Changes

:The account of Mark is given first as the most vivid, followed by the account of Matthew which Mark expanded. The two are not [[Redaction|redacted ]] together in this ''Harmony of the Gospel''. Here Mark's account is presented as relating the more details, and the account of Matthew is presented as giving the primary facts, probably given directly to Jesus by John's disciples with Peter present. Conservative Bible scholars do not regard Matthew 14:3-11 as a condensed account of Mark's narrative.

:The positioning of the elements of the [[Redaction|redacted ]] texts here achieves a reasonable explanation of the difference in Herod's response to the reported actions of Jesus and the apostles in Matthew and Mark ("''he is John, whom I beheaded''") and Luke ("''John I beheaded, but who is this?''"). It is reasonable to assume that while the disciples of John had not yet come to claim his body, Herod believed that the man he was now hearing about was John risen from the dead and therefore had miraculous powers; but after John's disciples came and petitioned Herod for the release of his body and had taken it and buried it in a tomb, then Herod knew that John was certainly dead, and that the man he was hearing about could not be John. When the texts of the Gospels are taken as true, this explanation is completely reasonable, as it does not present a contradiction or difficulty in reconciling them. This is what is called in scientific research an ''elegant'' solution, because of its reasonable simplicity.

:In this ''Harmony of the Gospel'' the text of John 12:4, 6 is [[Redaction|redacted ]] and adapted by edit and inserted between Mark 6:37b and John 6:5, as a way of establishing for the reader how the disciples thought that they immediately had on hand the equivalent of two hundred days' wages. According to the variant interpretive translations of the Greek text of John 12:4-6, Judas Iscariot was entrusted with the money "box" or money "bag" ('''γλωσσόκομον''' ''glossokomon'', "case, box, casket, purse, bag") which held what had been donated to Jesus and his followers as financial support for their needs and the needs of any destitute homeless poor folk they might be able to help in their traveling ministry (see Luke 8:1-3; Matthew 26:11; Deuteronomy 15:11). The apostles would surely have expected Judas to have at least that much money on hand when they offered to purchase bread for the hungry multitude. But John testified that Judas was "a thief" who took what was in the money bag or (strong?) box.

:It is reasonable to speculate that various Christian scribes and copyists were unable to reconcile Luke 20:40, "''And no one dared to ask him any more '''questions'''''", with the fact that the Jews brought to Jesus the woman "''caught in the act of adultery''" and asked him the '''question''', "''In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?''" However, there is a difference in asking a rhetorical question on disputed points of doctrine in the Torah of Moses as in the [[Talmud]], and asking him to render a [[Opinion|judgment]] on a particular case. This ''Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)'' retains the account of John 7:53–8:11 here in accordance with centuries of traditional rendering of the text as received since the fourth and fifth centuries according to Jerome's [[Vulgate]] and the standard Greek Bible of the East. In accordance with the majority opinion of expert conservative textual critics, and the corresponding conservative policy regarding this text as expressed in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], the text here is also repeated again and inserted at the place corresponding to Luke 21:38, in the [[Redaction|redacted ]] account of the controversies with the Jews during the week before Passover, immediately before the Passion Narratives. This offers the reader opportunity to compare the context. <br>Those who accept the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus in John 16:13 regarding apostolic tradition and what is called the [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html ''sensus fidei''], in what has been handed down to us over all the centuries of Christianity, do not lightly remove this passage from the Bible. For this reason most translations and editions of the Bible do not omit it entirely. See Hebrews 13:17, Revelation 22:19 and [[Apostolic succession]].

:NOTE The extensive phrase at the end of John 8:6 in the [[King James Bible]] "''as though he heard them not''" is not a part of the Bible. The KJV translators added here a ''gloss'' not found in any earlier English translations, neither in the Textus Receptus nor in any earlier extant Greek [[Bible manuscript evidence|manuscript evidence]] of this passage. (Such a large gloss might be more appropriate in a [[paraphrase]], or as part of an explanatory [[redaction ]] such as the text of this encyclopedic ''Harmony of the Gospel'', but it is not appropriate for a translation.) The editors indicate that it is not in the Greek text by printing their eisegetically added phrase ''in italics'' in every published edition of the KJV. This is done in harmony with the translators' express intention of clearly showing, according to their general editorial policy of translation, that some words of their readings in English are not found in the Greek text, but were regarded by ''the translators'' as necessary, in their opinion, to "complete the meaning" and simply make the text conform to good English grammatical form. But careful comparison of the interlinear [[Textus Receptus|TR]] Greek and KJV English Bible text also reveals that in some places the King James translators have altered the reading of the text and its meaning in violation of Revelation 22:18-19, in order to support their particular doctrinal opinions in the eyes of their Christian readers. For example, in [http://biblehub.com/multi/1_corinthians/11-27.htm 1&nbsp;Corinthians 11:27], where '''<big>or</big>''' is changed to '''<big>and</big>''' in opposition to the Catholic practice at the time of giving communion to the laity in one form only (the [[Host (Communion)|Host]]), without also giving them communion from the cup (the Precious Blood) as being reserved to the celebrant alone. See [[Eisegesis]], also [http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html ''Defects of the King James Version'' by Isaac H. Hall]. They did not stand solely on the principle of ''[[dynamic equivalence]]'' in translation, but were more strongly influenced by their own loyalty to the Crown of England as Head of the [[Church of England]] and the theological doctrines of the Church of England in principal opposition to the doctrines of Catholicism and the Pope of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the other three heads of the ''[[Pentarchy]]'' in Antioch, Alexandria (Egypt) and Jerusalem, as well as the Patriarch of Moscow ([[Russian Orthodox Church]]).

:The materials collated and [[Redaction|redacted ]] in this and the previous chapter of ''Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)'', and in those chapters that follow, are those texts which have perennially presented the Gospel redactor with most difficulty and frustration over the question of how to combine them in a genuine chronological sequence true to the text. The Gospel of John presents textual critics and students of the Bible with unresolved difficulties over the appropriate placement of most of its narrative materials in harmony within the [[The Gospels|Synoptics]], Matthew, Mark, Luke, because it contains few points of correspondence with them. An abundance of commentaries on the differences between them and the Gospel of John has been produced over the past several centuries. A few have given outstandingly well-informed and insightful opinions supported by extensive practical researches in the historical background of first century Palestine, together with historical, documentary, linguistical and textual analyses, which offer reasonable suggestions of how these apparent differences might be resolved. The most elegant and successful resolutions of the difficulties of correlating the Gospel narratives are derived from approaching the manuscripts of these texts as if they are reliable and factual historical documentation drawn on eyewitness testimony. Conservative textual critics are convinced by all indications from the body of available evidence and the constant witness of the Christian Faith over two millennia that the Four Gospels are in fact reliable, factual and historical.

:The [[redaction ]] of these texts in sequence, goes from one initial informal confrontation by the Pharisees and scribes and Jesus' response to them, to a second, further insistent and more formal confrontation from a larger group of them and a more extensive answer in reply. There is a progression in his address to the multitude, from "''Hear and understand''", to the more insistent, "''Hear, all of you, and understand''". In the first account in Matthew Peter asks Jesus to explain the meaning to him and the twelve ("''to us''"), and he does. In the second account in Mark, we hear that the crowd of Pharisees and scribes, including additional numbers of them who have arrived (and they also observe the disciples eating with unwashed hands) "''gather''" against him for a more formal confrontation. And after answering the Pharisees and scribes (again) with an additional citation from Isaiah for greater emphasis and addressing both them and the crowds who have been listening, "''Hear, '''all of you''', and understand''", he goes into a house away from them and the crowd, and the rest of his disciples come and ask him to explain the meaning, and he gives them the same teaching he had given to Peter and the twelve. In both accounts the same teaching is presented. For Matthew and for Mark as evangelists only one of these episodes of confrontation is necessary for the representation of Jesus' teaching on the matter. <br>A comparative reading of the two suggests to the conservative textual critic that it is more probable that Mark has added augmenting factual details to Matthew's account, rather than the possibility that Matthew is condensing what Mark had written.

:The text has been expanded to harmonize both Mark 8:10 and Matthew 15:39, taking Mark's "region" as an area, as in the RSVCE reading "'''district''' of Dalmanutha", and Matthew's "borders" as a more compactly defined region ''within'' the district of Dalmanutha, such as the boundaries of the city limits of Magdala or Magadan. The location of the simple docking site on the shore of the region of Dalmanutha where they briefly disembarked is here [[Redaction|redacted ]] as being a site "near the borders of Magdala", a name not supported as a known site, but accepted by most exegetes as probably the (uncertainly) located town of Magadan, where they (again) put to shore and disembarked. From these two passages it is reasonable to infer that "the borders of Magadan" and "the parts of Dalmanutha" were contiguous, both being part of the same area on the shore of the Sea of Galilee.

:This is another situation that can be [[Redaction|redacted ]] so that it unfolds progressively:

:An amplification of the text after '''Matthew 20:16''' in accordance with conservative principles of [[redaction]]. This point in the narrative appears from textual indications to be the appropriate place to insert the account of the [[Hanukkah|Feast of the Dedication]] in winter (John 10:22-42) which follows and finds Jesus in Jerusalem and then his return to Galilee before spring and his final journey to Jerusalem for the Passover.

:This ''Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version)'' assumes the historical and chronological sequence of each of the four Gospels. This parallel reading, side by side, of the four Gospels together presents the winter feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem John 10:22-42 as occurring before the events of Luke 9:51–19:28 narrating Jesus' final journey before being "taken up". <br> In contrast, many commentaries place Luke 10:38-41 and texts following as taking place before the winter feast of the Dedication in John 10:22, on the assumption that Martha received Jesus in the house of Lazarus at Bethany, based solely on the implicit belief that no Jew could own more than one house and that "her house" is, ''and must therefore be'', "undoubtedly" the house of Lazarus. This then presents the difficulty of harmonizing and [[Redaction|redacting ]] within the narrative of Luke 9–19 the winter feast of the Dedication in John 10 which immediately precedes the raising of Lazarus in John 11 and the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in John 12, which we remember and celebrate as [[Palm Sunday]] before [[Easter]]. The grammar of the Greek text of John 10:42 and 11:1 presents a natural break in the text which easily allows insertion of Luke 9:51–19:28 before John 11:1, with the raising of Lazarus redacted between Luke 19:28 and 19:29.