An audio version of this post can be found here.
Recently in a Bible study, we examined Luke 4:21-30. A participant asked why this account of Jesus being rejected by his hometown neighbors differed from other Gospels – particularly the threat to push him over the side of a cliff. Where were his disciples?
In following up with that question, I used a book called “Synopsis of the Four Gospels” (K. Arland, Ed., 1985) which tries to line the stories up as they parallel. In doing so, you find some of the stories are seemingly out of sync chronologically or even in detail. For example, Jesus chasing the money changers out of the Temple courts happens very early in John (the start of Jesus’ ministry). In the other Gospels, it happens during Holy Week (at the end of Jesus’ ministry).
Why do they differ? Scholars wrestle with this as do everyday believers. Some suggest that these versions were inherited oral stories from the source before being written down. So, errors occurred. Others argue that the named persons wrote them, but they tell the story as they remember or in a way that makes the story flow. (Minds do play tricks on people when it comes to memories.) Still, others attribute it to who wrote them and when they were written. Not all the Gospel writers knew Jesus or walked with him.
The Gospels were likely written in this order: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. The Gospel of Mark is thought to be written by a companion of Paul named John Mark or Marcus. Matthew’s Gospel was traditionally attributed to the Apostle. Some suggest there might have been an earlier edition lost to us in Aramaic. Luke was another companion of Paul, a doctor from Asia minor with Greek heritage. He also wrote the Book of Acts, and some scholars like to consider it as Luke-Acts, a kind of continuing story. John is commonly believed to be written by the Apostle. Tradition states that he cared for Mary, the Mother of God, after Christ’s death. Other texts are also attributed to him.
When you look at a parallel synopsis of the four Gospels, one thing becomes clear. The stories paralel in many places, but there are many differences as well – some important, some less so. In the case of Luke 4:21-30, they are synced in my resource with Matthew 13:53-58, Mark 6:1-6a, and John 7:15, 6:42, and 4:44. In Luke, the incident happens before the call of the disciples. In Matthew, Mark and John, an incredibly similar incident (or wording) happened after the call of the disciples.
The Gospel writers are indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they aren’t puppets or zombies of the Holy Spirit. Like anyone else including your pastor, the testimony of the Gospel was transmitted through a human lens and can come out differently as best as one understands the stirring of the Spirit or within the limitations of the human mind and vocabulary. As I have argued before, it is like multiple witnesses in a court case. They might all tell the story differently, but they aren’t necessarily lying. In evaluating all the stories together, one might come closer to the truth of things.
With any such discrepancy, there is the possibility that a similar incident happened more than once, but with what we have, we cannot definitively know that. Some early Christians wanted to harmonize the stories similar to the way modern movies might, but as these texts were deemed sacred and inspired, the early Church rejected this. For two thousand years, the texts, apart from the unintentional errors of scribes, have not been changed. People went to great effort to copy them exactly. Most often, multiple versions of manuscripts written over years if not centuries apart coincide with little variation, but in some cases, as with the ending of Mark, earlier manuscripts differ significantly from later ones. Bible editors often highlight these differences with brackets or footnotes perhaps saying, “other ancient sources indicate (insert the difference).”
Amidst such differences, we accept them as they are, and we have to deal with the very real inconsistencies through faith and scholarship. In this coming Sunday’s Gospel passage, perhaps it is a different but similar incident or Luke inherited the story from Paul but erred in the chronology of it. We just cannot know. For those that argue such inconcitencies indicate the Bible is false, I think it important to recognize how liars normally behave. Conspirators often try to “get the story straight.” Here, the Christian community refused to do so fully aware of textual tensions and disagreements. Perhaps this actually is an argument for their veracity!
An error on the part of an Evangelist might seem heresy to a fundamentalist needing every word, phrase, and sentence to be true in isolation. Yet in our Lutheran tradition, I think we take a better approach – one Martin Luther introduced and popularized in the 1500s. We seek an exegesis of the text. We consider context and how scripture interacts with and interprets scripture. We look at varied manuscripts written over time with an eye for any differences. Here, we examine the testimony of scripture in light of proximity to the incident and firsthand accounts. Accounts written earlier might be more authoritative. We also consider the author’s social placement and characteristics. For example, Luke’s vocation as a Gentile doctor likely encouraged him to share stories mentioning women, gentiles, and physicality in more detail than other Gospel writers. We also evaluate language and phrases used. In ancient times, it was not consider deceitful to write in anothers name, particulalry one’s teacher or mentor. Who wrote the text and when can impact its accuracy. We draw from and compare archeology and outside contemporary texts, and we even consider sociological and literary approaches. In the end, Gospels are not meant to be histories. They are theological witnesses. The details do not matter as much as the ultimate truths they reveal.
Thus, a discrepancy need not indicate a falsehood nor even technically an error. The storyteller (witness) is telling the story through a lens reflecting their experience, interests, culture, or maybe what they deem most important to share. Memories might differ. Styles won’t be the same. Yet taken together, one might note how these accounts corroborate one another. And some scholars suspect they might at times even rely on one another as source material. For example, Luke and Matthew seem to echo Mark’s earlier account. Scripture might be inerrant in substance (ultimate truth) without being exactly the same in detail.
True, an interpreter can certainly err as well. Group think or assumptions might interefere with how we hear and understand the Word of God. Or, new discoveries can transform our understanding. Someone helped by the Spirit might even come up with brilliant new insights. Yet, this all reinforces the critical need to interpret scripture in community with others. Further, we should consider the voices and perspectives of past believers as well as the present Christian community. In the mind of Martin Luther, scripture trumped traditions, but he did not mean to say that past understandings don’t matter. We should evaluate them to benefit from the good and reject the bad. In the end, we might not be able to understand why things are the way they are in scripture at times. When this happens, we will have to rest in the tension that exists. Faithful people might need to disagree at times, humbly recognizing that we might be the one who is wrong. Still, we trust scripture to be a gift from God and normative lens for our Christian life above all others.
I hope this short essay helps Bible readers better understand what is going on with the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany’s (Revised Common Lectionary, Year C) Gospel text. It might also help as one seeks to address other texts encountered in the future. We should remain honest admiting that we can never know all we need to about the Bible, but we trust in the One who does. Our faith is ultimately in God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – not the Bible. And as an earlier believer once said, “God is still speaking.”
Reference:
Aland, K. (1985, Rev.). Synopsis of the Four Gospels, English Edition. “33. Jesus’ Preaching in Nazareth.” Swindon, United Kingdom: United Bible Societies, p. 31-33.
This blog post was expanded from an email written to members of a Christ Lutheran Bible study on January 26, 2022.
© 2021 The Rev. Louis Florio. All content not held under another’s copyright may not be used without permission of the author.
2pennyblog 