Chapter LXVI.—Of the Colt of the Ass Which is Mentioned by Matthew, and of the Consistency of His Account with that of the Other Evangelists, Who Speak Only of the Ass.

127. Matthew goes on with his narrative in the following terms: “And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the Mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her;” and so on, down to the words, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.”634    Matt. xxi. 1–9. Mark also records this occurrence, and inserts it in the same order.635    Mark xi. 1–10. Luke, on the other hand, tarries a space by Jericho, recounting certain matters which these others have omitted,—namely, the story of Zacchæus, the chief of the publicans, and some sayings which are couched in parabolic form. After instancing these things, however, this evangelist again joins company with the others in the narrative relating to the ass on which Jesus sat.636    Luke xix. 1–38. And let not the circumstance stagger us, that Matthew speaks both of an ass and of the colt of an ass, while the others say nothing of the ass. For here again we must bear in mind the rule which we have already introduced in dealing with the statements about the seating of the people by fifties and by hundreds on the occasion on which the multitudes were fed with the five loaves.637    See above, chap. xlvi. § 98. Now, after this principle has been brought into application, the reader should not feel any serious difficulty in the present case. Indeed, even had Matthew said nothing about the colt, just as his fellow-historians have taken no notice of the ass, the fact should not have created any such perplexity as to induce the idea of an insuperable contradiction between the two statements, when the one writer speaks only of the ass, and the others only of the colt of the ass. But how much less cause then for any disquietude ought there to be, when we see that the one writer has mentioned the ass to which the others have omitted to refer, in such a manner as at the same time not to leave unnoticed also the colt of which the rest have spoken! In fine, where it is possible to suppose both objects to have been included in the occurrence, there is no real antagonism, although the one writer may specify only the one thing, and another only the other. How much less need there be any contradiction, when the one writer particularizes the one object, and another instances both!

128. Again, although John tells us nothing as to the way in which the Lord despatched His disciples to fetch these animals to Him, nevertheless he inserts a brief allusion to this colt, and cites also the word of the prophet which Matthew makes use of.638    John xii. 14, 15. In the case also of this testimony from the prophet, the terms in which it is reproduced by the evangelists, although they exhibit certain differences, do not fail to express a sense identical in intention. Some difficulty, however, may be felt in the fact that Matthew adduces this passage in a form which represents the prophet to have made mention of the ass; whereas this is not the case, either with the quotation as introduced by John, or with the version given in the ecclesiastical codices of the translation in common use. An explanation of this variation seems to me to be found in the fact that Matthew is understood to have written his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Moreover, it is manifest that the translation which bears the name of the Septuagint differs in some particulars from the text which is found in the Hebrew by those who know that tongue, and by the several scholars who have given us renderings of the same Hebrew books. And if an explanation is asked for this discrepancy, or for the circumstance that the weighty authority of the Septuagint translation diverges in many passages from the rendering of the truth which is discovered in the Hebrew codices, I am of opinion that no more probable account of the matter will suggest itself, than the supposition that the Seventy composed their version under the influence of the very Spirit by whose inspiration the things which they were engaged in translating had been originally spoken. This is an idea which receives confirmation also from the marvellous consent which is asserted to have characterized them.639    [The reference here is to the story of Aristeas, to the effect that the translators, though separated, produced identical versions. Compare translator’s remark in Introductory Notice.—R.] Consequently, when these translators, while not departing from the real mind of God from which these sayings proceeded, and to the expression of which the words ought to be subservient, gave a different form to some matters in their reproduction of the text, they had no intention of exemplifying anything else than the very thing which we now admiringly contemplate in that kind of harmonious diversity which marks the four evangelists, and in the light of which it is made clear that there is no failure from strict truth, although one historian may give an account of some theme in a manner different indeed from another, and yet not so different as to involve an actual departure from the sense intended by the person with whom he is bound to be in concord and agreement. To understand this is of advantage to character, with a view at once to guard against what is false, and to pronounce correctly upon it; and it is of no less consequence to faith itself, in the way of precluding the supposition that, as it were with consecrated sounds, truth has a kind of defence provided for it which might imply God’s handing over to us not only the thing itself, but likewise the very words which are required for its enunciation; whereas the fact rather is, that the theme itself which is to be expressed is so decidedly deemed of superior importance to the words in which it has to be expressed,640    Reading quæ dicenda est, sermonibus per quos dicenda. The Ratisbon edition and twelve mss. give in both instances discenda = to be learned, instead of dicenda = to be expressed. See Migne. that we would be under no obligation to ask about them at all, if it were possible for us to know the truth without the terms, as God knows it, and as His angels also know it in Him.

CAPUT LXVI. De asinae pullo, quomodo Matthaeu. caeteris congruat, qui solum pullum commemorant.

127. Sequitur Matthaeus, et dicit: Et cum appropinquassent Jerosolymis, et venissent Bethphage ad montem Oliveti, tunc Jesus misit duos discipulos, dicens eis. Ite in castellum quod contra vos est, et statim invenietis asinam alligatam et pullum cum ea, etc., usque ad eum locum ubi ait, Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Hosanna in altissimis (Matth. XXI, 1-9). Hoc etiam Marcus narrat eodem ordine custodito (Marc. XI, 1-10). Lucas autem in Jericho immoratur, quaedam commemorans quae isti praetermiserunt, de Zachaeo principe Publicanorum, et quaedam in parabolis dicta. Post haec et ipse occurrit eis ad hujus pulli commemorationem, in quo sedit Jesus (Luc. XIX, 1-38). Nec moveat quod Matthaeus asinam dicit et pullum, caeteri autem de asina tacent. Imo etiam recordanda est illa regula, quam de quinquagenis et centenis discumbentibus, cum quinque panibus turbae pascerentur, supra insinuavimus (Supra, cap. 46, n. 98): qua insinuata, non deberet hoc jam permovere lectorem, nec si Matthaeus ita de pullo tacuisset, quemadmodum illi de asina tacuerunt, ut maxime contrarium putaretur, quod unus asinam dixit, alii pullum asinae; quanto minus moveri oportet, quia unus ita commemoravit asinam, de qua caeteri tacuerunt, ut tamen pullum non taceret, de quo illi dixerunt? Ubi ergo utrumque factum potest intelligi, nulla repugnantia est, nec si alius aliud, et aliud alius commemoret: quanto minus ubi alius unum, alius utrumque?

128. Joannes quoque cum taceat quemadmodum Dominus discipulos suos ad haec animalia sibi adducenda miserit, interponit tamen breviter hoc de pullo, 1139 cum testimonio etiam prophetae, quod Matthaeus adhibet (Joan. XII, 14, 15). In quo etiam testimonio prophetico aliquantum diversa Evangelistarum locutio ab ea quidem sententia non recedit: sed potest movere quod hoc Matthaeus sic adhibet, ut asinam dicat commemorasse prophetam; non autem ita se habet, vel quod Joannes interponit, vel codices ecclesiastici interpretationis usitatae. Cujus rei causa illa mihi videtur, quod Matthaeus hebraea lingua perhibetur Evangelium conscripsisse. Manifestum est autem interpretationem illam quae dicitur Septuaginta in nonnullis se aliter habere quam inveniunt in hebraeo, qui eam linguam noverunt, et qui interpretati sunt singuli eosdem Libros hebraeos. Hujus item distantiae causa si quaeratur, cur tanta auctoritas interpretationis Septuaginta multis in locis distet ab ea veritate quae in hebraeis codicibus invenitur; nihil occurrere probabilius existimo, quam illos Septuaginta eo spiritu interpretatos, quo et illa quae interpretabantur dicta fuerant: quod ex ipsa eorum mirabili quae praedicatur consensione firmatum est. Ergo et ipsi nonnulla in eloquio variando, et ab eadem voluntate Dei, cujus illa dicta erant, et cui verba servire debebant non recedendo, nihil aliud demonstrare voluerunt, quam hoc ipsum quod nunc in Evangelistarum quatuor concordi quadam diversitate miramur, qua nobis ostenditur non esse mendacium, si quisquam ita diverso modo aliquid narret, ut ab ejus voluntate cui consonandum et consentiendum est, non recedat. Quod nosse et moribus utile est, propter cavenda et judicanda mendacia; et ipsi fidei, ne putemus quasi consecratis sonis, ita muniri veritatem, tanquam Deus nobis quemadmodum ipsam rem, sic verba quae propter illam sunt dicenda, commendet; cum potius ita res quae dicenda est, sermonibus per quos dicenda est , praeferatur, ut istos omnino quaerere non deberemus, si eam sine his nosse possemus, sicut illam novit Deus, et in ipso Angeli ejus.