatened them, saying, See that no man know it. 31 But they went forth, and spread his fame in all that country. 32 And when they were gone forth, behold they brought him a mute man, possessed with a devil. 33 And after the devil was cast out, the mute man spoke, and the multitudes marveled saying, Never was the like seen in Israel. 34 But the Pharisees said, In the prince of devils he casts out devils.

St. Augustine Matthew is the only one who introduces this account of the two blind men and the dumb demoniac. For those two blind men, whose story is given also by the others,(Mark 10:46-51 Luke 18:35-43) are not the two before us here. Nevertheless there is such similarity in the occurrences, that if Matthew himself had not recorded the latter incident as well as the former, it might have been thought that the one which he relates at present has also been given by these other two evangelists. There is this fact, therefore, which we ought to bear carefully in mind,—namely, that there are some occurrences which resemble each other. For we have a proof of this in the circumstance that the very same evangelist mentions both incidents here. And thus, if at any time we find any such occurrences narrated individually by the several evangelists, and discover some contradiction in the accounts, which seems not to admit of being solved [on the principle of harmonizing], it may occur to us that the explanation simply is, that this [apparently contradictory] circumstance did not take place [on that particular occasion], but that what did happen then was only something resembling it, or something which was gone about in a similar manner.

35 And Jesus went about all the cities, and towns, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease, and every infirmity. 36 And seeing the multitudes, he pitied them because they were vexed, and lay like sheep that have not a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his Disciples, The harvest surely is great, but the workmen are few. 38 Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth workmen into his harvest.