5. From Harmonized Story to Gospel Voices

Of course, some (a few?) might feel that with everything I've said up to now, and with what I'm about to say now, that I'm somehow attacking the Bible—that I'm charging the Bible with contradictions that prove the Bible is not inspired. Then they might point to some current writings in apologetics that claim to disprove all the supposed contradictions of the Bible.

 

Faulty Methods

But I'm not attacking the Bible—not on any level. I not only love biblical texts, I've given my life to studying and teaching them.

Rather, in this series, I'm trying to raise awareness about faulty Bible-reading methods that claim to have a "high view of the scriptures" but do not respect what's actually in them. It's not enough to claim a high view. We need to demonstrate any high view we claim by how we treat the individual texts.

This becomes especially evident in current attempts in popular apologetics to explain the differences among the Gospels. No matter how well intended, too many of these approaches are based on theories about the Bible rather than on the actual contents and claims of the texts themselves.

In particular, two widespread theories of popular apologetics can still be heard in Sunday sermons or Bible classes, and they're usually stated as dogmas:

1. There are no factual differences among the Gospels.
2. The Gospels, properly read, can and should be harmonized (to dispell concerns about factual errors).

Of course, the intent of such statements is to defend the credibility of the Gospels against sceptics who attack them as "full of errors."  So, the motive is positive and fairly clear.

Theories

Even so, the above two statements must be recognized for what they are: theories. And more than that, not very well based theories. And even more than that, overriding theories; i.e., theories that override specific individual elements within Gospel texts. As such, these two theories end up causing more problems than they solve.

First, neither is correct. I began addressing this in the previous study session, and I will show even more below.

And second, these theories do not allow individual Gospel texts any breathing room—any ability to stand on their own two feet. They end up as straitjackets, hindering the messages of the individual Gospels. For these theories to work, we must close our eyes to some very particular things in the Gospel texts, or explain them away—very much in a "the-emperor-has-no-clothes" manner. And some things must be added that no Gospel has. I'll illustrate one section further down.

Popular Apologetics

Before continuing, I want to make it clear that the quite legitimate goal of apologetics is to give a reasoned and accurate defense of Christian claims, answering objections and showing why those claims are intellectually credible. The problem shows up especially when popular apologetics begins to ignore and then manipulate texts instead of being controlled by them. The latter is credible, the former is not.

Stated bluntly, popular apologetics should never be allowed to override responsible exegetical method. Arguments that don't properly respect the many details of the Gospel texts do not serve the cause of those texts—as such, they are not only not helpful, they become harmful.  

Too many of the so-called "explanations" end up explaining away the texts instead of allowing them to say what they say. That can hardly be called a high view of the texts. It's almost as if we're quietly embarrassed by what the texts actually say, so we feel we need to fix them. 

Harmonizing the Stories

OK, let's illustrate.

All four Gospels tell a story about the women at the tomb and the resurrection of Jesus.[1]

As noted, a number of treatments in popular apologetics begin with the assumption that these accounts can and should be harmonized—brought into line with one another—since it is held that the stories are, each one, only partially told.

So then, in order to "show how" the stories fit together, it is necessary to postulate (i.e., invent, manufacture) details that no Gospel itself gives. This makes it possible to fit the separate accounts into a single, reconstructed story.

These kinds of approaches can be found just everywhere. And the thing is, the so-called harmonizations don't all harmonize with each other. And that seems to bother no one. I'll give just two examples.

Apologetics Press (AP) treats the differing numbers of women and angels in the Gospel stories as selective reporting—what it calls “supplementation” (as if what is in one Gospel is intended to supplement the others).[2]

1. AP creates a composite group of women from the different Gospel accounts (as though that is the intended purpose of the various lists).
2. It then assumes that the one angel mentioned in Matthew or the young man in Mark is simply one of the two men in Luke or two angels in John.
3. Why Matthew or Mark would leave one out, or why Luke calls them men or John angels are explained as just telling only a part of the full story.
4. Finally, the harmonization is forced by creating and assuming things not in any Gospel, and any remaining differences are simply ignored or explained away.

GotQuestions decides to carry this further by adding (which means inventing) more connecting details in order to make the harmonization work.[3] Its reconstruction requires at least three events that no Gospel reports:

1. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women;
2. the other women stay at the tomb after she leaves;
3. Mary Magdalene later comes back to the tomb.

Think about this. These events are inserted into the story specifically to make the four different accounts line up as one continuous chronology. Does that sound right to you?

The result is a story that is not told by any Gospel we have. This is now a 5th story manufactured from parts of all four—innocent looking, like a baby put together by Dr. Frankenstein.

The Problem with Harmonizing

I'm not trying to be unkind towards anyone's sincere efforts. And to be as clear as possible, I'm not suggesting that the concept of harmonization per se is somehow evil, or even just useless. I'm rather pointing to the overexuberant and nearly addictive application of it when interpreting the Gospels, especially to the exclusion of more important book-by-book considerations. So, it needs to be understood just how off-base an unrestrained reliance on this method can be.

The problem is quite simply this: Once we accept the theories (a) that the Gospels cannot be allowed to have anything that smacks of competing information, and (b) that they were intended to be harmonized by adding some details and ignoring others, (c) then who will arbitrate the one true and proper harmonization? For the fact is, even the so-called harmonies are often inharmonious—and that should be a red flag.

For example, I suggest that the harmonization that I'm about to offer is just as legitimate as anyone else's:

1. Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb first, alone, with it still dark, sees the stone removed, and leaves to tell Peter and the other disciple.
2. Later, Mary Magdalene returns with the other Mary. They see the angel sitting on the rolled-away stone and hear his announcement.
3. Still later, Mary Magdalene comes again, this time with Mary the mother of James and Salome. They enter the tomb and see a young man sitting on the right, dressed in white.
4. Later still, a larger group of women—including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others—comes to the tomb. They enter and encounter two men in dazzling clothing.
5. Finally, Mary Magdalene is again at the tomb, where she sees two angels inside and then encounters Jesus before reporting to the disciples once more.

So, according to my inspired conflation, Mary Magdalene has now been at the tomb five times, the tomb has been visited by women on five separate occasions, and six angelic or humanlike figures have appeared there—one angel, one young man, two men, and two angels—not counting Jesus himself.

Sounds like an old Perry Mason movie. If he were on the job, I'm sure he would have discovered a surprise witness: Lazrus, who helped convince the disciples what "being raised from the dead" meant.

Forcing the Fit

I suggest that my sequence can be forced to “fit” the pieces of the four accounts just as easily and with just as much credibility as any other harmonized version. The fact that someone can say, "I prefer a different one, not yours" is beside the point. The fact is, I don't like or accept my own version either; but I have satisfied the conditions the underlying theories just as much as any other proposal. 

But no matter what reconstructed version we end up choosing, why doesn't it bother us that no Gospel tells the story we end up choosing, preaching, and teaching?

When we manufacture ways to make the stories fit, we not only admit that we are uncomfortable with the Gospels as they stand, we also make it clear to everyone listening to us that the Gospels need our help to get the story right.

What the Gospels Do

As a result, relying on harmonizing Gospel accounts has historically distracted attention away from what each Gospel actually does:

1. Mark offers a resurrection story that ends ominously with frightened women who flee and say nothing to anyone. This highlights once again how the disciples in Mark are repeatedly said not to understand who Jesus is—even now, at the resurrection. As readers, we have heard the young man's announcement in the tomb. And we find ourselves aghast, wanting those closest to Jesus to now understand. But the story ends leaving unresolved whether and how they finally do.[4]
2. Matthew transforms this by turning fear into joy and obedience as the women encounter Jesus and hurry toward the disciples, moving the story toward Galilee and the final commission.
3. Luke gathers a larger group of women at the tomb—consistent with his broader emphasis on women throughout the Gospel—and has them remember Jesus’ words and become the first bearers of the resurrection message. At the same time, he keeps the resurrection story centered in Jerusalem rather than moving immediately to Galilee, preparing for the continuation of the story in Acts, where Jerusalem becomes the starting point for the mission outward.
4. John slows everything down and focuses intensely on Mary Magdalene, turning the resurrection into a deeply personal scene of loss, recognition, and encounter.

Those are not merely four collections of different details; they are four differently shaped resurrection stories. Frankly, I don't care if there are some unresolved tensions in the stories, because I happen to know that they are coming from different perspectives, for different people, by different authors, at different times and locations, with different agendas in mind. I actually would expect some differences.

Each Gospel tells its own story. And in the Gospels themselves, there is never at any time any statement, implication, or even any hint that any Gospel needed any other to complete the story it is telling.

Whose Game?

The problem is, Christians often end up playing the skeptics game:

"They contradict each other!"

"Oh no they don't! If you hold your mouth just right, we can make them fit!"

Why not just let the Gospels stand on their own two feet? Why not just acknowledge the differences and focus on how each Gospel develops its distinctive story?

Maybe the differences are more important for understanding what the individual Gospels are doing than our own genius in coming up "with the one true harmonization" of an event.  

But this much is for sure: It's when we start listening to the unique voice of each Gospel, instead of our own desire to fill in missing details, that we start getting more from Bible study.

https://www.biblicalconversation.com/more

 Questions to Consider

1. If harmonizing the Gospels requires us to add events that no Gospel actually reports, at what point have we stopped interpreting the texts and started rewriting them?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Why are readers often more comfortable with a reconstructed “complete” story than with the four differently shaped stories the Gospels themselves give us?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. In the resurrection stories, what becomes visible when we stop asking how the details can be made to fit and start asking what each Gospel is doing with the story?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What would it look like in your own Bible reading to let each Gospel stand on its own before bringing the others into the conversation?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next Week

6. "The Bible Project's 'The Gospel'"
Why does a sophisticated approach acknowledge the four distinctive Gospels—and then quietly mash them back into one?

Series Note

This is Study Session #5 of the free, online, ten-session Bible study series: Beyond the 5th Gospel. It is best to begin with Study Session 1 and follow the entire study in the proper order, on a week-by-week schedule.

Because this is copyrighted material intended for personal or goup study, you are granted the right to freely use this material in Bible classes, small groups, private study, or similar settings—as long as you keep the material unchanged and intact, including this series note.

If you have come to this study session out of sequence, please go here for the beginning of the series:
https://www.biblicalconversation.com/blog/5th-gospel-prelude

Go here for all available PDF downloads:
https://www.biblicalconversation.com/studiesbc#section-1788376027032

Thank you.
Gary D. Collier

Footnotes

[1] Mt 28:1–10; Mk 16:1–8; Lk 24:1–12; Jn 20:1–18

[2] Kyle Butt, “The Resurrection Narratives,” Apologetics Press, December 31, 2001, https://apologeticspress.org/the-resurrection-narratives-294/.  The goal is positive: to dispel the attacks by critics. The exclusive focus is on how the accounts can fit together.

[3] S. Michael Houdmann, “Can the Various Resurrection Accounts from the Four Gospels Be Harmonized?” GotQuestions.org,  https://www.gotquestions.org/
resurrection-accounts.html. Notes the accounts are difficult to "piece together." Central and side issues" are distinguished: "Perhaps one person only saw one angel, while the other person saw two angels." A full "harmony" is offered, but repeatedly creates unreported departures, separations, returns, identities, and locations.

[4] The ending of Mark is textually disputed. For my purposes here, however, the concern is simply with the way Mk 16:1–8 tells the story of the women at the tomb and the announcement of Jesus’ resurrection.