Chapter XVI.—Of the Derision Ascribed to the Robbers, and of the Question Regarding the Absence of Any Discrepancy Between Matthew and Mark on the One Hand, and Luke on the Other, When the Last-Named Evangelist States that One of the Two Mocked Him, and that the Other Believed on Him.

53. Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: “The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth.”931    Matt. xxvii. 44. Mark is quite in harmony with Matthew here, giving the same statement in different words.932    Mark xv. 32. On the other hand, Luke may be thought to contradict this, unless we be careful not to forget a certain mode of speech which is sufficiently familiar. For Luke’s narrative runs thus: “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.”933    Luke xxiii. 39. And then the same writer proceeds to introduce into the same context the following recital: “But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” 934    Luke xxiii. 40–43. The question then is, how we can reconcile either Matthew’s report, “The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth,” or Mark’s, namely, “And they that were crucified with Him reviled Him,” with Luke’s testimony, which is to the effect that one of them reviled Christ, but that the other arrested him and believed on the Lord. The explanation will be, that Matthew and Mark, presenting a concise version of the passage under review, have employed the plural number instead of the singular; as is the case in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where we find the statement given in the plural form, that “they stopped the mouths of lions,”935    Heb. xi. 33. while Daniel alone is understood to be referred to. Again, the plural number is adopted where it is said that they “were sawn asunder,”936    Heb. xi. 37. while that manner of death is reported only of Isaiah. In the same way, when it is said in the Psalm, “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together,” etc.,937    Ps. ii. 2. the plural number is employed instead of the singular, according to the exposition given of the passage in the Acts of the Apostles. For those who have made use of the testimony of the said Psalm in that book take the kings to refer to Herod, and the princes to Pilate.938    Acts iv. 26, 27. But further, inasmuch as the pagans are in the habit of bringing such slanderous charges against the Gospel, I would ask them to consider how their own writers have spoken of Phaedras and Medeas and Clytemnestras, when there really was but a single individual reputed under each of these names. And what is more common, for example, than for a person to say, “The rustics also behave insolently to me,” even although it should only be one that acted rudely? In short, no real discrepancy would be created by the restriction of Luke’s report to one of the two robbers, unless the other evangelists had declared expressly that “both” the malefactors reviled the Lord; for in that case it would not be possible for us to suppose only one individual intended under the plural number. Seeing, however, that the phrase employed is “the robbers,” or “those who were crucified with Him,” and the term “both” is not added, the expression is one which might have been used if both these men had been engaged in the thing, but which might equally well be adopted if one of the two had been implicated in it,—that fact being then conveyed by the use of the plural number, according to a familiar method of speech.

CAPUT XVI. De latronum insultatione, quomodo non repugnent Matthaeus et Marcus Lucae, qui dixit unum eorum insultasse, alium credidisse.

53. Sequitur Matthaeus, et dicit: «Idipsum autem et latrones qui crucifixi erant cum eo, improperabant ei» (Matth. XXVII, 44). Nec Marcus discrepat, hoc idem dicens aliis verbis (Marc. XV, 32). Lucas autem potest putari repugnare, nisi genus locutionis satis usitatum non obliviscamur. Ait enim Lucas: «Unus autem de iis qui pendebant latronibus blasphemabat eum, dicens: Si tu es Christus, salvum fac temetipsum et nos.» Et sequitur idem ipse, atque ita contexit: «Respondens autem alter, increpabat illum, dicens: Neque tu times Deum, quod in eadem damnatione es. Et nos quidem juste, nam digna factis recipimus; hic vero nihil mali gessit. Et dicebat ad Jesum: Domine, memento mei cum veneris in regnum tuum. Et dixit illi Jesus: Amen dico tibi, hodie mecum eris in paradiso» (Luc. XXIII, 39-43). Quomodo ergo, sicut Matthaeus dicit, «Latrones qui crucifixi erant eum eo, improperabant ei»; vel, sicut Marcus dicit, «Et qui cum eo crucifixi erant, conviciabantur ei:» quandoquidem unus eorum conviciatus est, secundum Lucae testimonium, alter et compescuit eum, et in Dominum credidit? nisi intelligamus Matthaeum et Marcum breviter perstringentes hunc locum, pluralem numerum pro singulari posuisse: sicut in Epistola ad Hebraeos legimus pluraliter dictum, Clauserunt 1191 ora leonum, cum solus Daniel significari intelligatur; et pluraliter dictum, Secti sunt (Hebr. XI, 33-37), cum de solo Isaia tradatur. In Psalmo etiam quod dictum est, Astiterunt reges terrae, et principes convenerunt in unum, etc., pluralem numerum pro singulari positum, in Actibus Apostolorum exponitur: nam reges propter Herodem, principes propter Pilatum intellexerunt, qui testimonium ejusdem psalmi adhibuerunt (Psal. II, 2; Act. IV, 26, 27). Sed quia et Pagani solent calumniari Evangelio, videant quemadmodum locuti sint auctores eorum, Phaedras, Medeas et Clytemnestras, cum singulae fuerint. Quid autem usitatius, verbi gratia, quam ut dicat aliquis, Et rustici mihi insultant; etiam si unus insultet? Tunc enim esset contrarium quod Lucas de uno manifestavit, si illi dixissent ambos latrones conviciatos Domino; ita enim non posset sub numero plurali unus intelligi: cum vero dictum est, latrones, vel, qui cum eo crucifixi erant, nec additum est, ambo; non solum si ambo fecissent, posset hoc dici, sed etiam quia unus hoc fecit, potuit usitato locutionis modo per pluralem numerum significari.