Gospel harmony

Compiled by Valeriy Sterkh

Interpreter Valeriy Sterkh

Interpreter Evgeniy Terekhin

ISBN 978-5-0055-5757-5

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Preface

Why are there four canonical Gospels? Who wrote them and when? Was there a «Q source»? Are there errors in the Gospels? Do the Gospels contradict each other? Can we compile a coherent narrative based on all the four Gospels? This book attempts to answer these questions.

Part 1. Stating the facts

The oral Gospel tradition

The word «Gospel» means «good news» in Greek. It is used both in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament (see Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mk 1:1; 1:14—15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; compare Act 8:25; 14:21; 15:7; 20:24; 1 Pet 4:17; 1 Cor 9:14—23; 15:1; 2 Cor 9:13; 10:16; 11:7; Gal 1:11; 2:14; Eph 4:11; Php 1:27; Rev 14:6). Sometimes it is used in expressions, such as «the good news of the Kingdom», «the gospel of God», «the good news of the kingdom of God», «the gospel of the grace of God», «the gospel of Jesus Christ», «the eternal gospel».

At first, the word «gospel» meant the news about the approaching Kingdom of God. Jesus Christ used it in this sense when he was «proclaiming the gospel of the Kingdom» (Mt 4:23; 9:35; Mk 1:14). Later, Jesus commissioned his apostles to go and preach the Gospel (Mk 13:10; 16:15; Mt 24:14). Their preaching was oral. The apostles were sharing with the people what they had seen and heard from Jesus Christ himself.

When Christianity spread widely, it became necessary to record the words of Jesus and the story of His life. Later, the word «Gospels» started to be applied to the books that contained the story of the life of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Mark was written around the middle of the 1st century. According to the tradition, it was written by John Mark (see Act 12:12), the nephew of Barnabas (see Col 4:10), who was one of the seventy apostles and a co-worker of Peter (see 1 Pet 5:13). It is regarded as the earliest of the four Gospels. It is the shortest of them all, and it was used as a source for writing the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

«These are the words of the presbyter [Papias of Hierapolis]: „Mark was the interpreter of Peter; he accurately recorded everything that the Lord had said and done, but not in order, for he himself did not hear the Lord speak, neither did he walk with Him. Later he accompanied Peter who taught as he saw fit based on the circumstances, and did not necessarily relate the words of Christ in order. In recording everything the way he remembered it, Mark did not err against the truth. His only concern was not to miss or misrepresent anything“. That is what Papias said concerning Mark» (Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 3.39.15—16).

«Peter and Paul preached in Rome and founded a church there. After their departure, Mark, Peter’s disciple and interpreter, passed down to us in writing everything that Peter had taught» (Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies, 3.1.1; compare Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 5.8).

«Mark, the disciple and the interpreter of Peter, wrote a short Gospel at the request of the fellowship in Rome, having recorded everything that he had heard from Peter. Clement [of Alexandria] in the sixth book of his „Brief Explanations“, as well as Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, both testify that Peter approved of this work and declared that this Gospel should be read in all the churches. Peter also mentions Mark in his first epistle, metaphorically calling Rome Babylon: „The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son“ [1 Pet 5:13]. Availing himself of the Gospel that he himself had compiled, Mark departed to Egypt, and, preaching Christianity in Alexandria, founded a church there, which became famous through its sound teaching and godliness, and was known for instructing all its adepts to follow the example of Christ. The highly-educated Jew by the name of Philo, witnessing the first church of Alexandria which was still Jewish by status, wrote a book about their way of life, confirming, according to Luke, that they had much in common with Jerusalem. Mark died in the eighth year of Nero’s reign [61/62 NE („from the New Era“)] and was buried in Alexandria. He was replaced by Annian» (Jerome of Stridon. On Famous Men, 8).

The Gospel of Mark is based on the apostle Peter’s memories. It is indicated in several passages. When writing about Jesus calling his disciples, Mark mentions Simon-Peter first (Mk 1:16), and refers to the disciples collectively «Simon and those who were with him» (Mk 1:36; compare Mk 16:7). Also, he mentions Peter first among the Twelve (Mk 3:16). The healing of Simon’s mother-in-law was one of the miracles of Jesus (Mk 1:29—31). Mark mentions some words and acts of Jesus that were witnessed only by a small number of the apostles, including Peter. For example, Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead (Mk 5:37—43), the transfiguration (Mk 9:2—10), and Jesus prophesying about the end of the age (Mk 13). Mark also mentions that it was Peter who noticed the withered fig tree (Mk 11:21). Describing what happened in Gethsemane, Mark talks about Peter’s denial (Mk 14).

Many biblical scholars agree that in the account of Jesus’ arrest, Mark describes himself as the young man in a linen cloth: «Now a certain young man followed Him, having a linen cloth thrown around his naked body. And the young men laid hold of him, and he left the linen cloth and fled from them naked» (Mk 14:51—52).

The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Matthew was written about the third quarter of the 1st century. Tradition holds that it was written by Levi Matthew, the son of Alphaeus, one of the Twelve (see Mt 9:9; Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27). Originally it was written in the old Hebrew, but later it was translated into Greek and became widely accepted.

«So, Matthew wrote the Gospel for the Jews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founded the Church» (Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies, 3.1.1; compare Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 5.8).

«Initially Matthew preached the Gospel to the Jews; but then he took it to other nations, though it was written in his own tongue. When summoned to go elsewhere, he left them with his Scripture» (Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 3.24.6).

«Matthew the Apostle, who was also called Levi, used to be a tax-collector; he complied the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of spiritual cleansing of believers. At first, it was published in Judea in Hebrew, but later someone translated it into Greek [compare Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, 3.39.16]. The Hebrew version survived to the present day [around the beginning of the 5th century] in the Library of Caesarea [Caesarea of Palestine], so arduously created and maintained by Pamphilus [of Caesarea]. I also had the opportunity to get the book described for me by the Nazarene from the Syrian town of Berea who had been using it. It must be noted that this Gospel-writer, in quoting the Old Testament testimonies, whether himself or on behalf of our Lord and Savior, always follows the Hebrew text of the Covenant, not the authority of the translators of the Septuagint. Therefore, there are the following two versions: «Out of Egypt I have called my son» [Mt 2:15; Hos 11:1] and: «He will be called a Nazorean» [Mt 2:23; Is 11:1 <heb. «NZR» = Nazorean, a sprout, a root>; compare Num 6:21; Judg 13:5; 1 Sam 1:11; Am 2:11—12]» (Jerome of Stridon. On Famous Men, 3).

In his work, Matthew lavishly quotes from the Tanakh (the Hebrew Old Testament) making a special emphasis on the Messianic prophecies and their fulfillment in Jesus. Matthew is the only one who, in the account of his call to the apostleship, quotes the following words of Jesus: «But go and learn what this means: «I desire mercy and not sacrifice’" (Mt 9:13; compare Hos 6:6). None of the parallel accounts in Mark or Luke catch this nuance (see Mt 9:9—13; Mk 2:13—17; Lk 5:27—32). For the same reason, Matthew begins his Gospel with the genealogy of Jesus, starting with Abraham and going through David – from whom, according to the prophecies, the Messiah would come.

Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews – that’s why he avoids using the Hebrew word for «God», which would have been a taboo among the Jews. Besides, he uses the phrase «the Kingdom of God» instead of «the Kingdom of Heaven» unlike other evangelists. Exceptions to this rule most likely arose during the process of translating this Gospel into Greek.

The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles

The Gospel of Luke was written around the third quarter of the 1st century. According to the tradition, it was written by Luke, the doctor, one of the Seventy and a co-laborer of Paul (see Col 4:14; Phm 1:24; 2 Tim 4:10).

«So, Luke, the co-laborer of Paul, wrote down in the form a book the Gospel which he preached» (Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies, 3.1.1; compare Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 5.8).

«As one can gather from his writings, Luke, the doctor from Antioch, was very knowledgeable in the Greek language. The author of the Gospel and Paul’s follower, he accompanied the apostle in all his journeys. Here is what Paul said of him: «And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches (Corinthians) [2 Cor 8:18]; «Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you» (Colossians) [Col 4:14], «Only Luke is with me» (Timothy) [2 Tim 4:10]. The other excellent work written by Luke, «Acts of the Apostles», covers events during Paul’s second year in Rome, which was the fourth year of Nero’s reign [57/58 NE]. On this basis we conclude that this book was written in this city… Some believe that when Paul says in his epistle: «according to my gospel, [Rom 2:16], he refers to the book of Luke [the Greek for Gospel is «Good News)], and that Luke knew the stories of the Gospel not only from Paul who didn’t see the Lord in the flesh, but also from other apostles. He mentions it in the beginning of his work: «…Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word.» [Lk 1:2]. So, he wrote the Gospel on the basis of what he had heard from others, while «Acts of the Apostles» was written out of his own experience» (Jerome of Stridon. On Famous Men, 7).

In the prologue to his Gospel (Lk 1:1—4), Luke states the purpose for writing the book – to pull together the reliable information about Jesus and to relate it in an orderly manner. Many biblical scholars consider Luke’s Gospel to be highly accurate in its chronology as well as historical and geographical detail. For example, the other evangelists refer to the Galilean body of water as the sea, whereas Luke is more precise in naming it a lake (see Lk 5:1) – its water is fresh. Luke goes as far as to name even the smallest settlements in Judea. For example, he is the only one who mentions the city of Nain (see Lk 7:11). As a physician, Luke periodically throws in medical terms (Lk 4:38; 5:12; 14:2 and other).

The Book of Acts, also written by Luke, is an important source that complements the four Gospels.

The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John was written by the end of the 1st century. Tradition holds that it was compiled by John the Theologian, the son of Zebedee (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17; Lk 6:14; Jn 21:2, 24).

«Then, John, the disciple of Jesus who lay on His bosom [Jn 13:23], also published his Gospel during his time in Ephesus in Asia» (Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies, 3.1.1; compare Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 5.8).

«John, the apostle, the one especially loved by Jesus [Jn 21:20, 24], the son of Zebedee and the brother of Jacob who was beheaded by Herod after the sufferings of the Lord, last of all wrote his Gospel at the request of some bishops in Asia who contended against Cerinthus and other heretics, especially the teachings of Ebionites who taught that Christ didn’t exist before Mary. So, John was asked to speak in defense of the doctrine of Divine Birth. There was yet another reason: having read the works of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John approved of their narratives and confirmed that they contained the truth, noting that these narratives only describe was happened during the one year after John [the Baptist] was put in prison and executed. So, he himself wrote about a period preceding John’s imprisonment, and it can be a revelation for those who diligently read the works of the Gospel-writers. In addition, this consideration removes the contradictions that seemed to exist between the text of John and others… On the fourteenth year after Nero [82 NE] Domitian began the second persecution against Christians. John was exiled to the island of Patmos and wrote there the Apocalypse, which was later commented on by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. But after Domitian’s death [96 NE] and the abolition of his cruel decrees, John returned to the city of Ephesus and, remaining there until the arrival of the emperor Trajan, contributed in every way to the planting of churches throughout Asia. Died of old age in the 68th year after the Passion of the Lord and was buried near Ephesus» (Jerome of Stridon. On Famous Men, 7; compare Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 3.24.7—14).

The Gospel of John was written to emphasize the divinity of Jesus Christ and to supplement what was lacking in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John calls himself a «disciple whom Jesus loved» (Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). He belonged to the small circle of apostles whom Jesus had singled out to be with him more often. John also includes several episodes not found in the other Gospels.

The Apocryphal Gospels

In addition to the generally accepted four Gospels, there is a large corpus of gospel texts that were not included in the New Testament canon. These are usually called Apocrypha (from the Greek ἀπόκρῠφος, «hidden», «mysterious», «secret»). This name was originally given only to the heretical books that were kept in secret. Later, all the works of Jewish and Christian origin that were not part of the Bible came to be called apocryphal. More than fifty apocryphal gospels have survived to this day in varying degrees of preservation.

In the process of forming the Gospel canon, the first books to be rejected were those with heretical content that contradicted Holy Tradition. The same thing happened to the books that contained lacunae or had not been preserved in a complete form. Later, the Pseudepigrapha, attributed to some famous authors, were rejected too because of insufficient evidence for their authenticity.

The Gospel canon

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130 – 202) was one of the first supporters of the canonicity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: «The number of the Gospels cannot be more or less than what it is. For since there are four cardinal directions, the four winds, and since the Church is scattered all over the earth, and since the Gospel and the Spirit of life are the pillar and ground of the Church, the Church should have four pillars, spreading the fragrance of incorruptibility everywhere and reviving all men» (Against Heresies, 3.11.8). He criticized those who rejected the Gospel of John (the Alogi) or accepted only the Gospel of Luke (the Marcionites), as well as those who accepted or composed apocryphal hagiographies of Jesus (Gnostics for the most part).

Around the same time, a list of New Testament books, later called the Muratorian Canon, was compiled. The most probable author of the list, Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235), recognized only four Gospels as canonical.

This view was also shared by Origen (c. 185 – 254), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – 340), Athanasius the Great (296 – 372/373), Cyril of Jerusalem (315 – 386), Gregory the Theologian (329 – 389), Amphilochius of Iconium (c. 340 – after 394) and other early Christian writers.

The Council of Laodicea (343/363) decreed: «Rule 59. Let no psalm composed by a private person or any non-canonical book be read in the Church but only the canonical books of the New and Old Testaments». Later, after 363, the 60th rule was added to the acts of the Council with a list of the canonical books: "…these are the books of the New Testament: the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John…».

The first Council to adopt the present-day canon of New Testament books was the Council of Hippo that took place in North Africa in 393. However, the decrees of this Council have been lost. Their summary was read and adopted by the Council of Carthage in 397: «Rule 47. Apart from the canonical books, nothing else is to be read in the Church under the name of divine Scripture. The canonical books are as follows: …of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books…».

«Diatessaron» by Tatian

Tatian the Syrian was a disciple of Justin the Philosopher (circa 112/120 – circa 180/185), a Christian writer and apologist. By the end of his life he fell into heresy. He is most known for his book «Diatessaron» (Greek διὰ τεσσάρων, which literally means: «through the four»). It connects the four Gospels into one unified narrative which avoids repetitions and reconciles parallel passages. Sometimes it is referred to as «The Gospel from the Four». For several centuries this text was used as standard in some Christian communities, mainly in the churches of Syria and Antioch. Therefore, it is unlikely that Tatian could have written about irresolvable contradictions between the Gospels. Otherwise how could he have harmonized them? The original text of «Diatessaron» has not been preserved (only one fragment was unearthed during excavations at the archeological site of Dura-Europos in 1933). We can only guess at its contents from brief quotations in other ancient writers. For example, Theodoret of Cyprus points out that «Diatessaron» does not include Christ’s genealogies and other passages which show that Jesus came from the line of David according to the flesh. Theodoret found about two hundred copies of «Diatessaron» in his diocese, so he got rid of them and replaced them with the four canonical Gospels.

Other attempts to harmonize the Gospels

From time to time, other attempts have been made to combine the four canonical Gospels into one narrative.

For example, St. Jerome of Stridon mentions one such work by St. Theophilus of Antioch (died after 180): «Theophilus, the seventh bishop of Antioch after St. Peter, who left us a monument of his intelligence by bringing together into one corpus the sayings of the four evangelists» (Letter to Algasia, 6).

In the middle of the third century, a similar work called «Harmony of the Gospels or Diatessaro» was compiled by Ammonius of Alexandria. Its translation into Latin was made by Bishop Victor of Capua (d. 544) and was often reprinted.

The motivation for such an endeavor may have been the opening of Luke’s Gospel: «Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed» (Lk 1:1—4). In a sense, the Gospel of Luke can be considered a book that brings together various gospel texts and traditions.

Minh’s «Latin Patristics» (vol. CLXXVI) cites a twelfth-century Latin commentary on the Gospel harmony by Zacharias Chrysopolitanus.

The Protestant priest Andreas Osiander published «Harmonia Evangelica» in 1537.

In 1776, Johann Jakob Griesbach published a synopsis of the three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in parallel columns, to demonstrate their similarities. Later, the first three Gospels were called «synoptic».

Several hypotheses have been suggested to explain the similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels, the most famous of which is the «Q source» hypothesis.

In the 19th century, Leo Tolstoy wrote his «Gospel in Brief», a synthesis of the four Gospels. Like Tatian, Tolstoy changed the Gospel texts. He removed the texts related to the Old Testament, miracles, and the Resurrection altogether. In his pseudo-gospel, Tolstoy rejected the idea of God as the Creator and proposed the idea of the universal good.

St. Theophan the Recluse’s approach in «The Gospel Story», published in 1885, was much more precise.

Many textbooks on «the law of God» reflect the content of the four Gospels. Quite often, however, they stray too far from the original text, which results in major distortions.

United Gospel

The «United Gospel» is my attempt to create a gospel harmony that directly connects the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John into one cohesive narrative. For the content of the book, I used only the words and phrases from the four Gospels. The Russian version of the book is based on the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible, while the English translation uses the King James Version. In some places, I have added my commentary for clarity.

To align the four Gospels, the tables of synoptic parallels were used. The alignment was based on the Gospel Synopsis from the Orthodox Bible, which reproduces a related publication of the Moscow Patriarchate (Bible. Moscow: Russian Bible Society, 2000). In some cases, the comparison was made based the table borrowed from the Belgian edition of the Holy Scriptures (Bible. Brussels: Life with God, 1983). It is worth noting that, for the goals mentioned above, none of the two tables were acceptable «as is», for a number of reasons. In this respect, the interpretation of the Gospel narrative about the resurrection of Jesus Christ proved to be the most critical. To solve the apparent conflict, we have used the sequence from the Harmony of the Gospels, quoted in Seraphim Slobodsky’s «The Law of God» («The Law of God for Families and Schools». Jordanville: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1967).

The principles of the narrative and the analysis of individual chapters of the «United Gospel» will be presented below.

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). John’s 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 1:1—17) and the Gospel of Luke (Lk 3:23—38) 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. Here’s what they look like.

According to Matthew (Mt 1:6—16): 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 3:23—31): 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 Aristid’s 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 25:5—10]. 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 Joseph’s 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 didn’t 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 woman’s name according to the Tradition). After Matthan’s 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». Luke’s 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.

All of this is not without a basis and is not arbitrarily contrived. Our Savior’s birth relatives left us the following true story, whether to glorify themselves or purely for our instruction. When a band of marauders from Idumea raided Ashkelon in Palestine, they seized not only the loot from Apollo’s temple, but also Antipater, the son of a certain Herod, who was a hierodule. Because the priest could not redeem his son, Antipater was brought up according to Idumean customs. Later he was well-favored by Hircanus, the high priest of Judea. As an ambassador sent to Pompea on some errand from Hircanus, he obtained for him the kingly authority, which had been usurped by his brother Aristobulus. As to Antipater himself, he prospered; he was appointed the curator (epimelet) of Palestine. After his death – he was murdered out of envy for being so fortunate – his position went to his son Herod. This Herod was later appointed king over the Jews by Antonius and Augustus, as decreed by the Senate. His sons – Herod and others – were tetrarchs. Of these events we also know from the Greek history.

Until then, the archives had kept genealogies of both Jews and ancient Proselytes, such as, for instance, the genealogies of Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabite, as well as genealogies of Egyptians who intermarried with the Jews. Having no connection whatsoever to the Jewish people, Herod, ashamed as he was of his ignoble blood, ordered that all the records of genealogies be burnt in hope that he could be reckoned as a noble-born, if no one was able to trace his line to Patriarchs, Proselytes or Gyiurs (converts to Judaism) using the public records. As a result, there were very few people who retained any memory of their ancestry. If they did, it was by keeping their own genealogical records or just by remembering the names of the ancestors, or keeping their own lists. People were proud of preserving the memory of their high blood. Among them were also the above mentioned «desposiny» – those related to the family of the Lord. Natives of Jewish settlements, Nazareth and Kohaba, they spread wide across the land and compiled the above-mentioned genealogy based on the «Book of Days», as best they could.

Whether it is so or not, it would be hard to come up with a better explanation – this is my opinion as well as that of any reasonable person. To this we will hold, even though it has not been confirmed by evidence – because there nothing better or more correct to hold on to. And as to the Gospel, it is all true, to say the least».

At the end of the same letter, Africanus adds: «Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, begat Jacob. After the death of Matthan, Melki [Matthat], a descendant of Nathan, begat Heli by the same woman. Therefore, Heli and Jacob must be uterine brothers. Heli died childless; Jacob raised up his seed by begetting Joseph who was his son according to the flesh, and Heli’s son according to the Law. So, we can say that Joseph was the son of them both».

This is the testimony of Afrikanus. If such was the genealogy of Joseph, then Mary had to be from the same tribe, for, according to the Law, it wasn’t allowed to marry outside your tribe. The Law said that a man should take a wife out of the same town and the same family so that the inheritance would not go from one tribe to another. With this let us end» (The History of the Church, 1.7).

The explanation offered by Africanus is correct, though he confused Melki with Matthat. The genealogy in Matthew lists births according to the flesh; the one in Luke is according to the Law. It must be added that the levirate links between the two genealogies are found not only at the end, but also in the beginning. This conclusion is obvious because both genealogies intersect in the middle at Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel (see Mt 1:12—13; Lk 3:27). Nathan was the older brother; Solomon was younger, next in line after him (see 2 Sam 5:14—16; 1 Cron 3:5), therefore he was the first candidate to a levirate marriage (compare Ruth 3—4; Lk 20:27—33). The Old Testament is silent on whether Nathan had children, so we may very well conclude that he had none. Solomon, however, had much capacity for love: «And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines» (1 Kings 11:3). So, in theory, he could have married Nathan’s widow. If this is so, Mattatha is the son of Solomon according to the flesh and the son of Nathan according to the Law. In light of the above-mentioned circumstances, the differences between the two genealogies no longer present a problem.

From the above, it is clear that both genealogies are true, but show the origin of Joseph in different ways. Therefore, in accordance with the principle of preserving information, both genealogies should be preserved (see UG 2 [United Gospel, chapter 2]).

The birth of Jesus

The account of Jesus’ childhood is found in both Matthew and Luke. But they tell the story differently.

According to Matthew, the events happened in the following order:

The angel announces the birth of Jesus to Joseph (Mt 1:18—25; UG 8). Jesus is born in Bethlehem, and the Magi come to worship him (Mt 2:1—12; UG 14). Jesus’ family flees to Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod (Mt 2:13—15; UG 15). The massacre of the innocent takes place near Bethlehem (Mt 2:16—18; UG 16). The holy family returns from Egypt and settles in Nazareth (Mt 2:19—23; UG 17).

According to Luke, things happened as follows:

Gabriel announces the birth of Jesus to Mary (Lk 1:26—38; UG 4). Joseph takes his pregnant wife from Nazareth to Bethlehem to participate in the census; Jesus is born (Lk 2:1—7; UG 9). The angel announces the birth of Jesus to the shepherds (Lk 2:8—14; UG 10). The shepherds come to worship Jesus (Lk 2:15—20; UG 11). Jesus is circumcised and named Jesus (Lk 2:21; UG 12). The days of purification; Jesus is brought to the temple (Lk 2:22—38; UG 13). Jesus’ family returns to Nazareth (Lk 2:39; UG 17).

In Matthew, the birth of Jesus is announced to Joseph by the angel of the Lord, but in Luke, the prophecy of Jesus’ birth is announced to Mary by the archangel Gabriel. These are two different annunciations, separated by some time. First, Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced to her that she would conceive from the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:26—38; UG 4). Then she became pregnant, and Joseph found out about it. Next, the angel of the Lord, most likely Gabriel, appeared to Joseph to announce the birth of Jesus and encourage him to accept Mary and her son (Mt 1:18—25; UG 8).

Luke describes Jesus’ family traveling from Nazareth to Bethlehem to participate in the census, and then Mary gives birth to Jesus (Lk 2:1—7; UG 9). Matthew does not give us much detail about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (Mt 2:1). Here we see the agreement between the two Gospels.

The subsequent narratives in Matthew and Luke split ways, but they can, nevertheless, be connected by putting the events in chronological order:

The angel announces the birth of Jesus to the shepherds (Lk 2:8—14; UG 10). The shepherds worship Jesus (Lk 2:15—20; UG 11). Jesus is circumcised and named Jesus (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:21; UG 12). The days of purification; Jesus is brought to the temple (Lk 2:22—38; UG 13). The Magi worship Jesus (Mt 2:1—12; UG 14). Jesus’ family flees to Egypt (Mt 2:13—15; UG 15). The massacre of the innocent (Mt 2:16—18; UG 16). Return from Egypt, settling in Nazareth (Mt 2:19—23; Lk 2:39; UG 17).

If you read only Luke’s Gospel, you might get the impression that Jesus’ family went straight from Jerusalem to Nazareth. Matthew, however, says that they first went to Egypt. This seeming contradiction can be explained as follows. Luke writes, «And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth» (Lk 2:39). Matthew talks about the flight to Egypt as a means of fulfilling the prophecy of Scripture: «That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, out of Egypt have I called my son» (Mt 2:15; compare Hos 11:1). We may well regard the expression «according to the law of the Lord» as «fulfilling the prophecy of the law of the Lord (Scripture)». So, we can easily harmonize these two episodes.

The Twelve

Three out of four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, describe the calling of the Twelve by Jesus. The names of the apostles appear in a somewhat different order in each Gospel.

Matthew: «Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him» (Mt 10:2—4).

Mark: «And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: And Simon he surnamed Peter; And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him» (Mk 3:14—19).

Luke: «And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother [son – note. V.S.] of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor» (Lk 6:13—16).

Let’s put together a harmonized list of the names of the Twelve:

1. Simon (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:42), the Rock (Mt 16:18; Jn 1:42), or Cephas in Aramaic (Jn 1:42), Peter in Greek (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:42). Son of Jonah (Mt 16:17; Jn 1:42), brother of Andrew (Mt 10:2; Mk 1:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:40). The third disciple of Jesus (Jn 1:35—40). Born in Bethsaida (Jn 1:44). Married (Mt 8:14; Mk 1:30; Lk 4:38; 1 Cor 9:5), had children (Clement of Alexandria. Stromata, 3.6.52).

2. Andrew [the First-Called] (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). Son of Jonah (Mt 16:17; Jn 1:42), brother of Simon Peter (Mt 10:2; Mk 1:16; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:40). Jesus’ first disciple (Jn 1:35—40). Born in Bethsaida (Jn 1:44).

3. James (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17; Lk 6:14). Son of Zebedee (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17; Lk 5:10; Jn 21:2), brother of John (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17). Both brothers were also called Boanerges, «sons of thunder» (Mk 3:17). The fifth or sixth disciple of Jesus (Mt 4:18—22; Mk 1:16—20; Lk 5:1—11). Born in Galilee (Mt 4:18—22; Mk 1:16—20; Lk 5:1—11).

4. John [the Theologian] (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17; Lk 6:14). Son of Zebedee (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17; Lk 5:10; Jn 21:2), brother of James (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:17). Both brothers were also called Boanerges, «sons of thunder» (Mk 3:17). The fifth or sixth disciple of Jesus (Mt 4:18—22; Mk 1:16—20; Lk 5:1—11). Born in Galilee (Mt 4:18—22; Mk 1:16—20; Lk 5:1—11).

5. Philip (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14; Jn 1:43). The second disciple of Jesus (Jn 1:35—43). Born in Bethsaida (Jn 1:44). Had daughters (Act 21:8—9; Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History, 3.31.3).

6. Nathanael (Jn 1:45—50; 21:2), also known as Bartholomew (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:14). Son of Talmai [Tholmai] (Aram. «bar Talamai» = «son of Talmai»). The fourth disciple of Jesus (Jn 1:43—51). Born in Cana of Galilee (Jn 21:2).

7. Thomas (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Jn 11:16), also called the Twin [Hebrew: Thoma; Greek: Didymos] (Jn 11:16). Probably born in Galilee (Jn 21:1—2).

8. Levi (Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27) Matthew (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), formerly a tax collector (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27). Son of Alphaeus (Mk 2:14). The seventh disciple of Jesus (Mt 9:9—13; Mk 2:13—17; Lk 5:27—32). Originally from Capernaum (Mt 8—9; Mk 2).

9. James of Alphaeus (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), also called James the Less (Mk 15:40). Son of «the other» Alphaeus [not to be confused with Levi Matthew’s father] and «the other» Mary; he had a brother named Josiah (Mt 27:56, 61; Mk 15:40, 47). Probably a cousin of Jesus (Mk 6:3; Jm). Born in Galilee (Mt 27:55—56; Mk 15:40—41).

10. Jude (Lk 6:16; Jn 14:22) Levi (Mt 10:3), also called Thaddeus (Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18). Son of Jacob [in some translations: brother of Jacob] (Lk 6:16; Act 1:13). Probably a cousin of Jesus (Mk 6:3; Jude). Probably born in Galilee.

11. Simon the Canaanite (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15), named Zealot (Lk 6:15). Probably a cousin of Jesus (Mk 6:3). Probably born in Galilee.

12. Judas Iscariot (Mt 10:4; Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16; Jn 6:71), who became a traitor. Son of Simon (Jn 6:71). Born in the suburbs of Jerusalem (Heb. «ish-keriyot» = «a man from the outskirts of the city»).

Generally, the lists given by the evangelists agree between each other, but we also have to take into account the fact that some of the apostles had double names.

The legion of demons

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain an account of the demon-possessed man healed by Jesus near the Lake of Gennesaret (Mt 8:28—34; Mk 5:1—21; Lk 8:26—39; UG 66). Each Gospel gives different details about this episode. Let us first consider similarities between them.

These events take place after the taming of the storm on the Lake of Gennesaret (Mt 8:18—27; Mk 4:35—41; Lk 8:22—25; UG 65). The episode takes place on the opposite shore from Galilee, in the country of the Gadarenes, or Gergesenes (Mt 8:28; Mk 5:1; Lk 8:26). In this area, there were mountains with cave tombs that were used by the demon possessed men and women as shelters (Mt 8:28, 32; Mk 5:2, 13; Lk 8:27, 33). Jesus healed the man by casting out the demons and sending them into the pigs. The pigs threw themselves into the lake (Mt 8:30—32; Mk 5:11—13; Lk 8:32—33). Obviously, it is one and the same event.

Matthew tells the story in brief, mentioning two demoniacs (Mt 8:28) healed by Jesus. Mark and Luke give more detail but mention only one man possessed by many demons (Mk 5:2; Lk 8:27). According to Mark and Luke, there was a legion of demons (Mk 5:9; Lk 8:30). Mark goes on to say that the number of demons was about two thousand (Mk 5:13). Considering that a Roman legion consisted of 2,000 to 10,000 infantrymen, it is no exaggeration. However, Mark and Luke seem to disagree with Matthew’s statement about the two demoniacs.

The principle of harmonization says that the resulting text should not contradict any of the Gospels. Since Matthew was one of the Twelve and most likely an eyewitness to what happened, we can fully trust his account of the two demoniacs without raising questions. Matthew does not mention the legion of demons or their number. But he says that the exorcised demons were sent into a large herd of pigs (Mt 8:30; compare Lk 8:32). Here he comes close to Mark and Luke.

According to Mark and Luke, there was only one demoniac who approached Jesus. There was a legion of demons speaking through him (Mk 5:12; Lk 8:31). From Matthew’s account, one can infer that the legion of demons spoke to Jesus all at once (Mt 8:29, 31). Again, we see that the accounts come quite close to each other.

Could it be that Mark and Luke mentioned only one demoniac because only one approached Jesus, or maybe because he was more ferocious than the other one or had more demons? Possibly. But it doesn’t seem to be the main reason. The clue seems to appear at the end of Mark and Luke’s accounts where only one of the healed returned to thank Jesus and asked if he could follow him. When Jesus said no, he went off and started talking about what had happened (Mk 5:18—20; Lk 8:38—39).

From this perspective, the differences in the accounts of the evangelists seem negligible.

The withered fig tree

On Monday of Holy Week, Jesus was hungry and, coming up to a fig tree and finding no fruit, cursed it (Mt 21:18—22; Mk 11:12—14, 11:20—26; UG 143, 145). According to Matthew, the fig tree withered immediately (Mt 21:19). Then he says, «And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!» (Mt 21:20). In Mark, the apostles found the fig tree withered only on the following morning (Mk 11:20). Is there an irreconcilable contradiction here?

Since Mark specifies the moment of discovering the withered fig tree precisely (Mk 11:20) and Matthew is vague (Mt 21:20), it would make sense to give preference to Mark’s version here. As to the actual time the fig tree withered, Matthew seems more accurate (Mt 21:19) while Mark only mentions that the disciples heard the curse (Mk 11:14).

We might speculate that the fig tree withered soon after Jesus had cursed it, but the disciples only saw it the next day. In this case, the apparent contradiction is removed.

Generally, the two evangelists present their narratives differently. Mark relates the story in chronological order, capturing Peter’s memories in exact detail. Matthew tells the fig tree story in the form of a parable, alluding to Luke’s parable of the barren fig tree (Lk 13:6—9; UG 113). That is why Matthew presents the episode as a whole, while Mark divides it up into two parts with the story of the temple cleansing stuck in between (Mk 11:15—19; compare Mt 21:12—17; Lk 19:45—46; UG 144). Matthew places the fig tree account after the account of driving out the merchants because the ending of the fig tree story happened after it. This may give the impression that Jesus first drove out the merchants and then cursed the fig tree, but in Mark, the cursing of the fig tree preceded the cleansing of the temple. This «inconsistency» can be explained by Matthew’s desire to present the story in the form of a parable.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.