Reading the gospels

Dealing with the differences
    While the differences between the synoptic gospels and John are far greater than those between any two or more of the synoptics, many readers find the latter differences more troublesome. John simply does not overlap with the synoptics most of the time; the difference is at the level of the selection of material, and of the overall ‘tone’ of the gospel. But when the synoptic gospels record the same events or sayings in different forms, the possibility of contradiction arises, and this threatens to cast doubt on the reliability of at least one of the records. This has proved fruitful ground for those who argue against the historical reliability of the gospels, and so it is not surprising that ‘harmonization’ has been a traditional concern of those who regard the gospel as inspired writings.
    There are those who regard any sort of harmonization as illegitimate, as a counsel of despair on the part of those who are determined to defend the factuality of the gospels, come what may.
    Anyone familiar with the study of ancient history would question this attitude. In those rare cases where there is more than one source for an event there are often differences of perspective, and sometimes apparent factual discrepancies. This may be because one or more of the sources is misinformed, or is deliberately distorting the facts. But unless the historian has reason beforehand to distrust one or more of the sources the normal procedure is to consider first whether there are other reasonable ways of explaining the discrepancy. It may be that one or other of the texts has been misunderstood, or that vital information is missing which would resolve the problem. Where a writer has generally proved to be reliable, it is not unreasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt, rather than to assume that our limited knowledge gives us the right to pronounce them wrong.
    So also in studying the gospels we must remember that our historical knowledge is limited, so that we may not always have all the information we need in order to judge one account to be right and another wrong. And sometimes traditional interpretations may need to be re–examined, to see whether the alleged discrepancy is real or imaginary. In the case of the gospels three factors are particularly important.
    First, what is a ‘parallel’? Some of the frequently alleged ‘discrepancies’ are based on the assumption that two accounts refer to the same incident or teaching; but similar events (e.g. healing mircales) no doubt occurred at different times in Jesus’ ministry, and it is also surely likely that in the course of a few years of public and private teaching he used similar phrases and ideas on different occasions. Of course this argument can be carried to ridiculous extremes: some events in the nature of the case are not likely to have happened more than once (e.g. Jesus’ trial, crucifixion and resurrection!). But at least it is worth asking whether two supposedly contradictory accounts are in fact recording the same occasion. For instance, comparison of the four accounts of the anointing of Jesus (Mt. 26:6-13; Mk. 14:3-9; Lk. 7:36-50; Jn. 12:1-8) might well suggest that two separate incidents lie behind the differing details in the way the stories are told. And a comparison of the ‘beatitudes’ in Mt. 5:3-10 with the very different tone and content of the blessings and woes of Lk. 6:20-26 suggests to some that Jesus used the ‘beatitude’ form more than once, to deliver different messages.
    Secondly, alleged discrepancies sometimes relate to the order in which events occurred. For instance, Luke records Jesus’ sermon at Nazareth at the very beginning of his Galilean ministry (Lk. 4:16-30), whereas Matthew and Mark both have the only visit to Nazareth at a later stage (Mt. 13:53-58; Mk. 6:1-6). But we have noticed above that the gospels are not apparently intended to be read as strictly chronological accounts, but rather at many points as collections of stories and sayings arranged more in the form of an anthology than of a diary.
    Thirdly, with special reference to the sayings of Jesus, it is hardly surprising that if he spoke in Aramaic the Greek records of his sayings should show variation in wording. It is of course quite possible that Jesus sometimes spoke in Greek, but most scholars believe that most of his teaching would have been in the common speech, Aramaic. Whatever we have in the gospels, then, it cannot be the exact words of Jesus except in those few cases where the Aramaic is recorded. All translation is to some extent paraphrase, and paraphrase is a perfectly acceptable way of communicating meaning. [p. 901] Variation in wording is therefore to be expected; it is a difficult judgment as to when that variation passes the limits of legitimate paraphrase. It is interesting, for instance, to look at the different ways in which the synoptic gospels record Jesus’ response to the high priest’s question at his trial (Mt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:67-70). It is arguable that, while they are clearly not the same, the very difference in the way they express it allows us to gain a more rounded picture of Jesus’ reply than any one of them on its own would have offered.
    So it is reasonable to look for realistic explanations of why the accounts vary before jumping to the conclusion that one or the other is in error.
    Harmonization can, however, be carried too far. One danger is that in the desire to have an answer to every problem, we may put forward proposals which are so implausible that the whole enterprise becomes ridiculous. (One attempt to reconcile the very minor differences between the accounts of Peter’s denials results in having Peter deny Jesus six times, even though all accounts agree on only three times, and the three synoptic accounts all make a point of the number three!) There is nothing wrong with admitting that in some cases we do not know the answer; suspended judgment is better than an improbable solution.
    The other danger is that in our zeal to iron out the discrepancies we fail to take seriously the differing perspectives and insights of the gospel writers. It is these four texts, with all their variety, which constitute our inspired record of Jesus, not some underlying ‘original’ which has to be artificially created by removing or ignoring the differences.
    It is to be hoped, then, that the reader of this commentary will take the trouble to compare the differing synoptic accounts. To this end, we have provided throughout the commentary on each of the synoptic gospels references to the parallel paragraphs in the other two. Because of the problem of deciding what is a true parallel, we have used ‘See’ for the more obviously parallel passages, and ‘Cf.’ for those where the link is more questionable. By careful use of these cross–references it should be possible to get a richer grasp of the total synoptic witness to Jesus.

The gospels as stories
    One of the most encouraging trends in recent study of the gospels is the increased willingness to treat each as a complete narrative, a story written in order to be read and enjoyed as a whole, rather than a collection of isolated incidents and sayings.
    In these days of easy access to books and of almost universal literacy it is easy to forget that in the ancient world a scroll of even one ‘book’ of the Bible was an expensive luxury, even for those who could read it. Most members of churches would have known these books not by reading them privately, but by hearing them read aloud in the congregation.
    A public reading of Mark’s gospel takes about one–and–a–half hours; the longer gospels would take nearer two–and–a–half. We do not know whether a first–century congregation would have heard the whole gospel at one sitting, or would have enjoyed it in instalments. But those who have had the privilege of listening to public renderings of a whole gospel can have little doubt that the authors would have approved of such a use of their work, and probably designed it for that purpose.
    To listen to such a rendering, particularly of the gospel of Mark, is to realize that this an–thology of stories about Jesus is no random collection. It is rather a carefully constructed whole, with a plot of dramatic intensity, in which various sub–plots are subtly interwoven so that the narrative moves inexorably towards its terrific climax in Jerusalem. Touches of paradox and flashes of humour keep the audience alert and involved, and enable us to become part of the utterly unique events of Jesus’ ministry, conflict and death, and to share in the triumph of his resurrection.
    It is wrong, then, to treat each story or section of teaching in the gospels as if it existed in isolation. Our normal Bible reading habits tend to lead us into this danger, as we read a short passage at a time, usually without considering how it relates to the whole narrative. Those who preach on the gospels also frequently focus on a single short section (or even a single verse!) without regard to its wider context.
    Of course it is not normally practicable in ordinary life to read a whole gospel at one sitting, still less for a preacher to deal with a whole book at once! But at least we should make sure that in reading or preaching we are always aware of, and sensitive to, the development of the ‘plot’ of the gospel as a whole, and of how our chosen passage fits into it. And it would contribute a lot to our study of a gospel if we began by reading it straight through, enjoying it as a whole story, before embarking on studying it section by section.

Discovering Jesus
    A sensitive reading of each of the four gospels will give us a valuable insight into the faith and thinking of each of their writers, and into the issues which were of special concern to them and to the churches in which and for which they were writing. [p. 902]     It was not, however, the primary aim of these men to write about themselves and their ideas. They wrote to help people to know Jesus better. Their books are not intended to promote theological understanding for its own sake, but to foster and encourage faith and discipleship. John wrote, ‘these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ (20:31). The other gospel writers would have echoed this same aim, whether their target was primarily a non–Christian readership to be won to faith, or a Christian congregation who needed to be instructed and encouraged in living out the faith they professed. To that end the writers set out the facts of Jesus’ life and teaching as they themselves had learned or remembered them. And it is to these four men that we owe virtually all the historical knowledge of Jesus that we possess.
    The very few references to Jesus in non–Christian literature of the first century or so after his death tell us at best that he lived and died as a teacher and wonder–worker in Palestine in the early thirties, and that he gained a following sufficiently devoted to form the basis of a growing religious movement. They tell us nothing about what he was like or what he taught.
    References to Jesus’ earthly life in the rest of the NT are few and sketchy, and we have no other Christian sources of information until the growth of the so–called ‘apocryphal gospels’ in the second century. These are mostly less interested in Jesus’ earthly life than in his teaching, and the details they do include are mostly drawn either from the four NT gospels or from a steadily developing store of legendary stories about Jesus which were largely the product of popular imagination and of the special interests of the new gnostic brand of Christianity.
    If we are to know the historical reality of Jesus’ life and ministry, then it is to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that we must go. And here we are on firm ground. Between them they give us a fuller insight into Jesus as a historical figure and into his life and teaching than we have for almost anyone else in the ancient world. They offer it, however, in their own way, as men of faith calling others to share with them in the way of discipleship. Those who read the gospels merely to discover historical facts about Jesus may succeed in doing so, but they will have missed the point. The gospels are for those who would ‘believe’ and ‘have life’. The facts about Jesus are recorded not for interest alone, but for response.
R. T. France