Gospel Harmonies and Parallels

I have at least seven of these. I think I actually bought Throckmorton's parallel gospels because I had heard good things about it.

Does anyone have opinions about the best, most reliable and helpful volumes in this genre? I realize that about 95 percent of them will be the same across the board. I'm thinking of working closely with one in the future, trying to look at Jesus' life across the span of the gospels--maybe just the synoptics, maybe all four--and I'd love some advice on which is best.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

TCBlack

I can't speak as to best Rob. Only to my experience. The first harmony I ever spent time with was Thomas and Gundry's which is not available in Logos (I think). It is very similar to a few others though - as you note the differences are going to be minor for the most part.

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/244964#Comment_244964

I enjoyed using A.T. Robertson's, but haven't used the others much to know which one is best. One thing I found convenient was to prioritize it in my library, right below my preferred Bible and since it has a Bible index it will show up with a right click on a gospel reference. This gives me a quick look at how the other gospels are different or similar in that pericope.

Rob Suggs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/244964#Comment_244964

Thank you, Thomas. Your last sentence is something I suspected, and am glad to hear your confirmation.

Rob Suggs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/244973#Comment_244973

Very helpful, Jerry. I will try that!

Bootjack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/244977#Comment_244977

Thanks Jerry!!! This point you make is more than helpful. You've earned your Starbucks today!!!

Allen Browne

... Does anyone have opinions about the best, most reliable and helpful volumes in this genre?

My personal preference is:

Burton, Ernest DeWitt. A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels for Historical and Critical Study.

I like the layout, including the numbering of pericopes.

Dan

I'd have to go with Thomas and Gundry's.

George Somsel

I have at least seven of these. I think I actually bought Throckmorton's parallel gospels because I had heard good things about it.

Does anyone have opinions about the best, most reliable and helpful volumes in this genre? I realize that about 95 percent of them will be the same across the board. I'm thinking of working closely with one in the future, trying to look at Jesus' life across the span of the gospels--maybe just the synoptics, maybe all four--and I'd love some advice on which is best.

I've used Aland's Synopsis Quotuor Evangeliorum since cemetary.

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245197#Comment_245197

Throckmorton was our standard in seminary - required for Synoptic Gospels course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School 40 years ago - do not know what they require now.

Joe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/244964#Comment_244964

I can't speak as to best Rob. Only to my experience. The first harmony I ever spent time with was Thomas and Gundry's which is not available in Logos (I think). It is very similar to a few others though - as you note the differences are going to be minor for the most part.

I would agree that Thomas and Gundry's is excellent. Maybe we can somehow ask Logos to get it into digital format?

NB.Mick

I have at least seven of these. I think I actually bought Throckmorton's parallel gospels because I had heard good things about it.

Does anyone have opinions about the best, most reliable and helpful volumes in this genre? I realize that about 95 percent of them will be the same across the board. I'm thinking of working closely with one in the future, trying to look at Jesus' life across the span of the gospels--maybe just the synoptics, maybe all four--and I'd love some advice on which is best.

I have used a paper-based German version in the past (Peisker, who also includes some extra-biblical texts if they fit as parallels) and now with Logos I will have to look into it again, thanks for bringing this up. Without pictures and just the information "I like this" or "I used that since 19XX" this thread is maybe less helpful than it could be. I will provide my rationale (so far as it goes with nearly equivalent resources) - everybody is free to disagree or to chime in with aspects I overlooked.

I tested the harmonies by opening the Way to Golgotha/Crucification passages, which are contained in all gospels.

Of the number of gospel-harmony resources that I have in my library (I wouldn't buy one especially for this purpose), I would rule out those that give only the first three gospels (Burton & Goodspeed, Jackson). The reason is that imho all four gospels are scripture and basically claim to tell the same historic facts, albeit arranged, selected or worded differently. I wouldn't want to miss information from John. Jackson moreover follows a strange layout (he gives Mark, then Luke, then Matthew), which is too confusing for me. That leaves the Eusebian Harmony

as well as Alandt

and Robertson, who includes an additional comment column.

of these, I think I like the last two best. Both provide titled paragraphs, whereas Eusebius numbered the snippets from each of the four gospels individually and brought them together (shame on me for leaving the TOC out of the pictures, which shows this in more detail: while Alandt and Robertson's titles allow for navigation, Eusebius' numbers do not).

Robertson's text blocks tend to be rather long, as opposed to the short snippets of Alandt. The short snippets may look more scholarly (doubtless they are), but I think we fall prey to "chopping up" the bible into bits and pieces far too often. This, and my curiosity about his notes, will most propably tip the scales towards Robertson for me.

I did another comparison: the Anointment(s). Luke 7:36-50 - Anonitment by a sinful woman in Galilee - is treated as without parallel in Robertson, whereas he gives Mt, Mk and Jn in the Anointment at Bethany scene, accompanied with detailed explanation why these are different events.

Alandt obviously thinks the same, but this is only implicit as he puts all four texts once in the Jesus' Ministry in Galilee section (§114) and a second time in the Passion Narrative (§306). Thus he allows for comparing Luke with the other three, but gives no explanation (not even cross-links or footnotes), thus his subtle point might be missed by beginners like me.

For me, this settles the case for Robertson - even if I was not to agree on his
conclusions, at least his discussion will tell there is something to
look for.

Hope this helps,

Mick

Rob Suggs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245246#Comment_245246

Mick, can't thank you enough. I think you've just about convinced me. This is exactly what I was looking for. I had been leaning toward the Robertson myself.

Though it would seem there are plenty of these already, it would be kind of nice to have one with just refs and no texts. In paper books, of course you need the full text, but in Logos, with the hover ability, we can use whatever translation we want, then see the passage--ctl-click to go there if we want--and have a "telescoped" list of the pericopes allowing us to see much more of the forest instead of the trees.

I haven't checked, but maybe some of these harmonies have indexes where this is possible.

By the way, a writing project (my job) spurred this. I needed to put together a narrative from Jesus' resurrection appearances, written in novel form. I almost dreaded this because the resurrection appearances are so wildly diverse in the gospels. Yet putting them all together made a beautiful and consistent picture that made perfect sense for the first time. I see these 40 days in a new way as a result. I think harmonies can be very useful.

Edwin Bowden

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245250#Comment_245250

Jesus Christ: The Greatest Life, Cheney & Ellisen (available in Logos) is a blended single narrative that identifies the unique contribution of each Gospel.

Another approach is Harmony of the Gospels, Cox & Easley (available Logos):

We have followed the pericope numbering of Robertson’s 1922 edition. As far as we know, this is the only Gospel harmony to include notes in the format now familiar in a variety of study Bibles.

Cox, S. L., & Easley, K. H. (2007). Holman Christian Standard Bible: Harmony of the Gospels (v). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

I recently spent 3 years teaching through the Gospel of Mark. I consulted all the harmonies in my Logos library. I liked the format in print of A Harmony of the Four Gospels, Daniel (Baker).

During this study, from time to time, I would print out my own harmony composed from a consensus of all the various harmonies, to show the unique contributions that were not found in Mark's gospel. As I recall, I would start with Aland's format, but further break it down in a more detailed way following Jackson's verse divisions.

What I found helpful for my study was to do the harmony in a phrase by phrase parallel, so that it was easy to identify the variations among the gospels. I would highlight the unique contributions of each gospel. It provided a better quick visual comparison than any of the harmonies that I found. It was a lot of work, but it immersed me and my class in the text.

As we got to the passion, I broadened our study to a full Life of Christ study. Each week, I printed out my harmony for the class.

There are some other simplified harmonies. http://www.logos.com/product/3580/a-simplified-harmony-of-the-gospels

I noticed one recently in a bookstore by Mounce that was done as a single narrative. I don't recall the title.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245250#Comment_245250

Rob, thank you for your kind words.

Though it would seem there are plenty of these already, it would be kind of nice to have one with just refs and no texts. In paper books, of course you need the full text, but in Logos, with the hover ability, we can use whatever translation we want, then see the passage--ctl-click to go there if we want--and have a "telescoped" list of the pericopes allowing us to see much more of the forest instead of the trees.

Actually, the Logos harmonies are created just like this - thus you are free to choose any bible you want for them, regardless of the one the author worked in. As for a list of parallel passage references to hover over and click on demand, if I understand you correctly, the passage guide already does that for us:

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245246#Comment_245246

I have used a paper-based German version in the past (Peisker, who also includes some extra-biblical texts if they fit as parallels) and now with Logos I will have to look into it again, thanks for bringing this up.

My situation exactly (except I'm using the Swedish version of Peisker instead of the German (and Aland when I'm ambitious enough to look at the Greek)). So thanks again to Rob for raising this issue, and thanks to everyone who's offered input. I finally got down to doing some comparison myself. Some observations:

• Burton cannot be set to the Bible of my choice.

• Robertson has Mark in the first column. Like you said about another one, Mick -- but not about this one for some reason -- too confusing for me! Plus, the reason he has Mark in the first column is he only follows Mark's order. In other words, he thinks he knows better than the Bible. No thanks, the harmony I use must follow the orders of all 3 of the Synoptics.

• Cox looks weird. It lists Matthew 27:2, 11–14, but it shows Matthew 27:11–14, 2, which makes no sense.

• The layouts of all except Burton are useless! How am I supposed to compare anything when it looks like below?

Conclusion: I'll stay with my paper copy of Peisker! It makes Logos' harmonies look like toys for toddlers. It includes John. It makes it possible to read all three Synoptics straight through in the right order from the first word to the last. It's got the sentences nicely laid out in parallel, instead of in huge chunks, and it always adds every possible parallel to every possible sentence, in italics when out of place. Consequently it takes me seconds to spot what in Logos would take me half an hour or more to investigate. Plus it lists a parallel in the Gospel of Peter, which none of the Logos harmonies I checked had found.

Again I have to wonder, like I have before: why is it that Logos -- and most of its users, it seems -- spend so much effort on comparing translations, and so little on comparing parallels? To me it's the other way around.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245472#Comment_245472

• Robertson has Mark in the first column. Like you said about another one, Mick -- but not about this one for some reason -- too confusing for me! Plus, the reason he has Mark in the first column is he only follows Mark's order. In other words, he thinks he knows better than the Bible. No thanks, the harmony I use must follow the orders of all 3 of the Synoptics.

I would rather imagine that Mark is in the first column due to the fact that both Matthew and Luke use Mark, reorganize it somewhat and use some additional material (Q and Luke's special tradition).

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245475#Comment_245475

Well, he does say in §164 that "On the whole it has seemed best simply to follow Mark’s arrangement as we have done uniformly in the Harmony". I object to that; a harmony should follow all 3 arrangements. And I object to putting Mark first; I find it confusing. Whether he put it first because he used Mark's arrangement, or because he considered it the oldest, is rather irrelevant. I suspect it was both. What matters is that he made two bad decisions. IMHO.

Hmm, in §1 he refers to "note 2 on Synoptic Criticism at the close of the Harmony". I can't find any such note or text. Can you?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245494#Comment_245494

Well, he does say in §164 that "On the whole it has seemed best simply to follow Mark’s arrangement as we have done uniformly in the Harmony". I object to that; a harmony should follow all 3 arrangements. And I object to putting Mark first; I find it confusing. Whether he put it first because he used Mark's arrangement, or because he considered it the oldest, is rather irrelevant. I suspect it was both. What matters is that he made two bad decisions. IMHO.

Hmm, in §1 he refers to "note 2 on Synoptic Criticism at the close of the Harmony". I can't find any such note or text. Can you?

Are you saying that the same text should be repeated as much as 3 times (or even 4 times) in order to relate the others to the order of each gospel? I think that is going a bit too far. I'm wondering why you object to the placement of Mark in the first position. As regard "note 2", it would appear that Logos has not reproduced the work in its entirety since it was to follow the harmony. Nothing follows the harmony.

"We cannot reproduce all the sources that Luke had at his command, but it is clear that he followed in the main our Gospel of Mark, as any one can see for himself by comparing the two Gospels in this Harmony. Both Matthew and Luke made use of Mark. But they had other sources also. See note 2 on Synoptic Criticism at the close of the Harmony. See also Chapter IV, "Luke’s Method of Research" in my Luke the Historian in the Light of Research."

Robertson, A. T. A Harmony of the Gospels, § 1. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245494#Comment_245494

Fgh,

your posting made me curious and I searched Robertson for occurences of "note". It seems from §171, that Robertson includes at least 13 endnotes to his resource ("See Note 13 at end of the Harmony for full discussion of the question." - the qestion in case being Jesus' three days in the grave = or =/= 72 hours which was discussed here in the "wednesday crucification" -thread), which are not accessible as they are not tagged as footnotes or Logos choose to withhold them from us. Maybe someone with enough merits to be heard by the logos folks will post this as a bug.

Mick

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245499#Comment_245499

Are you saying that the same text should be repeated as much as 3 times (or even 4 times) in order to relate the others to the order of each gospel?

Of course! That's how Peisker's harmony is arranged. I didn't know until today -- well, yesterday now -- that there were harmonies that weren't arranged in that way. I assumed that was kind of included in the definition of a harmony. I fail to see the usefulness of something that doesn't follow the order of all three. How do you even find anything in it? Besides the fact that I object theologically to humans putting themselves above the Word of God and deciding that they know better than Him what order to put things in.

I'm wondering why you object to the placement of Mark in the first position.

Because Matthew is first in the NT, obviously. How am I to remember which column is what if one author puts this book first and another puts that book first, according to his own fancy. We do have an established order. Follow it!

it would appear that Logos has not reproduced the work in its entirety

Exactly. The question is why.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245509#Comment_245509

Because Matthew is first in the NT, obviously. How am I to remember which column is what if one author puts this book first and another puts that book first, according to his own fancy. We do have an established order. Follow it!

I object theologically to humans putting themselves above the Word of God and deciding that they know better than Him what order to put things in.

If you object to man deciding which book to put first, you should object to Matthew being put first since that is "man's order." The first to be written was Mark. Matthew and Luke made use of Mark together with a sayings source called Q (Quelle in German) which Luke then supplemented with some special tradition.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245521#Comment_245521

Why is everyone ignoring the obvious. Even the Syriac gave up on Tatian’s “Diatessaron” and moved to the 4 Gospels.[:P]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245523#Comment_245523

Why is everyone ignoring the obvious. Even the Syriac gave up on Tatian’s “Diatessaron” and moved to the 4 Gospels.

No one is ignoring the fact that there are four gospels. Harmonies are to point out where one gospel differs from another. it is not an attempt to put them in a blender and mush them together.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245526#Comment_245526

No one is ignoring the fact that there are four gospels.

Quite true - and I've created a bare bones harmony reading list. I just thought poor Tatian's feelings might get hurt if no one even mentioned him[:(]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245526#Comment_245526

Why is everyone ignoring the obvious. Even the Syriac gave up on Tatian’s “Diatessaron” and moved to the 4 Gospels.

No one is ignoring the fact that there are four gospels. Harmonies are to point out where one gospel differs from another. it is not an attempt to put them in a blender and mush them together.

Thanks to both of you loverly people! *smile*

I've never before read Tatian's "Diatessaron" until this evening. Thanks to you, MJ, for mentioning it. And! Thanks to you, George, for all the work you did to produce that note file "Alpha Church Fathers." Your hard work to link all those old guys made it possible for me to almost instantly open it up for study.

Also, thank God for Logos 4! *smile*

Now, last thing in my day am going to look at the Lutheran Service Book Three Year Lectionary and study once more the Scriptures that will be read in Divine Service tomorrow morning.

Phil 4:8-9

Rob Suggs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245548#Comment_245548

fgh, I would have to agree with George that questions of order, such as Matthew being placed before Mark, are not inspired in the way that the Word itself is inspired, any more than verse and chapter divisions are inspired. These are things that men have added. It makes sense to me to work outward from Mark, knowing that the gospel narratives are often arranged thematically rather than strictly chronologically. Matthew was placed first in the canon because it was thought, early on, to have been written first, and that Mark was a kind of abridgement of it. Only in the last couple of centuries did scholars come to a consensus that in all probability, Mark preceded the others--though there is still just a bit of disagreement on that, and always will be. John A. T. Robinson, I believe, was convinced John came first. And there are actually a few valid arguments for that. In the end, God gives us Scripture on a need-to-know basis. I would love, for example, to know about Jesus' teens and twenties. But I believe the Spirit of God inspired the four evangelists to write all that we need to know of the life and work of Christ. I used to avoid Mark, because it seemed so much less rich to me than Matthew, with its weath of parables and teaching, Luke, with its warmth and humanity, and John, with its awe-inspiring insight. But this time I have to say I'm loving my study of Mark, with its directness, its fast face, and the thought that these were surely the memories of Simon Peter himself. It's so clear in many passages,and that sends chills down my spine. When I finish, I will begin a study of Peter's epistles.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245554#Comment_245554

Beautiful post, Rob!

Thanks!

Peace! *smile*

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/245521#Comment_245521

If you object to man deciding which book to put first, you should object to Matthew being put first since that is "man's order."

Can't you please read what I say instead of ascribing to me all sorts of things I haven't said? All I've said, several times now, is that I get confused when people suddenly print the columns in another order than I've been used to all my life. If I took a quick look in a harmony like that I would go away with the impression that Matthew used 'this' word and Mark used 'that', when, in fact, it is Mark that uses 'this' word and Matthew that uses 'that'. It has nothing to do with chronology or theology or "man's order", only with using a layout that helps my brain get things right, and not one that 'helps' my brain get things wrong.

Furthermore, you are pulling quotes totally out of context! That second quote had nothing whatsoever to do with the order between the columns. It had to do with the order within the columns. When someone decides on his own that Mark's order is correct and that Matthew and Luke should be rearranged according to Mark's order, he is putting himself above the Word of God. Plus, from a scholarly perspective, he's producing an incredibly much less useful resource.

Why is everyone ignoring the obvious. Even the Syriac gave up on Tatian’s “Diatessaron” and moved to the 4 Gospels. [:P]

Who is "everyone"? The Diatessaron has been on my mind ever since I opened all my Logos harmonies in preparation for my first post, and found, with shock, that one of them was indeed a "harmony", in all senses of the word. I didn't know that kind of thing was still produced. I had naively assumed they went out of fashion with ... yes ... the Diatessaron. I never liked the English word 'harmony' -- only learnt it last autumn; we use 'synops' -- but after that find I rather hate it. 'Harmony' makes it sound like the purpose is to harmonize, when the whole rationale for using a book like Peisker's synopsis is to find the differences.

And my stubborn insistence on the ability to follow all 3 Synoptics in order, of course also stems from the same dislike of any and all attempt at harmonizing.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/246741#Comment_246741

Who is "everyone"?

I think it is the "everyone" of my youth - "but, Mom, everyone get to ..." or perhaps the "they" of my later years "well, they say that ..."[;)]

I never liked the English word 'harmony'

You are correct on this. I much prefer the term "parallels"

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/246778#Comment_246778

You are correct on this. I much prefer the term "parallels"

I studied some dictionaries the other days, and decided I'll call them "Gospel parallels" or "synopses" in the future, and reserve the word "harmony" for the Diatessaron kind.

Nelson R. Pardee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/247391#Comment_247391

I would like the passage guide to list "harmonies" first that I have prioritized. However, it seems to have a mind of its own. Any suggestions?.(This is an old thread but closest to my question.)

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611346#Comment_611346

I've thought that it did. Can you provide an example of your priorities and results?

Nelson R. Pardee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611373#Comment_611373

Sure. Here's my priorities list:

And here's the result from a passage lis (I typed the results, then show the screen shot)t:
-Aland "Synopsis" is first (Ihave it prioritized second)
- Burton, Goodspeed, & Johnson is second (I don't even have this in my priorities)
- Burton is third (not in my priorities)
- Sharman is fourth (not in my list)
- Eusebian Canons fifth (not in my list)
- Robertson
- Jackson

Cox, my first choice, isn't even listed.

Thanks so much for any help.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611436#Comment_611436

If a resource doesn't have an entry it will not show. Items after the end of your priority list will show in an order of Logos making. I think that explains the results but without knowing the reference entered I can't prove it. You can test it by adding additional resources to your priority list or by selecting a passage that you find in the "missing" resource and verifying that it shows up in the correct location.

Nelson R. Pardee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611502#Comment_611502

The resource does have an entry, or at least has a section for the passage. Or put another way, it does have an entry, or it has no entries at all! I think. And that doesn't explain why Aland is second, when it is clearly the highest ranked resouce in my priority list.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611549#Comment_611549

I reordered and finished my priorities and the results adjusted appropriately. I'm still checking why some Gospel parallels don't show.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611589#Comment_611589

See http://community.logos.com/forums/p/87127/611593.aspx#611593

Nelson R. Pardee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611594#Comment_611594

M.J., that's pretty impressive help. Thank you so very much. BTW, your bug submission made me see why I might want to retitle some resources. A lot of work, but I can see why.

Jeff Jackson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/611603#Comment_611603

In retrospect, it probably would have been better if I had kept the columns in canonical order. They're in the order of whose order I followed first. That is, all of Mark is listed in order. Then Luke is added to the mix, following Mark's order. Then Matthew added following Mark's order for Mark's text, and Luke's order for "Q".

However, I also replicated parallels when that otherwise chopped up Luke or Matthew material so that sections of Matthew and Luke could be studied in text order without having to jump all over the place. So for example, you'll find Mt 5-7 all together, and you'll find Lk 6:20-49 text all together, each replicating the parallels in the other.