Part 2. Comparing the Gospels
The principles of harmonizing the Gospels
Harmonization of the Gospels is the best way to demonstrate how the texts of the four canonical Gospels can be brought together. Before we begin, let me make a comment.
The Gospel of Matthew contains 28 chapters and 1,071 verses (the average chapter length is 38 verses). The Gospel of Mark consists of 16 chapters and 678 verses (the average chapter length is 42 verses). Luke has 24 chapters and 1,151 verses (the average chapter length is 48 verses). Johns Gospel consists of 21 chapters and 879 verses (the average chapter length is 42 verses). In total, the four Gospels contain 89 chapters and 3,779 verses (the average chapter length is 42 verses).
In the «United Gospel», similar verses are combined; that is why the resulting text is shorter than the total number of the verses in the four Gospels. In addition, I introduced a new chapter division based on the synopsis table, which takes into account the division of the episodes in the narrative. As a result, the «United Gospel» consists of 190 chapters and 3,171 verses (the average length of a chapter is 17 verses).
The texts related to one episode were harmonized based on the internal logic of the story and two foundational principles: a) retaining as much information as possible, and b) maintaining consistency throughout all Gospel narratives.
a) The principle of retaining information
When comparing the texts of the four Gospels, we can clearly distinguish between two types of episodes: unique ones (found only in one Gospel) and parallel ones (found in several Gospels). Unique episodes do not need to be modified; they just need to be arranged in the correct order. As to the parallel episodes, they are more complicated. Similar episodes are usually told in the Gospels with different terminology and varying degree of detail. We should always prefer a more detailed text to avoid the loss of meaning. If none of the four Gospels provide enough clarity on a given episode, then the resulting text should be compiled from parallel episodes taken from different Gospels. And preference should always be given to more detailed descriptions. Alternatively, we can take an episode from one of the Gospels and supplement it with qualifying words and phrases from the other Gospels.
b) The principle of maintaining consistency throughout all Gospel narratives
While forming the resulting text from fragments of parallel Gospel episodes, it is not uncommon to see notable differences between them. Some critics have even claimed that there are «contradictions» between the Gospels. However, such claims are not objective enough since the differences do not lead to irreconcilable inconsistencies. In combining such episodes, we must assume that all the evangelists have given us true information so the resulting text will be harmonious with each of the Gospels and will not contradict any of them.
We will now look at how these principles are put into practice.
Genealogy of Joseph
The Gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:117) and the Gospel of Luke (Lk 3:2338) give two genealogies of Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus. Both genealogies in the area from David to Joseph are clearly different from each other. Heres what they look like.
According to Matthew (Mt 1:616): David, Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, [Ahaziah (Jehoahaz)], [Joash (Jehoash)], [Amaziah], Ozias, Joatham, Achaz, Ezekias, Manasses, Amon, Josias, <Jehoiakim>, Jechonias, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph.
According to Luke (Lk 3:2331): David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menan, Melea, Eliakim, Jonan, Joseph, Juda, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Jose, Er, Elmodam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, Neri, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Rhesa, Joanna, Juda, Joseph, Semei, Mattathias, Maath, Nagge, Esli, Naum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Janna, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph.
How to harmonize these fragments?
Eusebius of Cesarea wrote the following on the differences in the genealogies: «Because of inconsistencies in the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke, there are many Christians who erroneously think of them as contradictory. Many are trying to come up with their own explanations without knowing the truth. Here is what we have learned about them from Aristids letter in which [Sextus Julius] Africanus, to whom we recently referred, writes about a way to reconcile the Gospel genealogies. Rejecting the opinions of the rest as erroneous and contrived, he tells a story of what he had heard in the following words:
«In Israel, the names of generations were reckoned either according to the flesh or according to the Law according to the flesh, when there was a succession of lawful sons, and according to the Law, when a brother of a deceased man, who had died with no sons of his own, would give his child the name of his deceased brother [Deut 25:510]. There was no clear hope of resurrection at that time, and so the fulfilment of the future promise was connected to «fleshly» resurrection so the name of the deceased man would never be blotted out from Israel. That is why some of the ancestors listed in the genealogy were lawful or «natural» descendants of their fathers while others were sons according to the Law, that is, they were born by one father but named after another. And it was customary to mention both the actual fathers and those whose names were thus restored. So, the Gospels make no mistake in recording their names according to the natural birth and according to the Law. Descendants of Solomon and Nathan were thus intertwined due to the age-long process of «bringing from the dead» those who had no sons, remarrying of the mothers and «restoration of the seed», that one and the same person could be legitimately regarded as a son of his actual father as well as the son of his «sort of» father. Both narratives, therefore, are correct, and they both come to Joseph the right way, though it may seem like a meandering.
To clarify this seeming confusion, I will try to explain what caused it in the first place. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third one from the end will be Matthan, who begat Jacob, the father of Joseph. According to Luke, the third one from the end, after Nathan, the son of David, was Melki [Matthat (Lk 3:23) note. V.S.], whose son was Heli, the father of Joseph. Since we are looking at the genealogy of Joseph we must explain why two people are recorded as his father: Jacob, the descendant of Solomon, and Heli, the descendant of Nathan. Why would Jacob and Heli be brothers? And why would their fathers, Matthan and Melki [Matthat], be Josephs grandfathers, though they belonged to different lines. Matthan and Melki [Matthat] were both married to the same woman, one after the other, and begat uterine brothers, since the Law didnt forbid un unmarried woman to remarry, whether she was divorced or widowed. First, Matthan, who was from the line of Solomon, begat Jacob from Esta (this womans name according to the Tradition). After Matthans death, Melki [Matthat] from the line of Nathan married his widow (as I said, he was from the same tribe but from a different line) and begat his son Heli. So, we will discover that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers, though belonging to different lines. Heli died without producing children, and Jacob married his wife and begat Joseph (the third generation), who was his son according to the flesh (and according to Scriptures: «Jacob begat Joseph»), and the son of Heli, for his brother Jacob «raised up his seed». So, we must not reject his genealogy. Matthew, the Gospel writer, says: «Jacob begat Joseph». Lukes genealogy is ascending: «He was the son, so it was thought (he added), of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Melki [Matthat]». One could not think of a clearer way to express his sonship according to the Law, so Luke, in speaking about such «births», consistently avoids using the word «beget». His list ends with Adam and God.