Harmony of the Gospels

[rlvaughn]

Jeff Riddle, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Louisa, Virginia, has begun a series on De Consensu Evangelistarum, or, Harmony of the Evangelists, by Augustine of Hippo. You can listen or read the transcripts. Looks like they may be in about 15 minute installments, based on the first two. The introduction is here:
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2021/07/introduction-augustine-harmony-of.html

 

[Van]

Based only on the linked intro, it appears the effort is long on sophistry and short on study.

 

[rlvaughn]

Quote from Riddle’s second post.

Augustine’s introduction stresses the apostolic authority of the canonical Gospels. The canonical Gospels are consistent with the regula fidei [i.e. rule of faith, rlv]. With respect to their chronological order, he puts forward what will become knowns as the “Augustinian Hypothesis” that the Gospels were written in their canonical order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He sees a close connection between Matthew and Mark which present the Lord Jesus as King, alongside Luke, who present him as a Priest. We might note that he is seemingly among the first to group the first three Gospels (the so-called Synoptic Gospels) as distinct from John.​

 

[Humble Disciple]

Even if we were to concede that Mark was the original Gospel and that Luke and John supplemented it with material from oral tradition, that would say nothing about their reliability.

Jesus was from an oral culture, and oral tradition from rabbi to disciple was passed down in a more dependable way than a game of telephone.

The prominent New Testament scholar Jimmy Dunn, prompted by the work of Ken Bailey on the transmission of oral tradition in Middle Eastern cultures, has sharply criticized what he calls the “stratigraphic model” of the Gospels, which views them as composed of different layers laid one upon another on top of a primitive tradition. (See James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered [Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2003].) On the stratigraphic model each tiny deviation from the previous layer occasions speculations about the reasons for the change, sometimes leading to quite fanciful hypotheses about the theology of some redactor. But Dunn insists that oral tradition works quite differently. What matters is that the central idea is conveyed, often in some key words and climaxing in some saying which is repeated verbatim; but the surrounding details are fluid and incidental to the story.

Probably the closest example to this in our non-oral, Western culture is the telling of a joke. It’s important that you get the structure and punch line right, but the rest is incidental. For example, many years ago I heard the following joke:

“What did the Calvinist say when he fell down the elevator shaft?”
“I don’t know.”
“He got up, dusted himself off, and said, ‘Whew! I’m glad that’s over!’”

Now just recently someone else told me what was clearly the same joke. Only she told it as follows:

“Do you know what the Calvinist said when he fell down the stairs?”
“No.”
“‘Whew! I’m glad that’s over!’”

Notice the differences in the telling of this joke; but observe how the central idea and especially the punch line are the same. Well, when you compare many of the stories told about Jesus in the Gospels and identify the words they have in common, you find a pattern like this. There is variation in the secondary details, but very often the central saying is almost verbatim the same. And remember, this is in a culture where they didn’t even have the device of quotation marks! (Those are added in translation to indicate direct speech; to get an idea of how difficult it can be to determine exactly where direct speech ends, just read Paul’s account of his argument with Peter in Galatians 2 or of Jesus’ interview with Nicodemus in John 3.) So the stories in the Gospels should not be understood as evolutions of some prior primitive tradition but as different performances of the same oral story.
What Price Biblical Errancy? | Reasonable Faith

 

[37818]

Matthew was written first. Not Mark, and I believe the epilogue is Mark's.

 

[Humble Disciple]

What I meant was the Mark was written first, and then Matthew and Luke supplemented it with oral tradition. This might not be true, but it's the dominant position, and it has no bearing on whether or not the Gospels are reliable. Jesus was from an oral culture, and disciples memorized and faithfully passed down the teachings of their rabbis.

Most scholars since the late nineteenth century have accepted the concept of Marcan priority. It forms the foundation for the widely accepted two-source theory, although a number of scholars support different forms of Marcan priority or reject it altogether.[1][2]
Marcan priority - Wikipedia

 

[37818]

What I meant was the Mark was written first, . . .

That is the more common view. I am convinced Matthew wrote his account first.

 

[Humble Disciple]

I am convinced Matthew wrote his account first.

That might be true, but I don't think it has any bearing on whether the Gospels are reliable.

 

[37818]

That might be true, but I don't think it has any bearing on whether the Gospels are reliable.

The idea of the priority of Mark comes in part do to a denial of the reliablity of Matthew's account.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is the more common view. I am convinced Matthew wrote his account first.

In hebrew. Aramiac, or Greek originally?

 

[Conan]

The idea of the priority of Mark comes in part do to a denial of the reliablity of Matthew's account.

I thought it was because Mark's account was supposed to be more primitive?

 

[37818]

I thought it was because Mark's account was supposed to be more primitive?

Matthew was an Apostle and an eye wjtness of Jesus teachings to His disciples who would become His Apostles. Mark is believed to have written based on the witness from Peter's eye witness. So if anything Mark used Matthew too.

 

[Conan]

Matthew was an Apostle and an eye wjtness of Jesus teachings to His disciples who would become His Apostles. Mark is believed to have written based on the witness from Peter's eye witness. So if anything Mark used Matthew too.

I think people go by comparing pericope sections of the Gospels to go by their conclusions of who wrote first. Just because Matthew was an Apostle does not mean that he had to write first. I think evidences inside the Gospels might be the deciding factors.

 

[37818]

I think people go by comparing pericope sections of the Gospels to go by their conclusions of who wrote first. Just because Matthew was an Apostle does not mean that he had to write first. I think evidences inside the Gospels might be the deciding factors.

There are indeed other factors. Only Matthew uses "heaven" interchangeable with "God" in regards to the kingdom. Of couse as I had mentioned Matthew was one of the Apostles. Matthew includes more teachings from Jesus to His disciples. Matthew's audience was primarily Jewish. The first Christians were Jewish. Also in an instance Matthew's account tells of two individuals being healed instead of just one as the retelling by Mark and Luke gives only one of the individuals. Matthew 8:28 - Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27 (The singular pronoun cannot be misinterperted where the plural pronoun can have meaning beyond those being addressed. As in Matthew 3:11 and Matthew 24:33-34.) In any case Matthew's account given in Matthew 8:28 would be the original. So the retelling from Matthew to Mark and Luke is more likely and makes more sense than the other way around.