Theology, Not History - The Problem With Mish-Mashing the Gospels

Often what is "common knowledge" among biblicalif they are truly astute, may consider that their
scholars and what is "common knowledge" amongtruth is not to be sought for in the outward and
ordinary Christians is not the same thing.material letter. Either we abandon the Gospels
Somewhere from the university to the Sundaybecause they are not historically accurate or we
school, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke,discover that history is not the message.
and John) seem to be unconsciously combined toApparent contradictions in Scripture can always be
greater or lesser degrees into a kind ofresolved in this way, by appealing to some higher,
mish-mash or harmony to produce a singlemore sublime level, and what is more: if those
cohesive history. The Gospels are thus altogethermore sublime levels are never reached then
portrayed, or at least received, not so much assurely the full potential of the Gospels' message is
theology but as a singular historical account.also never reached.
Potential theology, then, the Gospels' mostThe contemporary New Testament scholar
valuable asset, is lost."seizes gleefully on discrepancies among the four
Young people from religious backgrounds oftenGospels...[because such] discrepancies, far from
arrive at their universities and find themselvesclosing the door to understanding, are instead the
thrown into existential crises proportional to thekeys that he or she hopes to use to unlock the
Conservatism of their catechism when theyparticular theological viewpoint of each evangelist"
discover that what they thought was true about(Janice Capel Anderson & Stephen D. Moore, "The
the story of Jesus is actually not exactlyLives of Mark", in Janice Capel Anderson, &
"historical." There is much more to the history ofStephen D. Moore, ed., Mark & Method: New
Jesus than they were taught in Sunday school.Approaches in Biblical Studies, Minneapolis, Fortress
Biblical scholar Janice Anderson points out that toPress: 2008). It is because of the disharmonious,
understand that the Gospels cannot be read asyet "synoptic" episodes in the Gospels that we
histories, one need only read straight through thecan gaze as though through a window at the
four Gospels, one right after the other. Only inworlds in which the individual texts were written.
reading the four Gospels straight through doTheir incongruence helps us to see something in
discrepancies pop out between them to showthe Gospels that is more "human" than "Holy
that something else other than history must beSpirit," more "of-the-world" than "otherworldly,"
going on. Ironic as it may seem, it is really onlywhich does not diminish the Holy Spirit so much as
then that the figure of Jesus can more clearly beit increases the human. To learn that the authors
seen. Only short passages are read aloud inare more like us than we imagined helps us to
church services and then expounded in sermonsbring home Jesus' message and the reality
or Sunday school lessons, so on the whole"behind, of, and before the text" (Sandra M.
students tend not realize that each of the fourSchneiders, Written That You May Believe:
evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) is aEncountering Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, New
full-fledged author in his own right. In their ownYork, Crossroad Publishing Company: 2003).
ways each "full-fledged author" paints a uniqueThe ability to look beyond discrepancies in the
portrait of Jesus; but we cannot say, "Each...paintsGospels is a good thing. The traditional "good
a unique history of Jesus," because then weChristian" tends neither to know nor care about
diminish the theological potential of the Gospelsthem anyway. Not caring about them is the
and we surely would not be able to account forfunction of a deep faith on the one hand; on the
discrepancies between them.other, being able to identify the ways in which the
Thus young Scripture students who are taughtGospel accounts are different, and then knowingly
that the Gospels are historical accounts, staggeredto move beyond them, yields a much deeper
at finding discrepancies between them, oftenfaith indeed.
abandon or renounce the Bible altogether, or, only