Yesterday I wrote of my work at harmonizing the four canonical gospels, a work I began some years ago and completed in manuscript in 2006. I’m typing it now, being within a week of having the basic document typed. After that will come adding passage headings from the NIV, adding the NIV footnotes (I’ve done some of that as I’ve typed, and some even in mss), and adding some chapter headings. Since the Harmony brings together gospels with 28, 16, 24, and 21 chapters, I need to create some kind of chapter designations that works for the whole.

After that I will have to dig into some pesky, troubling areas that I put off when doing the original writing. These are some things where the gospels are so different, or seem to have a different time line, and blending them is impossible. I did not find many situations like that, but there are a few. These will require thought to make final, and will need an appendix to explain my thought process.

Actually, I will have several other appendixes to explain thought processes. An example of one is how to deal with the calling of the first disciples: Andrew, Peter, James, and John. If you have a study Bible that, under the passage headings, lists where the same passage may be found in other gospels, as you read Matthew 4:18-22, you will likely see a reference to Mark 1:16-20, Luke 5:1-11, and John 1:35-50 (or maybe just 35-42). But are these the same event? A careful reading of the four gospels together, as an overlapping panorama (as my friend Gary described it) suggests that these are three events.

It seems John’s event comes first. The correct sequence of events in Jesus’ adult life seems to be as follows. John the Baptist’s ministry is described, Jesus is baptized, Jesus goes into the desert and is tempted, then Jesus returns to where John is baptizing and John points to Him as the one everyone should follow (John 1:29-34). In fact, Jesus did not ask anyone to follow Him at this point. John’s disciples began going over to Him, including Andrew, and Andrew went and fetched Peter. [I may blog on this in a few days.] After this, Jesus: goes to Cana and performs the miracle of the wine (Jn 2:1-11); goes to Capernaum then on to Jerusalem for a Passover where he cleanses the temple (Jn 2:1-17), teaches (Jn 2:18-22), does some miracles (Jn 2:23-25), and teaches Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21); then goes to the Judean countryside and baptizes (Jn 3:22-4:2); then goes through Samaria and has encounters with Samaritans and disciples (Jn 4:3-42); then goes to Cana again, from where he remotely heals an official’s son in Capernaum (Jn 4:43-54); then goes to Nazareth where he is rejected for the first time (Luke 4:14-30); then goes to Capernaum where he begins to preach and teach and heal (Mt 4:12-17, Lk 4:31-44).

At this point he calls Peter, Andrew, James, and John to follow him. We find this in Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20. These two accounts are remarkably similar, having only minor differences in wording and detail. Many people believe what Luke writes about in Chapter 5 is the same event. But I have come to the conclusion it is not. Unfortunately, I’m a bit long already for this post. Let me leave this thought hanging for now, that is why I believe these are different events, and I will address it in the next post, either later today or perhaps tomorrow.

Can the four gospels be harmonized? I’ve been working at it for some time, maybe four years or longer. I began and made it a good distance, then put it aside to pursue other writing ventures, then picked it up again and completed it in mid-2006. That was all in manuscript, in three steno notebooks. My method was to take the passage, write in the notebook a verse or two from each gospel that had it, and see how I could blend the language to make one account of the event. I started with the triumphal entry, since this was covered by all four gospels, then went to the end, back to the beginning, and eventually circled round to the triumphal entry.

As I worked on this, my method changed some. The longer I worked the better job I did explaining why I decided to write what I wrote. Some of my early work is now difficult to follow.

My goal is to have one gospel, as seamless as possible. In this my approach differs from most harmonies of the gospels that I see. All of those are merely listing of parallel passages next to each other, with no real attempt to harmonize the accounts. At most they try to figure out a timeline for the events. I have two printed harmonies of this nature, and have found several on-line.

Mine will not be for publication, since I’m using the New International Version as my base, and that is copyrighted. This is for my own study, edification, and enjoyment. It seems a worthwhile project, and I’ve learned much.

Can the gospels be harmonized? Should the gospels be harmonized? I have talked with some who think not. The gospels are not history, they say, but rather spiritual writings and so should be treated as such, and don’t need harmonizing. However, I plug on, now finally typing what I wrote previously. Last night I worked for more than an hour, adding headings and footnotes to the part corresponding to Matthew 4, Mark 1, and Luke 4-5. Then I went to the end of where I’d finished typing before Christmas and typed more, completing the Garden of Gethsemane event. I’ve probably got 10 hours of original typing left, then much time to add footnotes, proof-read, and write appendixes explaining a number of decisions I made along the way.

Can the four gospels be harmonized? What about a life pulled in four (or more) directions? Can it be harmonized? Or must the number of parts be reduced from quartet to trio? These pages must tell.