II. Harmonies in Parallel Arrangement

Arrangement: The oldest precursor of modern harmonies in the form of three- or fourfold arrangement is the

1. Ammonius and Augustine.

work of Ammonius of Alexandria (q.v.), who published an edition of the Gospel of Matthew, on the margin of which he noted the relation of the other Gospels to Matthew. According to his own statement, this work induced Eusebius to write a similar one, but on a different method. He divided the four Gospels into sections (perikopai or kephalaia), assigning to

Matthew 355 sections, to Mark 233, to Luke 342, and to John 232. Beside each number Eusebius added in red ink a second number that referred to the canons or tables in front of the work, of which he had made ten for the purpose of finding the parallel or related passages. The first canon contained the numbers of those sections for which Eusebius found parallels in all four Gospels; the second the parallels in Matthew, Mark, Luke; the third those in Matthew, Luke, John; the fourth those in Matthew, Mark, John; the fifth those in Matthew, Luke; the sixth those in Matthew, Mark; the seventh those in Matthew, John; the eighth those in Luke, Mark; the ninth those in Luke, John; the tenth the pericopes in each Gospel without parallels in the others. If one looked in this canon for the respective number of the section, he found parallel to it the number of the related section from the other Gospels. Augustine's De conaensu evangelistarum ltbri quattuor had chiefly an apologetical and harmonistic purpose, but it was used as a text of the Gospels, revised by Jerome, and was provided with the sections and canons of Eusebius. From Augustine until J. Clericus' (Le Clerc) Harmonia evangelicd (Amsterdam, 1699), the material of the Gospels was treated preponderatingly from the view-point of the interwoven narrative.

2. Clericus and the Griesbach School

Clericus was the first in whom the interest in the fourfold or comparative arrangement became distinctly prominent. Another work representing the transition from the interwoven Gospels to the fourfold arrangement was by Nicolas Toinard, School. Evangeliorum Harmortia Grteco-Latino

(Paris, 1707), which, although compiled for chronological and historiographical purposes, gives so much attention to the comparative presentation of the texts that one is reminded of Rushbrooke (see below). The first real parallel arrangement is that of J. J. Griesbaeh-Synopsis evangeliorum (Halle, 1776, and often), which grew out of the need for a proper basis for exegetical lectures on the Gospels. Griesbach felt that if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were interpreted in their order, many repetitions would be necessary; while, on the other hand, many peculiarities of Mark and Luke would be unconsidered if, after the interpretation of Matthew, there were treated only that material from the second and third Gospels which is not contained in Matthew; and, further, that it was not sufficient to interpret only one of the three Gospels. Therefore he printed the text of the first three Evangelists in such a way that the common subjects stood side by side and the parallels could be at once considered. He did not include the fourth Gospel in this arrangement. The work of Griesbach became the norm for the following time. Anger in his Synopsis evangeliorum Matthcei, Marci, Lucw (Leipsic, 1852) made a valuable addition by including parallels from the Apocryphal Gospels. Other synoptical works are: G. M. L. de Wette and F. Likcke, Synopsis ewngeliorum (Berlin, 1818, 2d ed., 1842; on the basis of Griesbach); J. Gehringer, Synoptische Zusammenstellung les griechischen Textea der vwr Evangelien (Tübingen, 1842); J. H. Friedlieb, Qttatuor evangelia sacra in harmonium redacts

155

(Wratidaw, 1847); Tischendorf, Synopsis evtcn gelica (Leipsic, 1851, 7th ed., 1898). A step in advance was made by W. G. Rushbrooke in Synoptieon. An Exposition of the Common Matter of the Synoptic Gospels (London, 3. Rush- 1880-82). In order to facilitate the brooks criticism and analysis of the Synoptic and Later Gospels, he presents the common Httrmonists. material of the three Synoptists in three columns and distinguishes by types and colored print (1) the material common to all three Evangelists; (2) the parts which each of them has in common with another; (3) the text peculiar to each one. Where John or Paul offer real parallels to the synoptical tradition, their material is also given. The text of Mark is used as the basis without deviation from its order. Since in this way the material common only to Matthew and Luke and the singular tradition of the first and third Synoptists are left out of consideration, there are added three appendixes: (1) the double tradition of Matthew and Luke; (2) the single tradition of Matthew; (3) the single tradition of Luke. This arrangement brings out (1) Mark as the source of historical tradition; (2) the fact of a second body of tradition, the collection of sayings. Moreover, material peculiar to Matthew and Luke becomes more prominent, and the points of agreement and discrepancy of the traditional synoptic text is well presented to the eye by differences in print. A second English work by A. Wright, A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek (London, 1896, enlarged ed., 1903), combines with the representation of the material discussions of the sources. Rushbrooke's method was followed by R. Heineke, Synopse der drei eraten kanonischen Evangelim (3 parts, Giessen, 1898). Other works of the same kind are A. Huck, Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien (Freiburg, 1892, 3d ed., Tübingen, 1906), and K. Veit, Die synop tischen Parallelen (Gütersloh, 1897). A harmony, to satisfy modern scientific needs, should present the entire material of the Synoptics in an arrange ment like that of Rushbrooke or Heineke, and should include full critical apparatus. (P. FEINE.) Besides the works mentioned in the text, a number of others modeled on the same general principles have by their usefulness merited mention here. Such are: J. Macknight, A Harmony of the Four Gospels . . . with a Paraphrase and Notes, 2 vols., London, 1756, and often; W. Newcome, An Harmony of the Gospels, 2 parts, Dublin, 1778 (in Greek, includes many of Wetstein's variant readings); M. R6diger, Synopsis evangeliorum Matthod. Marci et Lucas cum Joannis pericopis parallelis, Halle, 1829; E. Greswell, Harmonia evangelica, sive quatuor evangelic Gram, Oxford, 1830, and often; E. Robinson, Harmony of the Gospels in Greek . with the Various Readings of Knapp, Andover, 1834, on the basis of Hahn's text, Boston, 1845, and often (after Clericus and Newoome); idem, Harmony of the Gospels in English, new ed., ib. 1889; 1. Da Costa, The Four Witnesses, Being a Harmony of the Gospels on a New Principle, London, 1851; J. Strong, New Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels . a Parallel and Combined Arrangement, according to the Au thorized Translation, New York, 1852; idem, Harmony of the Gospels, in Greek, of the Received Text, ib. 1854; W. Stroud, A New Greek Harmony of the Four Gospels, Compri sing a Synopsis and a Diatessaron, together with an Introduc tory True, Tables and Indexes and Diagrams, London, 1853; F. Gardiner, Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek according to the Text of Tischendorf, Andover, 1871, 1876; idem, Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, idem, 1871;

G. Clark, New Harhwhy of the Four Gospels in English, New York, 1870, new ed., Philadelphia, 1892; J. A. Broadue, Harmony of the Gospels in The Revised Version, New York, 1893; w. A. Stevens and E. D. Burton, Harmony of the Gospels . . . in the Version of 1881, Boston, 1894, new ed. 1904.

Bibliography: E. Greswell. Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of an Harmony of the Gospels, 4 vols., Oxford, 1837; T. Zahn, Forschungen our Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vols. i.-iv., Erlangen, 1881-91; idem, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols., Leipsic, 189092; J. w. Burson, Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark, pp. 126-131, 295-312, London, 1871; G. Phillips, Doctrine of Addai, London, 1876; F. Baethgen, Evangelienfrapmente, pp. 62 sqq., Berlin, 1886; E. Sievers, Tatian, Paderborn, 1892; J. H. Hill, Dissertation on the Commentary of Ephraem the Syrian, Edinburgh, 1896; C. Holzhey, Neuentdeckte Syrus Sinaiticus, pp. 42 sqq., Munich, 1896; J. A. Schmeller, Am»wnii . . . harmonic Evangeliorum, Vienna, 1841; G. J. Meijer, Het Leven van Jesus, Groningen, 1838 (cf. A. Robinson, in Academy, Mar. 24, 1894); J. Gildemeieter, De evangeliis in Arabicum de aimplici Syriaw dranslatis, p. 35, Bonn, 1865; Magister de Hussinets (John Huss), Historic gestorum Christi, ed. Lsndstroem, Upsala, 1898; C. A. Briggs,. New Light on the Life of Jesus, New York, 1904 (discusses the principles of a harmony). A full bibliography on the Diatesssron of Tatian will be found under Tatian. The separate works on the subject usually discuss the principles upon which a harmony is to be constructed, and the same is often done in works on the life of Christ.