2 INTRODUCTION TO THE HARMONY CHAP. I.
How the object in question is to be accomplished, and on what principles a sound Gospel
Harmony should be constructed, Professor Ebrard in his admirable work on the Evangelic
HistoryI) as well as in a treatise contributed to Herzog's Theological Real-Encyclopaedia
("Harmonie der Evangelien"), has shown in a most ingenious way. And we here desire to
acknowledge once for all our deep obligation to that distinguished Author for the clear light he
has thrown on the subject, and to state that, as far as the harmonization of Matth. 4. I8-2I. I
and the corresponding parts in Mark and Luke are concerned, our results, with but a few slight
deviations, are simply the fruit of his researches. His "akoluthistic" principles are the following: -
I. Setting aside mere conjectures, we strictly keep to given dates i.e. going through each
Gospel separately, we carefully examine, by what connecting formula the Evangelist joins event
to event. A close investigation will show us, that the various shades of Connectives, employed
in arranging the text, may judiciously be reduced to the following three kinds:2)
a. Direct Connectives, positively stating the immediate succession of event b after event a.
b. Indirect Connectives, .i. e. formulae, which although they clearly state incident b to
have occurred after incident a, yet from a certain indefiniteness and vagueness admit of the
possibility of some other transaction or transactions to lie between a and b.
c. Loose Connectives, either merely connecting without denoting time, or leaving the
question of sequence and precedence undecided, or clearly indicating a break in the previous
chain of consecutive events.
Connectives of the first class (a) are found Matth. 5. I; 8. I; Mark I. 29, 35; Luke 4. 38, 42 etc.
To the second Class (b) belong: Matth. 8. 5, I4; Mark 6. I, 30; Luke 5. 27; 7. I etc.
None of these and many similar connecting formulae compel us to suppose, that the two incidents,
between which they are placed, followed one another immediately.
For Connectives of the third class (c) we refer to Matth. 4. 23; 9. 35; Mark I. 40; 2. I, I3;
Luke 5. I, I2; 6. I, 6 etc.
2. As a result of this marked attention to the comparative closeness or looseness of every
single Connective, the contents of each Gospel will now group themselves in a manner quite new
and independent of the usual division of Chapters. That is to say, according to the nature of
the Connective, we shall obtain either a series of single events, alkoluthistically unconnected with
each other, or whole Chains of consecutive events, varying in length and continuing until the
appearance of a Connective of the third class clearly denotes an interruption of the order of
succession. A glance at the Tabular Synopsis at the end of this Chapter will best show what
we mean.
3. The task of comparing and placing side by side identical events in Matth., Mark and
Luke, ranged in sometimes quite different Chains, will then lead us to the formation of so-called
Compound-Chains. For instance, the incidents m, n, q, r may form a Chain in Matthew. In
Mark the items m, n and q may either not exist at all, or may be found as unconnected events,
in which case they are irrelevant to the question of sequence. Mark however commences a Chain of
his own with incident r, succeeded by o and t, and in addition hereto we might either in Luke or
again in Matth. find a Chain connecting the events t, p, l, w. In such a case these three
Chains would form a "Compound-Chain," composed of
Events:
| Matthew | m | ||
| n | |||
| q | |||
| r | r | Mark | |
| o | |||
| Luke | t | t | |
| p | |||
| l | |||
| w |
1) Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte, von J. H. A, Ebrard, Doktor u, ord. Professor
der Theologie in Erlangen. ... 2. Aufl. Erlangen, 1850.
2) Prof. Ebrard distinguishes five kinds of Connectives, which we have allowed to mergo into three, a mo-
dification, which, wo trust, has secured greater perspicuity without injury to the principle itself.
