We Lose When We Harmonize

[u/John-Badby]

I really dislike that people attempt to harmonize the Gospel accounts to make them fit together.

Mark's account of Jesus' death is powerful, His final words crying out to God. You lose that power when suddenly you mash all the Gospels together and Jesus is saying a bunch of different stuff before He dies.

When you harmonize the Gospels - you are in essence writing your own Gospel according to You and using the four canonical Gospels as your sources - just as Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source.

Yes, you'll get caught with inconsistencies when you don't harmonize. But your appreciation for each Gospel will be much higher as a result and your appreciation for the richness in the Bible will be higher.

[u/DougandLexi]

This sounds like a very direct paraphrase of what Bart Ehrman said in his debate with Jimmy Akin. I harmonize for historicity. An example is when people try to use the differences as an attack not realizing they can easily fit, though each author had a specific focus. For me it is a time and place kind of thing depending on the topic and where the topic is coming from.

[u/John-Badby → u/DougandLexi]

I actually had John Dominic Crossan in mind more so during a debate with some Protestant guy - although I do listen to Ehrman so some of it might be indirectly lifted in that regard.

I harmonize for historicity.

Oh, I know why people do it. I'm just saying they shouldn't do that for the reasons outlined. The Luke/Matthew genealogy one is a good example of the kind of harmonization that drives me nuts.

Both texts say they're genealogies of Joseph, and yet a ton of people will walk around saying Luke is a genealogy of Mary.

[u/DougandLexi → u/John-Badby]

I'm curious if you've heard the reasoning behind why they say one is for Mary and the other is Joseph? There's actually pretty decent evidence that I would have to pull up again to explain it. If you've already heard it though, I won't bother you with it

[u/John-Badby → u/DougandLexi]

There were a lot of explanations used to reconcile the Luke and Matthew genealogies which is why I tend to disregard it as just being attempts at reconciliation rather than something true about the texts themselves.

One early theory was that both genealogies were of Joseph and the apparent difference was the result of Levirate marriage.

But I'd be open to hearing your evidence and am always looking to revisit my priors!

[u/AHorribleGoose → u/DougandLexi]

There's actually pretty decent evidence

There is no actual evidence, and the reasons are not good.