Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.12: Concerning the words ascribed to John the Baptist

 

Notes:

In this episode, we are looking at Book 2, chapter 12 where Augustine addresses issues related to the veracity of the Gospel records in reporting the recorded speech of John the Baptist.

2.12: Concerning the words ascribed to John by all four of the evangelists respectively.

Augustine here investigates how the reader might understand statements attributed to John the Baptist in each Gospel respectively, while harmonizing such statements overall as they appear throughout all four Gospels. How does one, in particular, understand statements attributed to John that seem to differ from one account to another? This discussion might be described as addressing the question of whether the evangelists reported the ipsissima verba (the very words), in this case of John the Baptist, or the ipsissima vox (the very voice, but not the exact words).

Augustine begins with a discussion of how one differentiates and recognizes direct quotation of speech. How does one distinguish between something Matthew says and something John says when the text does not use some clear grammatical indicator of direct quotations. He gives as an example the statement in Matthew 3:1-3, which begins, “1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea,  2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The question is whether or not the next statement in v. 3 [ “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”] was also spoken by John or information added by Matthew. In other words, where does the quotation from John end? At v. 2 or at v. 3? Augustine notes that Matthew and John sometimes speak of themselves in the third person (citing Matthew 9:9 and John 21:24), so v. 3 might legitimately have been spoken by John the Baptist. If so, it harmonizes with John’s statement in John 1:23, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”

Such questions, according to Augustine, should not “be deemed worth while in creating any difficulties” for the reader. He adds, “For although one writer may retain a certain order in the words, and another present a different one, there is really no contradiction in that.” He further affirms that word of God “abides eternal and unchangeable above all that is created.”

Another challenge comes with respect to the question as to whether the reported speech of persons like John are given “with the most literal accuracy.” Augustine suggests that the Christian reader does not have liberty to suppose that an evangelist has stated anything that is false either in the words or facts that he reports.

He offers an example Matthew’s record that John the Baptist said of Christ “whose shoes I am not worthy to bear” (Matthew 3:11) and Mark’s statement, “whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose” (Mark 1:7; cf. Luke 3:16). Augustine suggests that such apparent difficulties can be harmonized if one considers that perhaps each version gets the fact straight since “John did give utterance to both these sentences either on two different occasions or in one and the same connection.” Another possibility is that “one of the evangelists may have reproduced the one portion of the saying, and the rest of them the other.” In the end the most important matter is not the variety of words used by each evangelist but the truth of the facts.

Conclusion:

According to Augustine, when it comes to addressing “the concord of the evangelists” one finds “there is not divergence [to be supposed] from the truth.” Thus, he contends that any apparent discrepancies or contradictions can be reasonably explained. For Augustine variety of expression does not mean contradiction.

JTR

Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.2.3-4: Genealogies

 

Image: Saint Augustine Basilica overlooking the ruins of Hippo Regius.

This is a series of readings from and notes and commentary upon Augustine of Hippo’s Harmony of the Evangelists.

In this episode we are looking at Book 2, chapter 3-4 where Augustine addresses both supposed conflicts between and among the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

2.3: A statement of the reason why Matthew enumerates one succession of ancestors for Christ, and Luke another.

Augustine begins by noting in particular a difference between Matthew and Luke in the line between David and Joseph in the two genealogies. They follow different directions with Matthew offering a series “beginning with David and traveling downwards to Joseph,” and Luke, on the other hand, having “a different succession, ”tracing it from Joseph upwards….” The main source of the difference, however, is in the order between Joseph and David and the fact that Joseph is listed as having two different fathers. Augustine explains that one of these was Joseph’s natural father by whom he was physically begotten (Jacob, in Matthew), and the other was his adopted father (Heli, in Luke). Both of these lines led to David.

Augustine further notes that adoption was an ancient custom. Though terms like “to beget” generally indicate natural fatherhood, Augustine notes that natural terms can also be used metaphorically, so Christians can speak of being begotten by God (e.g., cf. John 1:12-13: “to them he gave power to become the sons of God”). Augustine thus concludes, “It would be no departure from the truth, therefore, even had Luke said that Joseph was begotten by the person by whom he was really adopted.” Nevertheless, he sees significance in the fact that Matthew says “Jacob begat Joseph” (Matthew 1:16; indicating he was the natural father) and Luke says, “Joseph, which was the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23; indicating he was the adopted father of Joseph). Those unwilling to seek harmonizing explanations of such texts “prefer contention to consideration.”

2.4: Of the reason why forty generations (not including Christ Himself) are found in Matthew, although he divides them into three successions of fourteen each.

Augustine begins by noting that consideration of this matter requires a reader “of the greatest attention and carefulness.” Matthew who stresses the kingly character of Christ lists forty names in his genealogy. The number forty is of obvious spiritual significance in the Bible. Moses and Elijah each fasted for forty days, as did Christ himself in his temptation. After his resurrection, Christ also appeared to his disciples for forty days. He sees numerological significance in the fact that forty is four time ten. There are four directions (North, South, East, and West) and ten is the sum of the first four numbers.

Matthew intentionally desires to list forty generations, but he also suggests three successive eras (Abraham to David; David to Babylonian exile; Babylonian exile to Christ). This would be fourteen generations each for a total of forty-two, but Matthew, Augustine suggests, offers a double enumeration of Jechonias, making it “a kind of corner” and excluding it from the overall count, resulting then in the more spiritually significant number forty.

Augustine suggests that Matthew’s genealogy stresses Christ taking our sins upon himself, while Luke, who focuses on Christ as a Priest, stresses “the abolition of our sins.” He sees significance in Matthew’s line from David through Solomon by Bathsheba, acknowledging David’s sin, while Luke’s line flows from David through Nathan, whom Augustine erroneously ties to the prophet Nathan, by whose confrontation with David, God took away sin.

He also sees numerological significance in the fact that Luke’s genealogy includes seventy-seven persons (counting Christ and God himself). He sees the number seventy-seven as referring to “the purging of all sin.” Eleven breaks the perfect number ten, and it was the number of curtains of haircloth in the temple (Exodus 26:7). Seven is the number of days in the week. Seventy-seven is the product of eleven times seven, and so it is “the sign of sin in its totality.”

Conclusion:

The harmonization of the genealogies has been a perennial issue in Gospel studies from the earliest days of Christianity (see Eusebius’ citation of Africanus in his EH). Augustine maintains the continuity and unity of both Gospel genealogies while also noting the uniqueness of each individual Gospel account. In both genealogies Augustine offers pre-critical insight into the intentional use of spiritually significant numbers (forty in Matthew; seventy-seven in Luke) to heighten what he sees as the theological perspectives and intentions of the Evangelists.

JTR

Addendum:

Here's a chart showing Augustine's breakdown of the genealogy in Matt 1:1-17 which yields 40 names according to his calculation. He excludes in his scheme Jechonias as "a kind of corner" and Jesus Christ as "the kingly president" over the whole.

WM 277: Did Christ eat the Passover? What day did Christ die? Harmonizing the Synoptics and John

 

JTR

Jots & Tittles 17: "Plus Nothing" LIfe and Teachings of Jesus: A Modern Day Diatessaron?

 

JTR

Augustine, Harmony of the Evangelists.1.1-2: Gospel Authority and Order

Notes:

1.1: On the authority of the Gospels:

Augustine begins by noting that the Gospels are preeminent among the sacred writings.

The first Christian preachers were the apostles who were eyewitnesses of Jesus’s ministry.

Two of the apostles, Matthew and John, wrote Gospels. Those who were not apostles, Mark and Luke, made use of reliable information to compose their trustworthy Gospels.

Beyond the four Evangelists, no others composed written accounts of the life of Jesus which had canonical authority as Holy Books. So, Augustine rejects the apocryphal gospels.

These non-canonical were those “which the catholic and apostolic rule of faith and sound doctrine condemned [quae catholica atque apostolica regula fidei et sana doctrina condemnat].” Thus, we see Augustine’s appeal to the “rule of faith.”

1.2: On the order of the evangelists, and the principles on which they wrote.

Augustine suggests that there are four “fixed” Gospels, since there are four divisions of the world (presumably, North, South, East, and West), as a “mystical sign” of how the Christian faith would spread worldwide.

He further suggests they were written in the chronological order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

In this way the first and last evangelists were apostles (Matthew and John), who supported the evangelists who were not apostles (Mark and Luke) on either side “like sons who were to be embraced.”

Of the four Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and the others in Greek. Each evangelist received “the gift of inspiration [unicuique inspiratum].”

Each Evangelist kept “a certain order of narration proper to himself.”

Matthew stressed the “royal lineage” of the Lord.

Mark “follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer [pedissequus et breviator eius].” Mark has “little to record” by himself that is not included in the other Gospels, especially Matthew.

Luke, on the other hand, present the Lord according to his “priestly lineage and character.” In his genealogy, he traces the Lord’s line not through Solomon (as Matthew does) but through David’s son Nathan, who was not a king.

Conclusion:

Augustine’s introduction stresses the apostolic authority of the canonical Gospels. The canonical Gospels are consistent with the regula fidei. With respect to their chronological order, he puts forward what will become knowns as the “Augustinian Hypothesis” that the Gospels were written in their canonical order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He sees a close connection between Matthew and Mark which present the Lord Jesus as King, alongside Luke, who present him as a Priest. We might note that he is seemingly among the first to group the first three Gospels (the so-called Synoptic Gospels) as distinct from John.

JTR

Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? (Part 2 of 8)

 

I have added Part 2 of 8 (covering chapters 6-10) of Clement of Alexandria's "Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?" (Mark 10:17-31).

A few points to be clear:

I am not necessarily suggesting that everything Clement says about this text is accurate, nor am I commending all aspects of his interpretation. It should be taken with some caution (especially his views on soteriology).

I am more interested in how a second century Christian would approach interpretation of a Gospel text from a pre-critical perspective.

So, I am interested in things like:

How he harmonizes this account with the other Synoptic Gospels.

How he makes use of allegorical/spiritual interpretations alongside literal ones.

How his views may or may not be shaped by Socratic thought.

Etc.

Enjoy, JTR

WM 203: Warfield: Why Four Gospels?

 

Some quotes:

"He has, as it were, stationed Spirit-led men around the foot of the mountain and bidden them look and write."

"We ought to study them both separately and together. A patchwork narrative made out of the events recorded in these four precious volumes is far from being a suitable substitute for the four books themselves."

"The Gospels are not bundles of facts to be shaken apart like so many bundles of sticks, and then bound together into one greater fagot. They are rather like the several portraits which Van Dyke painted from various points of view of Charles I, that the sculptor might combine them into one rounded statue--not part by part, but as so many wholes."

-B.B. Warfield, "Why Four Gospels?" (1887)

JTR

Hilarion Alfeyev: Supposed Contradictions in the Gospels as Proofs for their Historicity

Image: The Four Evangelists, St. Nocholai of Zicha and South Canaan Seminary Chapel, St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary, South Canaan, Pennsylvania.

Another passage from Hilarion Alfeyev’s study of the Gospels in which he suggests that supposed contradictions among the Gospels are actually proofs for their historicity:

We ought to consider as convincing proof of the historicity of Jesus the presence of supposed contradictions or variances between the evangelists who, it would appear, are describing one and the same event but vary in the details. Thus, for example, the Gospel of Matthew (20.30-34) speaks of Jesus’ healing of two blind men, while the parallel excerpt in Mark (10.46-52) speaks of only one blind man. In Matthew (8.28-34) Jesus heals two demoniacs, while in Mark (5:1-16) and Luke (8.26-36) he heals only one.

The presence of discrepancies in details between the evangelists in light of the essential similarity of the accounts speaks not against but, on the contrary, for the reality of the events described. If we were dealing with a hoax, then the authors would certainly have made sure to check their information with each other. The differences bear witness to the fact that there was no collusion between the evangelists (Jesus Christ: His Life and Teachings, Vol. 1: The Beginning of the Gospel: 13).

JTR

Notes on Augustine's "Harmony of the Gospels": Part 3: Defending the Gospels Against Pagan Objections

Notes from Book One (chapter vii):

Augustine begins by describing the four Gospels as “sacred chariots of the Lord … in which He is borne throughout the earth and brings people under His easy yoke and light burden.”  Still there are those who bring “calumnious charges” against them and attempt to rob them “of their credit as veracious historians.”  In particular Augustine responds in this work against those who accuse the four Gospels of standing in “antagonism” against each other, for the chief charge of critics is “that the evangelists are not in harmony with each other.”

Direct reference to critics and their works is rare in this section, but we can glean some of the basic charges being made as well as Augustine’s defense.  Here are a few:

1.  Some questioned the fact that Jesus wrote nothing but that testimony concerning him must rely on the writings of his followers.

2.  At the same time, it is charged that “the disciples claimed more for Jesus than he really was; so much so that they even called Him the Son of God, and the Word of God, by whom all things were made, and affirmed that He and God are one.”

3.  These critics say that Jesus should be honored as “the wisest of men; but they deny that He is to be worshipped as God.”

Augustine responds:

The pagan charge that Jesus left no written material is disingenuous given the fact that the noblest and most respected of the great philosophers also left no written accounts of their lives, but they were written about by their followers (e.g., Pythagoras, Socrates).  “What reasonable ground, therefore, have they for believing, with regard to those sages, all that their disciples have committed to record in respect of their history, while at the same time they refuse to credit in the case of Christ what his disciples have written on the subject of his life?”

If Jesus was the wisest of men, as they claim, did he not have the ability to make trusted disciple who could accurately record his life and teaching?  And if this is the case, why do they not believe the Gospel records of Jesus’ life?  Why do they not acknowledge Jesus to be God?

JTR

Notes on Augustine's "Harmony of the Gospels" Part 2: The Synoptics and John

Notes from Book I (chapters iv-vi):

In his “Harmony” Augustine recognizes a distinction between John and the Synoptic Gospels.  The Synoptics are engaged for the most part with things Jesus did “through the vehicle of the flesh of man and after a temporal fashion.”

But John, on the others hand, had in view that true divinity of the Lord in which He is the Father’s equal, and directed his efforts above all to the setting forth of the divine nature in his Gospel in such a way as he believed to be adequate to men’s needs and notions.  Therefore he is borne to loftier heights, in which he leaves the other three far behind him….

This is not to say that John did not recognize Jesus as the Word made flesh.  Yet John “is like one who has drunk in the secret of his divinity more richly and somehow more familiarly than others.”

Augustine suggests that the differences between the Synoptic approach and John’s approach to the life of Jesus can be explained by their application of two different virtues or talents.  The Synoptics are “active” while John is “contemplative.”  The active is concerned with “the right exercise of the temporal life” while the contemplative “deals with the doctrine of that life which is everlasting.”  “In this way, the one operates, the other rests; for the former finds its sphere in the purging of sins, the latter moves in the light of the purged.”

Finally, Augustine reflects on the how the four Gospels have been figuratively represented:  Matthew as lion, Mark as man, Luke as calf, and John as eagle.  He notes that Matthew is appropriately the lion, since he presents the kingly character of Christ.  Luke is rightly the calf "in reference to the pre-eminent sacrifice made by the priest."  Mark simply presents Christ as a man.   "Whereas John, on the other hand, soars like an eagle above the clouds of human infirmity, and gazes upon the light of the unchangeable truth with those keenest and steadiest eyes of the heart." 

Notes on Augustine's "Harmony of the Gospels": Part 1: Authority and Order

Image:  From Boticelli's "Saint Augustine in His Study" (1480)

Note:  I’m reading through Augustine’s Harmony of the Gospels and trying to get a better grip on the pre-critical understanding of the Gospels and their literary and theological relationship. Here are some notes:

Book One (chapters i-iii):

Augustine  begins by discussing the authority of the four canonical Gospels noting, “In the entire number of those divine records which are contained in the sacred writings, the gospel deservedly stands pre-eminent.”  He notes that the apostles were the first preachers of the gospel and that two of them—Matthew and John—“gave to the world, in their respective books, a written account of all those matters which it seemed needful to commit to writing concerning Him.”  The inclusion of the Gospels of Mark and Luke show, however, that one need not have been a disciple of Jesus while he was here on earth to write a Gospel.  Nonetheless, others who tried to do the same “failed to commend themselves in their own times as men of character which would induce the Church to yield them its confidence, and to admit their compositions to the canonical authority on the Holy Books.”

He notes that the number of the Gospels “has been fixed as four” perhaps due to the four “divisions” [directions] of the world to which the Christian movement has extended.  He argues for the chronological order, following the canonical order:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Matthew and John are rightly in first last place.  Thus, the interior Evangelists Mark and Luke who had not been apostles “were supported on either side by the same, like sons who were to be embraced, and who in this way were set in the midst between these twain.”

Augustine suggests (following Papias?) that Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew and that the others wrote in Greek.  Matthew construct the record of the Incarnation “according to the royal lineage.”  “Mark follows him closely, and looks like his attendant and epitomizer.”  Mark's narrative is “in words almost numerically and identically the same as those used by Matthew.”

Luke, on the other hand, “appears to have occupied himself rather with the priestly lineage and character of the Lord.”  This explains the divergence in their genealogies, as Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage through King Solomon, while Luke through David’s son Nathan, who was not a king.

Thus, the synoptic Gospels harmoniously present Christ “both as King and as Priest.”

While Matthew had Mark, Luke “had no one connected with him to act as his summarist.”  Augustine explains that as it is right for kings to have attendants, so it is right for Matthew which shows forth Jesus as King to have an attendant in Mark.

JTR