Purpose of Gospel Harmonies
I noticed this Gospel harmony in Pre-pub.
I have a question though : Does the harmonizing process rob these texts of their individuality? Doesn't this resource inadvertently divest each Gospel of their original literary purpose?
Comments
-
Just think of it as reading the bible from another perspective! It can be quite refreshing.
Incidentally, the chronological rearrangement represents the author's best guess, and may not be 100% accurate. That's why there are a few versions out there.
0 -
Josh said:
Does the harmonizing process rob these texts of their individuality? Doesn't this resource inadvertently divest each Gospel of their original literary purpose?
I don't think so.
Here is another Logos resource that is available now:
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:Josh said:
Does the harmonizing process rob these texts of their individuality? Doesn't this resource inadvertently divest each Gospel of their original literary purpose?
I don't think so.
I'd be interesting in you explaining how this is not so. I'm no trying to debate anyone. I really just have an "off" feeling about harmonies. It almost feels like we are tampering with God's word.
0 -
I make bold as to say that if Mark, Matthew and Luke were standing right next to me now, watching somebody pick up one of these harmonies, they would not disapprove. They had no such technology then, and they sure would like more to know about Jesus.
I would not call an honest attempt to re-order the pericopes in chronological order, a tampering of God's word. Of course, there is some "danger" of changing some meanings. But that same "danger" happens whenever anybody quotes a verse, which is fundamentally taking a sentence out of its environment. I don't see that as a disincentive to quoting verses, just that we do need to exercise care.
But if you have another opinion about "harmonies", don't read them.
0 -
Lee said:
I make bold as to say that if Mark, Matthew and Luke were standing right next to me now, watching somebody pick up one of these harmonies, they would not disapprove. They had no such technology then, and they sure would like more to know about Jesus.
But if you have another opinion about "harmonies", don't read them.
What technology are you talking about? Harmonies have been around since practically the very beginning. However, God didn't give us a single Gospel account. He gave us four distinct versions. Why? When we decide to alter the order of these inspired works and cram them into an amalgam gospel, they no longer coherently display their authors literary purposes.
0 -
Here is where I say:
I don't have time to waste on such idle nonsense. You are free to form your own opinion.
0 -
Josh said:
I'd be interesting in you explaining how this is not so. I'm no trying to debate anyone. I really just have an "off" feeling about harmonies. It almost feels like we are tampering with God's word.
I do not want to persuade you to do something you feel is wrong. I just view the harmonies as a study tool much like a study Bible or commentary. The study tool itself may have errors so I do not equate them with the Gospels. If three of my children go to the state fair and come back reporting their experiences to me, I will get three similar yet individual accounts. Taking all three accounts into consideration will give me the big picture.
Does the above make any sense?
Here is a harmony of some Old Testament historical books:
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Josh said:Lee said:
Here is where I say:
I don't have time to waste on such idle nonsense. You are free to form your own opinion.
What's your problem? No one is forcing you to comment or read this thread.
And "your thread" happens to live inside a forum that specifically asks us not to engage in debate.
If you have a view, state it.
Then, others state their views.
That's fine.
To enter into an endless debate, what about this, what about that then... that's too much to ask.
0 -
Josh said:
God didn't give us a single Gospel account. He gave us four distinct versions. Why? When we decide to alter the order of these inspired works and cram them into an amalgam gospel, they no longer coherently display their authors literary purposes.
Please understand that I am not advocating using a harmony instead of reading scripture. I refer to the maps inside the back of my Bible to give me a lay of the land when I read the Bible. I (rarely) use harmonies for the same purpose. Any contradictions are settled in favor of the Bible.
You do not need a harmony to understand the Bible.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:Josh said:
I'd be interesting in you explaining how this is not so. I'm no trying to debate anyone. I really just have an "off" feeling about harmonies. It almost feels like we are tampering with God's word.
I do not want to persuade you to do something you feel is wrong. I just view the harmonies as a study tool much like a study Bible or commentary. The study tool itself may have errors so I do not equate them with the Gospels. If three of my children go to the state fair and come back reporting their experiences to me, I will get three similar yet individual accounts. Taking all three accounts into consideration will give me the big picture.
Does the above make any sense?
Here is a harmony of some Old Testament historical books:
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that we should not "equate them with the Gospels". It might just be the fact that we are reshaping God's word that has me feeling uneasy. This isn't quite like piecing together your children's experience. We are dealing with something more important. But I understand your analogy. Thanks again for your input.
0 -
Josh said:Lee said:
Just think of it as reading the bible from another perspective! It can be quite refreshing.
I get what you are saying. But surely this is not the perspective Mark, Matthew, and Luke (and technically God) wanted us to have.
Technically, reading the entire Bible in any order, from Genesis to Revelation, or the order of the Old Testament in Jewish Bibles, or a made-up order for a "read through the Bible in a year" program is going to give us more perspectives on the text than the original human authors (and God who inspired them) wanted to convey by each of the books they wrote. They didn't write them as part of a canon, but when we read them canonically we see all kinds of things that jump out at us due to intertextuality. For example, we see the prophecies in the OT being fulfilled by Christ in the OT (most of which, one could argue, was not at all what the original authors had in mind).
Putting together a harmony of the gospels by placing the verses of the three synoptics in a different order than they appear in their respective books isn't much different. It isn't meant to replace reading Matthew, Mark, and Luke each on their own as literary units. In fact, probably 99.99% of one's reading would be in the original books, not in the harmony, even if one had the harmony in his or her library. So I wouldn't worry about it distorting the intent of the authors. It's just an added technical tool which may or may not be useful to some people. The Lectionary is another such tool which juxtaposes texts that were not juxtaposed in the Bible, in order to shed light on them. Cross-references help with that as well. All just different tools.
0 -
[Y] [Y] [Y]
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Technically, reading the entire Bible in any order, from Genesis to Revelation, or the order of the Old Testament in Jewish Bibles, or a made-up order for a "read through the Bible in a year" program is going to give us more perspectives on the text than the original human authors (and God who inspired them) wanted to convey by each of the books they wrote. They didn't write them as part of a canon, but when we read them canonically we see all kinds of things that jump out at us due to intertextuality. For example, we see the prophecies in the OT being fulfilled by Christ in the OT (most of which, one could argue, was not at all what the original authors had in mind).
Thanks for your well thought out response. I appreciate it. Reading the books of the Bible in various order doesn't seem to be quite the same issue though. The content and literary purpose of each book remains intact. This is not the case when the texts of multiple books become blended.
[quote]
Putting together a harmony of the gospels by placing the verses of the three synoptics in a different order than they appear in their respective books isn't much different. It isn't meant to replace reading Matthew, Mark, and Luke each on their own as literary units. In fact, probably 99.99% of one's reading would be in the original books, not in the harmony, even if one had the harmony in his or her library. So I wouldn't worry about it distorting the intent of the authors. It's just an added technical tool which may or may not be useful to some people. The Lectionary is another such tool which juxtaposes texts that were not juxtaposed in the Bible, in order to shed light on them. Cross-references help with that as well. All just different tools.
This is interesting. I'm now curious to know how someone has used a harmony as a technical tool in their personal studies.
0 -
Josh said:
This isn't quite like piecing together your children's experience. We are dealing with something more important. But I understand your analogy. Thanks again for your input.
I agree it isn't the same. Many will tell you my analogies are often epic failures.
We can not "improve" upon the Bible imho. I don't look to harmonies or commentaries for that purpose. If you see no benefit to using a harmony, don't. Thank you for allowing me to clarify my statements.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Josh's point is an interesting one.
One of the earliest writings by which later manuscripts are compared is the Diatesseron which literally combines the 4 accounts. It was sufficiently authoritative (ie accepted in the churches), that it almost replaced the older versions.
So, here one has a harmony validating later dated gospels.
In my view the Diatesseron and earlier Syriac texts from the Sinai in combination with the older latin texts are superior to the NA27/28.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Josh said:Rosie Perera said:
Technically, reading the entire Bible in any order, from Genesis to Revelation, or the order of the Old Testament in Jewish Bibles, or a made-up order for a "read through the Bible in a year" program is going to give us more perspectives on the text than the original human authors (and God who inspired them) wanted to convey by each of the books they wrote. They didn't write them as part of a canon, but when we read them canonically we see all kinds of things that jump out at us due to intertextuality. For example, we see the prophecies in the OT being fulfilled by Christ in the OT (most of which, one could argue, was not at all what the original authors had in mind).
Thanks for your well thought out response. I appreciate it. Reading the books of the Bible in various order doesn't seem to be quite the same issue though. The content and literary purpose of each book remains intact. This is not the case when the texts of multiple books become blended.
Well, plenty of "read through the Bible in a year" plans do jumble the texts around instead of reading one complete book and then another. Some of them will have you read a couple of chapters of an OT book, then a chapter of a NT book, and a Psalm on Day 1, and so on. The books were not meant to be read by intermingling back and forth like that.
Some go even farther to attempt to put the whole Bible in chronological order, with the Psalms of David to be read at the points in the David narrative when he wrote them, and Paul's letters interspersed into the Acts narrative, and so on. It is a helpful thing to read them in this order, as long as you remember that it's not supposed to replace the order we have them handed down to us (which is an order that was created to some extent by redactors anyway, and we only take it as the accepted order of the Scriptures because the tradition of the church tells us that the order it's supposed to be in). There are some obvious evidences that redactors got their hands on certain of the texts after the original authors penned them. For example, surely Moses did not write the verses in Deuteronomy describing his own death (Deut 34:5-8). And you'll find more on this if you search your library for "redaction criticism." Here is the entry on it from the Lexham Bible Dictionary:
Redaction Criticism
Redaction criticism understands that the biblical authors were not merely copiers of the material they received—they were editors and shapers of the traditions they compiled. The redaction critic studies the author’s involvement in the work he has edited and shaped. Not all texts lend themselves to this type of investigation. However, the Gospels, because they often record the same event, episode or saying, provide opportunity for this type of analysis. The critic seeks to determine, for example, why Matthew added Peter’s failed attempt to walk on water (compare Mark 6:45–52 with Matt 14:22–33). Further, this analysis attempts to determine what theological motivations might account for an author editing a text. Evidence of editorial activity can be seen by comparing the book of 1 Chronicles 21:1 with the book of 2 Samuel 24:1. The chronicler, in his version of David’s census, changes “the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel” (NRSV) to “Satan stood up against Israel” (NRSV).--------------
Anyway, you have brought up an interesting point, and we were just trying to answer your original question as to what is the purpose of harmonies. If you find them problematic, then you don't need to use them. I personally own several of them in my Library but have never read one through and I'm not sure how much help it would be. There's no consensus on what order the events and discourses of Jesus' public ministry happened in anyway, so there's not much point in viewing any one of the harmonies as authoritative. They are just educated guesses at best.
0 -
Denise said:
In my view the Diatesseron and earlier Syriac texts from the Sinai in combination with the older latin texts are superior to the NA27/28.
Here it is:
The Earliest Life of Christ: The Diatessaron of Tatian
I think the TR/MT are superior to NA27/28, fwiw.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Well, plenty of "read through the Bible in a year" plans do jumble the texts around instead of reading one complete book and then another. Some of them will have you read a couple of chapters of an OT book, then a chapter of a NT book, and a Psalm on Day 1, and so on. The books were not meant to be read by intermingling back and forth like that.
You are correct. I totally forgot that they had these. I would have to say that I have the same concern with these, too.
[quote]
Some go even farther to attempt to put the whole Bible in chronological order, with the Psalms of David to be read at the points in the David narrative when he wrote them, and Paul's letters interspersed into the Acts narrative, and so on. It is a helpful thing to read them in this order, as long as you remember that it's not supposed to replace the order we have them handed down to us (which is an order that was created to some extent by redactors anyway, and we only take it as the accepted order of the Scriptures because the tradition of the church tells us that the order it's supposed to be in). There are some obvious evidences that redactors got their hands on certain of the texts after the original authors penned them. For example, surely Moses did not write the verses in Deuteronomy describing his own death (Deut 34:5-8). And you'll find more on this if you search your library for "redaction criticism."
I personally make a distinction between the biblical redactors and the editors of these chronological Bibles and Gospel harmonies. For instance, I see the author of 1 and 2 Kings as an "inspired" editor/author. I certainly do not attribute this quality to the editors of the NIV One Year Chronological Bible.
[quote]
Anyway, you have brought up an interesting point, and we were just trying to answer your original question as to what is the purpose of harmonies. If you find them problematic, then you don't need to use them. I personally own several of them in my Library but have never read one through and I'm not sure how much help it would be. There's no consensus on what order the events and discourses of Jesus' public ministry happened in anyway, so there's not much point in viewing any one of the harmonies as authoritative. They are just educated guesses at best.
Thanks. I found what you had to say interesting.
0 -
Super Tramp said:Denise said:
In my view the Diatesseron and earlier Syriac texts from the Sinai in combination with the older latin texts are superior to the NA27/28.
Here it is:
The Earliest Life of Christ: The Diatessaron of Tatian
I think the TR/MT are superior to NA27/28, fwiw.
I think the original autographs are superior to the MT, NA27, or any early Syriac text! [:P] [H]
0 -
Josh said:Rosie Perera said:
Well, plenty of "read through the Bible in a year" plans do jumble the texts around instead of reading one complete book and then another. Some of them will have you read a couple of chapters of an OT book, then a chapter of a NT book, and a Psalm on Day 1, and so on. The books were not meant to be read by intermingling back and forth like that.
You are correct. I totally forgot that they had these. I would have to say that I have the same concern with these, too.
I think they do it that way just to keep people from getting bored. Would you also have the same concern about someone reading a chapter of a book in the Bible because they were going to hear a sermon on it, and then the next day reading a chapter from somewhere else in the Bible? I think we can appreciate a bit of mixing it up just to make sure we are getting some balance in our scriptural diet -- not all law, not all prophecy (just like we have some proportion of protein and carbohydrates and fat in a balanced meal). There are times when a focused study all the way through one book of the Bible is best (that's how I prefer to study them most of the time because I understand the context better that way). But it's also not harmful to have some mixing around in our devotional reading.
Josh said:I personally make a distinction between the biblical redactors and the editors of these chronological Bibles and Gospel harmonies. For instance, I see the author of 1 and 2 Kings as an "inspired" editor/author. I certainly do not attribute this quality to the editors of the NIV One Year Chronological Bible.
[:)]
0 -
Some posters have referred already to one of the earliest harmonies: the Diatesseron ("through the four"). Don't forget though that the church came to consider this a dangerous work and actively suppressed it - impounding and destroying hundreds of copies. I think the rationale was that a harmony had the same effect an apocryphal gospel - playing fast and loose with the apostolic witness recognised in the work of the acknowledged four gospels. Harmonies are interesting vehicles for flights of fancy and speculation, synopses are useful tools for critical analysis; neither pass muster as scripture.
0 -
It is agreed that the "harmonies" do not replace bibles.
The Diatesseron contained emendations, not just rearrangements.
The purging of the Diatesseron was partly due to its author, Tatian. Tatian came to be regarded as heterodox
However one views harmonies and free paraphrases, the content is scriptural. A strong response against seems unwarranted, unless there are specific cases of discernible corruption.
0 -
I guess the next logical question would be: What purpose does a Gospel harmony serve? And is this a noble purpose?
The Encyclopedia of Christianity states: A gospel harmony is a composite work that attempts to combine the various accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry found in the canonical Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - into one continuous narrative. The impulse to harmonize these texts derives, on the one hand, from the fact that they are not all the same and, on the other, from the conviction that the Gospels ought at least to be in substantive agreement.
The idea basically is that the Gospels need to be altered to smooth over difficulties and apparent discrepancies. The primary purpose then of a Gospel harmony is to hide such supposed embarrassments instead of explaining why they might exist.
So, is this a noble purpose?0 -
Lee said:
It is agreed that the "harmonies" do not replace bibles. ... However one views harmonies and free paraphrases, the content is scriptural. A strong response against seems unwarranted, unless there are specific cases of discernible corruption.
I think we need to differentiate real harmonies (one running text that blends material from various gospels) from synoptic layouts that give the text of the gospels in different columns (ordered by the editor). In this case, there's even less unbiblical emendation. I think the OP linked to such a synopsis when he asked about the purpose. Actually, a synoptic layout brings about the differences or unique emphasis of every gospel author more than reading just a running text within each gospel.
Since there has been some critique, I'd like to share one aspect I like about harmonies: parallel accounts clarify and give a border to phantastic emendation of an event. It's not a rare experience that a preacher retells a story from one of the gospels, giving "colour" to it by ascribing motives to the protagonists, interpreting Jesus' words in a certain way etc. If I believe that various gospels tell the same story i.e. there was a historical event that took place as described, then it may well be that the parallel account would rule out certain imaginations or clarify unclear aspects.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
NB.Mick said:Lee said:
It is agreed that the "harmonies" do not replace bibles. ... However one views harmonies and free paraphrases, the content is scriptural. A strong response against seems unwarranted, unless there are specific cases of discernible corruption.
I think we need to differentiate real harmonies (one running text that blends material from various gospels) from synoptic layouts that give the text of the gospels in different columns (ordered by the editor). In this case, there's even less unbiblical emendation. I think the OP linked to such a synopsis when he asked about the purpose. Actually, a synoptic layout brings about the differences or unique emphasis of every gospel author more than reading just a running text within each gospel.
Since there has been some critique, I'd like to share one aspect I like about harmonies: parallel accounts clarify and give a border to phantastic emendation of an event. It's not a rare experience that a preacher retells a story from one of the gospels, giving "colour" to it by ascribing motives to the protagonists, interpreting Jesus' words in a certain way etc. If I believe that various gospels tell the same story i.e. there was a historical event that took place as described, then it may well be that the parallel account would rule out certain imaginations or clarify unclear aspects.
I was not talking about synopses. I see a good purpose to have these - for the reasons you listed. I'm concerned about harmonies.
0 -
The resource I linked in the OP might not have been a true harmony. Sorry for any confusion.
0 -
NB.Mick said:
Since there has been some critique, I'd like to share one aspect I like about harmonies: parallel accounts clarify and give a border to phantastic emendation of an event. It's not a rare experience that a preacher retells a story from one of the gospels, giving "colour" to it by ascribing motives to the protagonists, interpreting Jesus' words in a certain way etc. If I believe that various gospels tell the same story i.e. there was a historical event that took place as described, then it may well be that the parallel account would rule out certain imaginations or clarify unclear aspects.
[Y] [Y] [Y]
0 -
Josh said:
Does the harmonizing process rob these texts of their individuality? Doesn't this resource inadvertently divest each Gospel of their original literary purpose?
Absolutely. This all ties in heavily with the 20th century obsession with "the historical Jesus," as if there is such a thing that we can know. All we have is the canonical Jesus, as told through four different evangelists. Certainly it's worth comparing them, since that brings out their individual emphases and quirks, but tearing them apart and piecing them back together can only lose meaning, not gain any. The whole quest for "what really happened" is just silly.
0 -
Denise said:
Josh's point is an interesting one.
One of the earliest writings by which later manuscripts are compared is the Diatesseron which literally combines the 4 accounts. It was sufficiently authoritative (ie accepted in the churches), that it almost replaced the older versions.
So, here one has a harmony validating later dated gospels.
In my view the Diatesseron and earlier Syriac texts from the Sinai in combination with the older latin texts are superior to the NA27/28.
Can you give any interesting book suggestions that have helped you to reach your conclusion?
0 -
Niko ...most of my opinions derive from mathematical analyses of the syntactical patterns, (eg if a specific type of clause is used, what surrounds it, the normality of vocabulary usage, complexity of structures, etc). My primary interest is the likelihood of changes and additions. The NA series began a long line of 'this and that' decisions, so that a pattern analysis today shows tremendous 'smoothing'.
The smoothing is best illustrated by tracking the manuscripts backward and noticing an increase in variation, along with increased syntactical stability.
Logos strangely has little on text criticism (the actual analyses and basis for conclusions).
If you have Robinson/Pierpont's Byzantine 2005, ( http://www.logos.com/product/1792/the-new-testament-in-the-original-greek-byzantine-textform-2005-with-morphology ), he has a good discussion of the assumptions inherent in the NA approach: (of course he's making an impassioned argument for the Byzantine):
logosres:byzprsd;ref=Page.p_ii;off=1482Kurt Aland is even more impassioned in his and Barbara's http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Introduction-Criticism/dp/0802840981/
which is still good reading.For a more balanced view: http://www.amazon.com/Revisiting-Corruption-New-Testament-Manuscript/dp/082543338X/
vs the forum's favorite author:
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-Scripture-Christological-Controversies/dp/0199739781/
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Denise said:
Niko ...most of my opinions derive from mathematical analyses of the syntactical patterns, (eg if a specific type of clause is used, what surrounds it, the normality of vocabulary usage, complexity of structures, etc). My primary interest is the likelihood of changes and additions. The NA series began a long line of 'this and that' decisions, so that a pattern analysis today shows tremendous 'smoothing'.
The smoothing is best illustrated by tracking the manuscripts backward and noticing an increase in variation, along with increased syntactical stability.
Logos strangely has little on text criticism (the actual analyses and basis for conclusions).
If you have Robinson/Pierpont's Byzantine 2005, ( http://www.logos.com/product/1792/the-new-testament-in-the-original-greek-byzantine-textform-2005-with-morphology ), he has a good discussion of the assumptions inherent in the NA approach: (of course he's making an impassioned argument for the Byzantine):
logosres:byzprsd;ref=Page.p_ii;off=1482Kurt Aland is even more impassioned in his and Barbara's http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Introduction-Criticism/dp/0802840981/
which is still good reading.For a more balanced view: http://www.amazon.com/Revisiting-Corruption-New-Testament-Manuscript/dp/082543338X/
vs the forum's favorite author:
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-Scripture-Christological-Controversies/dp/0199739781/
Thanks!
0 -
Mitchell said:Josh said:
Does the harmonizing process rob these texts of their individuality? Doesn't this resource inadvertently divest each Gospel of their original literary purpose?
Absolutely. This all ties in heavily with the 20th century obsession with "the historical Jesus," as if there is such a thing that we can know. All we have is the canonical Jesus, as told through four different evangelists. Certainly it's worth comparing them, since that brings out their individual emphases and quirks, but tearing them apart and piecing them back together can only lose meaning, not gain any. The whole quest for "what really happened" is just silly.
Interesting. Thanks.
0 -
Peace! *smile* Depending upon the size of one's library, one may already have a number of harmonies in one's library, eh??? *smile*
Try: type:harmony
I get:
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
I was looking at the various harmonies in my library (thanks Milford) and I stumbled upon this article in one of them: Is Harmonization Honest?
I found it interesting that the resource opened up with a defense to what they were doing. Of course, the conclusion was that it was not dishonest (and I actually agreed - at least with the purposes of this specific harmony's intention).
I think it gave a good overview of the different kind of harmonies vs synopses:
I feel like the first two types of harmonies (especially the radical) are the ones I'm more concerned about. The last type is really a synopsis at heart.
Either way, this has been an amusing little side study. I have come to the conclusion that "parallel harmonies" are "honest", but the other types of harmonies that tend to hide or camouflage differences in the text are "dishonest".
0 -
One tiny clarification: the term "radical" is used in the technical sense of "relating to, or going to, the root", rather than its more modern sense...
0 -
Sam Henderson said:
Some posters have referred already to one of the earliest harmonies: the Diatesseron
To correctly represent the history you need also to refer to Ammonius of Alexandria and Eusebius' Tables ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
The answer I would give to the original post is yes, but there is also a purpose for harmonies. And really, the reasons are related. First, it is good to study a gospel individually in order to "hear" what the individual evangelist is saying without mudding his message with added information from another source. But also, it is good to compare with a harmony (I often use Aland's version). That way you can see what is included and not included and consider what purpose the differences serve in the evangelist's theme or motivation. For instance (just came upon this yesterday), I found it interesting that Luke replaces Latinisms used by Matthew and Mark in several places.
0 -
John, your last sentence has immense implications.
Diatesseron was a radical harmony; he chopped out where things wouldn't fit. Marcion's harmony was even more radical but required less papyri sheets.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
John Hill said:
I found it interesting that Luke replaces Latinisms used by Matthew and Mark in several places.
If you don't mind, please elaborate.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Here are a few (excuse my transliteration:
In Mark 15:39 centurion Luke 23:47- literally "leader of 100"
Mark 12:14 kesas- tax Luke 20:22- phoros- tribute
Mark 4:21 modios- peck measure Luke 8:16 skeuos- dish
Blass-Debrunner have a section on this under "The NT and Hellenistic Greek" in their Greek Grammar.
0 -
John Hill said:
But also, it is good to compare with a harmony (I often use Aland's version). That way you can see what is included and not included and consider what purpose the differences serve in the evangelist's theme or motivation.
Are you talking about this book? If so, this is a synopsis, not a harmony. I agree with you that synopses are useful in Gospel studies.
0 -
There is not much difference between what you get in Aland's synopsis and the standard harmonies. You get parallel columns of periscopes and a chart. If you buy a Harmony of the Gospels (or even a harmony of Kings and Chronicles) you get the same.
0 -
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
John Hill said:
Here are a few (excuse my transliteration:
In Mark 15:39 centurion Luke 23:47- literally "leader of 100"
Appears that Matthew also used ἑκατοντάρχης to mean Centurion
0 -
John might have mispoke, with Mark having the latinism. From MM:
κεντυρίων
This Markan Latinism (1539, 44f.: cf also Ev. Petr. 8ff.) for the familiar ἑκατόνταρχος may be illustrated from OGIS 196 (B.C. 32) where a Roman official records his visit to the temple of Isis at Phylae σὺν κεντορίωσι Ῥούφωι, Δημητρίωι κτλ. The soldier Apion writing to his father from Italy to announce his safe arrival signs himself as enrolled in the Κεντυρί(α) Ἀθηνονίκη (BGU II. 42324 (ii/A.D.) = Selections, p. 92)."If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
John Hill said:
There is not much difference between what you get in Aland's synopsis and the standard harmonies. You get parallel columns of periscopes and a chart. If you buy a Harmony of the Gospels (or even a harmony of Kings and Chronicles) you get the same.
I'm not sure what a "standard" harmony is. I posted yesterday a screenshot from an article that explained the differences between harmonies and synopses (look at my past comments). The article stated that there were at least four types of harmonies. Only one of those - a "parallel harmony" was similar to a synopsis. The others, especially the "radical harmony" type, are far from it.
0 -
from Wikipedia:
"A Gospel harmony is an attempt to compile the Christian canonical gospels into a single account.This may take the form either of a single, merged narrative, or a tabular format with one column for each gospel, technically known as a 'synopsis', although the word 'harmony' is often used for both. Harmonies are constructed to establish a chronology of events in the life of Jesus depicted in the canonical gospels, to better understand how the accounts relate to each other, or to establish events in the life of Jesus."
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
