mountainman

The claim presented here for discussion is that the earliest imperial Greek Bible publishers may have solved the problem of contradictions in the gospels by incorporating into their propaganda, by design, a systematic focus on the agreements in the gospels. In addition to the gospels, these publishers not only provided a series of "harmony tables", but they often used lavish and colourful displays for these harmonies. These "harmony tables" were physically presented as the "glossy brochure" which introduced each gospel in the propaganda.

Critical thinking about the harmony was lavishly demonstrated with mathematical precision. As a result of this propaganda critical thinking about the contradictions was momentarily suspended. This critical thinking is certainly with us today, for example see New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson.

In the 4th century Eusebius falsely asserts they were compiled a century earlier by Ammonius of Alexandria. It is notable that the list of agreements was compiled and not the list of contradictions. From a marketing perspective, it would not be a good idea to make public the table of disagreements between the apostles. So we see that very early on in the 3rd century, according to Eusebius's thesis in ancient history, the christians found it expedient to focus on the harmonies between the apostles.

In the 4th century the political situation as defined by the imperial publication of the "Harmony Tables" was that people had two choices. They could believe in the harmony of the apostles or they could question the harmony.


Eusebian Canons - Authorship


Also see The Epistula ad Carpianum (Epistle to Carpian) - the title traditionally given to a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to a Christian named Carpianus.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Duvduv

If the Harmony only presents where the gospels AGREE, that doesn't do much for explaining why they disagree, UNLESS it was assumed that the very fact of disagreement was itself something of "proof" of authenticity of the Jesus story that had different facets to it that informed and/or interpreted each other. Presumably any reader of the Harmony would have been more interested in the issue of the differences than the similarities. But even the Harmony itself could serve as reinforcing "authenticity."

aa5874

The very fact that the Four Gospels do contain contradictions that cannot be reconciled and needed to be harmonised is evidence against the claim that Eusebius invented the same four Gospels that he attempted to harmonise.

The Four Gospel must have existed BEFORE the Harmonisation was attempted.

It is clear that the Romans HIJACKED the Jesus story, cult and History.

1. There was a time when Jesus was NOT--God of God

2. There was a time when Jesus was NOT--from the beginning.

3. There was a time when Jesus was NOT--the Creator of heaven and earth.

4. There was a time when there was NO-- Nicene Creed.

The 325 Nicene Creed on Jesus.
We know exactly what the Roman Church did.

Their Jesus was NOT of the Jesus cult.

In the early Jesus cult it was taught that Jesus was SECOND to God.

Justin's First Apology There was a time when Jesus was NOT as described in the Nicene Creed.

There was a time when there were No Gospels called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

mountainman

The OP argues that the earliest design of the bible was such that the Harmony tables were being marketed by the publishers. Agreement was highlighted and part of the package. Disagreement was not mentioned. The publishers expected people to run with the agreements.

The OP suggests that the very fact of the publishing of agreement was itself something of "proof" of authenticity of the Jesus story.


The readers who concerned themselves with the agreements had already been sold into belief. OTOH should any readers be so foolhardy and attempt to reverse engineer the agreements and produce an index of disagreements they would NOT be following the ethics of the published harmony, and would be regarded as heretics.


The OP suggests that the "harmony" was in fact the "glossy".

The "Glossy Cover" of any propaganda directly serves to reinforce "authenticity".




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

But the argument can be made that the apparent contradictions exist only in the mind of the reader.

If we read them as they are they have a story to tell us, each one a little different, I agree, and they are different to tell the rest of the story so that we can compare and wonder why they are different.

But of of course we not have to, we can call ourself critic because we can think and will close our eyes so we can think better even, while the bible itself tell us that our eyes should be opened before we read so we that might understand.

So from this point of view if your see contradictions you are not reading it right, and I do believe that they attached guidance to bible reading on your own so the words will not lead you astray, I suppose.

mountainman

The claim that you refer to above is not to be found in the OP.
Please address the OP.

Eusebius did not "attempt" to publish a full and complete harmonisation of all the permutations and combinations of the agreements between the testimonies of the gospel authors. Eusebius (and subsequent editors of imperial bible manuscripts) actually physically published such "Agreement Tables" and highlighted these works.

The claim in the OP is that the politics of these 4th century publications was specifically geared towards highlighting the agreements, not the disagreements (i.e. contradictions) between the gospel authors. It therefore follows that the contradictions were not to be highlighted, and in fact, were to be purposefully ignored.

Discussion of the disagreements seems to have been on the mind of Emperor Julian. However after Julian's death c.363 CE, when is the next instance in history that we are able to find a reference to the contradictions? My guess is that this does not appear until recent centuries.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

But if from their point of view the ultimate aim and final end of the gospels is to reach heaven on earth, how can it be wrong to highlight the invitation to draw the believer in as simple believer, to be indoctrinated only with the high-lighted portions so he might fill in the blanks later in the consolidation of his own life, from where the contradictions will point to hell on earth in opposite to heaven, and so they belong . . . but just not for him.

And of course they (the apparent contractions) should be ignored and their message here is not to read the Gospels with curious eyes so the shepherd may be in charge of the flock, or they could have just told the believers to read it yourself and wish them good luck on the way out.

It is just a faith journey and they chose this story to present it, that's all. It is like a game they play and they called it Catholic (tm), just so you know, for whom the referee must be Catholic as well.

Duvduv

I don't understand the logic of bothering to produce tables of similarities among the texts while intentionally ignoring differences, or reconciling them.

Chili

They can never be reconciled into one, but are there to make the difference known between heaven and hell, while on the surface the are much alike.

The four gospels show that the rising action [that leads to the crisis moment] is much the same for all four, with the crisis moment needed to bring change about that here is from 'temporal' to 'eternal' as final opposites in destiny as an end in itself, wherein either heaven or hell will be it's reward made known to the believer himself.

So now, there is nothing Christian about Catholic that is more like a way of tradition wherein 'hither and tither' they go, and all they need to know is that 'hither and thither' they go and let God chose his own to call home.

Please notice, in case you have never noticed, that "back to Galilee" in the end equals hell on earth from their pont of view.

Roger Pearse

From "Documents of the Christian Church", second edition, Selected and
Edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press. pp. 39-40

1. The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, c. 321

"...But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach; that the Son is not unbegottten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, not is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

And before he was begotten or created or appointed or established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning. For that reason we are persecuted, and because we say that he is from what is not. And this we say because he is neither part of God nor derived from any substance. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know.

I trust that you are strong in the Lord, mindful of our afflictions, a true fellow-disciple of Lucian, Eusebius."

(It's found in Theodoret)