Complete Internal Harmony

2. Another favorite charge made against these writers is, that they are often hopelessly inconsistent with one another in their statements; and this charge of disharmony has sometimes been pushed so far as to make it do duty even against their historical credibility. But when we begin to examine the instances brought forward in support of it, they are found to be cases of dij-Jicult, not of impossible, harmony. And it is abundantly plain that it must be shown to be impossible to harmonize any two statements on any natural supposition before they can be asserted to be inconsistent. This is a recognized principle of historical investigation, and it is the only reasonable principle possible, unless we are prepared to assert that the two statements necessarily contain all the facts of the case and exclude the possibility of the harqnoted from the Old Testament — e.g. Gomorrah, *Eama, *Sarepta, *Shechem, Also some other geographical names — *The brook Kedron, *Jordan, the Mount of Olives and the Sea of Galilee, etc. monizing supposition. Having our eyes upon this principle, it is not rash to declare that no disharmony has ever been proved between any two statements of the New Testament. The best examples to illustrate the character “of the attempts made to exhibit disharmony, and the rocks on which these attempts always break, are probably those five striking cases on which Dr. Fisher most wisely rests his charge against the complete harmony of the four evangelists — viz. the alleged disharmony in the accounts of the place and phraseology of the Sermon on the Mount, the healing of the centurion’s son, the denials of Peter, the healing of the blind man, at Jericho, and the time of the institution of the Lord’s Supper.* But that in each of these most natural means of harmonizing exist, and are even in some instances recognized as possible by Dr. Fisher himself. President Bartlett has lately so fully shown in detail f that we cannot bring ourselves to repeat here the oft-told tale. Take one or two other examples: for instance, look at that famous case alleged in the specification of the hour in John xix. 14 and Mark XV. 25. The difficulty here, says Dean Alford, b insuperable, and with him Meyer et at. agree,

* Beginnings of Christianity, p. 460 sj.

f Princeton Review, January, 1880, p. 47 sq.

But even Strauss admits that it would be cancelled “if it were possible to prove that the Fourth Gospel proceeds upon another mode of reckoning time than that used by the Synoptics.” And that it is possible to prove this very thing any one can satisfy himself by noting the four places where John mentions the hour (i. 39; iv. 6, 52; xix. 14); whence it emerges that John reckons his hours according to the method prevalent in Asia Minor* — from midnight, and not from daybreak. Thus all difficulty vanishes.f The disharmony claimed to exist between Matt. xxvii. 6-8 and Acts i. 18, 19 is also voided by a naive kind of admission; Dean Alford, for instance, asserting in one breath that no reconciliation can be found consistent with common honesty, and in the next admitting that the natural supposition by which the passages are harmonized is “of course possible.” This admission, on the recognized principles of historical criticism, amounts simply to a confession at

* That this was the custom in Asia Minor is evident from Marturium Polyc, c. 21, etc Cf. also (in general) Pliny, Nat. Hist., ii. 77, and Plutarch, Quaest Bom.^ lxxxiii.

t Cf.Townson’s Discourses, Discourse 8; McClelland’s N. T., vol. i., p. 737 sg.; Westcott on John, p. 282; Lee on Inspiration, p. 352; where this subject is fully discussed. no disharmony ought to be asserted in the case.

Perhaps, however, the two most important and far-reaching instances of disharraouy alleged of late years are — that asserted between the narratives of the events preceding, accompanying and following the birth of our Lord given by Matthew and Luke, which is said to prove the historical untrustworthiness of both (!) narratives; and that asserted between the accounts of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem and his relations to the Twelve in Acts and Galatians, which is said to prove the unhistorical character of Acts. In the brief space at our disposal it is not possible to disprove such wholesale charges in detail. It must suffice, therefore, to point out the lines on which such a refutation proceeds. In the first instance the charge can be upheld only by the expedient of assuming that silence as to an event constitutes denial of that event, supported by criticisms which tacitly deny a historian’s right to give summary accounts of transactions or choose his incidents according to his purpose in writing. Any careful examination of the passages involved will prove not only that they are not inconsistent, but rather mutually supplementary accounts; * but also that they actually imply

* The events recorded by Luke are — 1. Annunciation 2)nf another, and prove the truth of each other by a series of striking undesigned coincidences.*

to Zachariah; 2. Annunciation to Marj (in the sixth nionth thereafter); 3. Mary’s visit to Elizabeth (extending to three months later); 4. Birth of John (after 3); 5. His circumcision (eight days after 4); 6. Journey of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (“in those days”);

7. Birth of Jesus (while at Bethlehem); 8. Annunciation to the shepherds (the same day); 9. Visit of the shepherds (hastening); 10. Circumcision of Jesus (eight days after); 11. Presentation (thirty-three days later); 12. Return to Nazareth (when all legal duties were performed). The events recorded by Matthew are — A. Mary is found with child (before she is taken to Joseph’s house); B. Annunciation to Joseph; C. Mary is taken home by Joseph; D. Visit of the Magi (after Jesus* birth at Bethlehem); E. Flight into Egypt (after their departure); F. Slaughter of the innocents (when Herod had discovered that the wise men had gone); G. Death of Herod; H. Return from Egypt to Nazareth (after Herod’s death). These events dovetail beautifullyinto one another, as follows; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, A, B, C, 6, 7,

8, 9, 10, 11, D [12 (E, F, G, H)]. It is only necessary to assume that 12 includes E, F, G and H compend-

‘ously, and all goes most smoothly. Other arrangements are also possible — «. g. the first half may b varied to I, 2, A, B, C, 3, 4, 5, 6, or to 1, 2, A, 3, B, C, 4, 5, 6; and the second half to 9, 10, D, 11 [12 — (E, F, G, H)], or even to 9, 10, D, E, F, G, half H, 11, half H — 12. lu the face of so many possible harmonizations it certainly cannot be asserted that harmony is impossible.

* Thus the account in the one of the annunciation to And when it is added that the choice of the material which each writer has made can in each incident be shown to have arisen directly out of the purpose of the writer, it may be seen what a load the assertion of disharmony must carry.

Joseph, and that in the other of that to Mary, which are often said to be irreconcilable with one another, actually prove each other’s truth. Both assume exactly the same facts at their bases — viz. that Mary conceived a child snpernaturaliy, and remained a virgin while becoming a mother. Moreover, if Luke’s narrative be true, then something like what Matthew records must have happened; and if Matthew’s be true, something like what Luke records must have happened. Two things needed explanation: why Mary was not crazed at finding herself so strangely with child, and how Joseph, being a just man, could have taken her, in that condition, to wife. Luke’s narrative explains the first, but leaves the other unexplained; Matthew’s explains the second, but leaves the first unexplained. It is admitted that there was no collusion here. How does it happen, then, that the two so imply one another? Again, Matthew doe? not mention where Jesus’ parents lived before his birth, but only states that after that birth they intended to live in Bethlehem, and, after having been deterred from that, chose Nazareth. Now, why this strange choice? Luke, and Luke alone, supplies the reason: Nazareth was their old home. Still, again, that Luke calls Mary Joseph’s “betrothed” in ii. 5 is not only remarkable, but totally inexplicable from Luke: we can only understand it when we revert

The asserted contradiction between Acts and Galatians is already crumbling of its own weight. Thus Keim, certainly no very “apologetic” critic, has shown very clearly that the passage in Galatians has suffered much eis-egesis in order to make out the disharmony,* and sober criticism will judge that even he has done inadequate justice to the subject. We cannot enter into details in 80 broad a question: it will be sufficient, however, to call attention to the fact that no disharmony can be made out unless — (1) Violence be done to the context in Galatians, where Paul professes to be giving an exhaustive account, not of his visits to Jerusalem, btU of his opportunities to learn from the apostles. Any visit undertaken at such a time as to furnish no such opportunity (and Acts xii. was such) ought, therefore, to have been omitted. (2) Convenient forgetfulness be exercised of the fact that while the context shows that Paul uses “apostles” in the narrow sense in Gal i. 19, yet this is not true of Acts ix. 27; but, as Luke’s usage shows, the contrary may very well be true (Acts xiv. 4, 14). So that it is in no sense inconsistent for Paul to say that he saw but one apostle, and

to Matt. i. 25 and the preceding verses. These are but samples.

* In Aus der Urchristenthum (1878).

IKSPrRATION. ^1

Luke that he saw several. (3) Misuuderstanding be fallen into as to the nature of the “decree” of Acts XV. 20, and its binding force to churches not yet formed and not parties to the compromise. (4) Misrepresentation be ventured as to the testimony of Galatians as to Paul’s relations to the Twelve, which Paul represents to have been most pleasant (Gal. ii. 3, 7-10), but which are made out to have been unpleasant through misinterpretation of phrases in Gal. il 2j 3, 4, 6, 9, etc. (5) Incredible pressure of the detailed language of both Galatians and Acts be indulged in. (6) And, finally, a tacit denial be made of the possibility of truth subsisting through differences in choice of incidents arising from the diverse points of view of the two writers. In other words, an unbiased comparison of the two accounts brings out forcibly the fact that there is no disharmony between them at all. Taking these examples as samples (and they are certainly fair samples), it is as clear as daylight that no single case has as yet been adduced where disharmony is a necessary conclusion. Therefore all charges irom this side fall to the ground. 9