Chapter XX.—Of the Question as to the Consistency of the Several Notices Given by
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the Subject of the Astonishment Felt by the Centurion and
Those Who Were with Him.
57. Matthew proceeds thus: “And the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves
were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves
after the resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”1454 There is
no reason to fear that these facts, which have been related only by Matthew, may appear to
be inconsistent with the narratives presented by any one of the rest. The same evangelist
then continues as follows: “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him watching
Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly
this was the Son of God.”1455 Mark offers this version: “And when the centurion which
stood over against Him saw that He so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this
was the Son of God.”1456 Luke’s report runs thus: “Now when the centurion saw what was
done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.”1457 Here Matthew says
that it was when they saw the earthquake that the centurion and those who were with him
were thus astonished, whereas Luke represents the man’s amazement to have been drawn
forth by the fact that Jesus uttered such a cry, and then gave up the ghost; thus making it
clear how He had it in His own power to determine the time for His dying. But this involves
no discrepancy. For as the said Matthew not only tells us how the centurion “saw the
earthquake,” but also appends the words, “and those things that were done,” he has indicated
that there was room enough for Luke to represent the Lord’s death as itself the thing which
called forth the centurion’s wonder. For that event is also one of the things which were done
in so marvellous a manner then. At the same time, even although Matthew had not added
any such statement, it would still have been perfectly legitimate to suppose, that as many
astonishing things did take place at that time, and as the centurion and those who were with
him may well have looked upon them all with amazement, the historians were at liberty to
select for narration any particular incident which they were severally disposed to instance
as the subject of the man’s wonder. And it would not be fair to impeach them with incon-
sistency, simply because one of them may have specified one occurrence as the immediate
cause of the centurion’s amazement, while another introduces a different incident. For all
these events together had really been matters for the man’s astonishment. Again, the mere
fact that one evangelist tells us that the centurion said, “Truly this was the Son of God,”
while another informs us that the words were, “Truly this man was the Son of God,” will
1454 Matt. xxvii. 51–53.
1455 Matt. xxvii. 54.
1456 Mark xv. 39.
1457 Luke xxiii. 47.
Of the Question as to the Consistency of the Several Notices Given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the Subject of the Astonishment Felt by the Centurion and Those Who Were with Him.
462
Of the Question as to the Consistency of the Several Notices Given by Matthew,…