Augustine of Hippo

„

(De Cons. Ev. ii. 28.) This narrative is given both by Mark and Luke, but in a quite different order; namely, when after the casting out of the dæmons and their entrance into the swine, he had returned across the lake from the country of the Gerasenes. Now Mark does indeed tell us that this happened after He had recrossed the lake, but how long after he does not determine. Unless there had been some interval of time, that could not have taken place that Matthew relates concerning the feast in his house. After this, immediately follows that concerning the ruler of the synagogue’s daughter. If the ruler came to Him while He was yet speaking that of the new patch, and the new wine, then no other act of speech of his intervened. And in Mark’s account, the place where these things might come in, is evident. In like manner, Luke does not contradict Matthew; for what he adds, And behold a man, whose name was Jairus, (Luke 8:41.) is not to be taken as though it followed instantly what had been related before, but after that feast with the Publicans, as Matthew relates. While he spake these things unto them, behold, one of their chief men, namely, Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, came to him, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, my daughter is even now dead. It should be observed, lest there should seem to be some discrepancy, that the other two Evangelists represent her as at the point of death, but yet not dead, but so as afterwards to say that there came afterwards some saying, She is dead, trouble not the Master, for Matthew for the sake of shortness represents the Lord as having been asked at first to do that which it is manifest He did do, namely, raise the dead. He looks not at the words of the father respecting hisdaughter, but rather his mind. For he had so far despaired of her life, that he made his request rather for her to be called to life again, thinking it impossible that she, whom he had left dying, should be found yet alive. The other two then have given Jairus’ words; Matthew has put what he wished and thought. Indeed had either of them related that it was the father himself that said that Jesus should not be troubled for she was now dead, in that case the words that Matthew has given would not have corresponded with the thoughts of the ruler. But we do not read that he agreed with the messengers. Hence we learn a thing of the highest necessity, that we should look at nothing in any man’s words, but his meaning to which his words ought to be subservient; and no man gives a false account when he repeats a man’s meaning in words other than those actually used.