The canon of Le Clerc

Many of the alleged disagreements in the Gospels come from the ignorance of the sound canon of Le Clerc:

Qui plura narrat, pauciocra complectitur; qui pauciora memorat, plura nzon negat.” (Harmony of the Gospels, p. 525. Can. XII. fin.)

This is in Latin, translated into English, it means:

What is narrated as plural, already covers the singular case; what is mentioned as singular, does not deny the plural case.

The principle behind this canon is very intuitively simple: while mentioning means existence, no mentioning does not mean nonexistence. When you apply this canon, many of the alleged disagreements automatically disappear. For example**, in the visit of the women to the sepulcher (Matt. 26:1-8. Mark 16:1-8. Luke 24:1-11. John 20:1, 2.), Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; v. 1. Mark enumerates Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome; v. 1. Luke has Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others with them; v. 10. John speaks of Mary Magdalene alone, and says nothing of any other. The first three Evangelists accord then in respect to the two Marys, but no further; while John differs from them all. Is there here a real discrepancy?

We may at once answer, No; because, according to the sound canon of Le Clerc. Because John, in narrating circumstances with which he was personally connected, sees fit to mention only Mary Magdalene, it does not at all follow that others were not present. Because Matthew, perhaps for like reasons, speaks only of the two Marys, he by no means excludes the presence of others. Indeed, the very words which John puts into the mouth of Mary Magdalene, (v. 2), presupposes the fact that others had gone with her to the sepulcher. That there was something in respect to Mary Magdalene, which gave her a peculiar prominence in these transactions, may be inferred from the fact, that not only John mentions her alone, but likewise all the other Evangelists name her first, as if holding the most conspicuous place.

The instance here under consideration is parallel to that of the demoniacs of Gadara, and the blind men at Jericho; where, in both cases, Matthew speaks of two persons, while Mark and Luke mention only one. Something peculiar in the station or character of one of the persons, rendered him in each case more prominent, and led the two latter Evangelists to speak of him particularly. But there, as here, their language is not exclusive; nor is there in it anything that contradicts the statements of Matthew. There are no disagreements, the whole Bible is in perfect harmony.

**Ref: Greenleaf's Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts
http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/greenharmony.htm