|
|
A response to the suggested Essay topic: “Is it a problem for the church that we have four gospels rather than one? Illustrate your answer from at least two gospels.” Unless otherwise stated, Biblical quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version. Describing The Incomprehensible We may not know, we cannot tell . . . but we believe For the simple believer, having four gospels rather than one is a continuing delight and joy. Each sheds a new and different light on Christ’s life, teaching, passion and resurrection; we hunger for more, not less. We know that God made man cannot be fully described, let alone fully comprehended, in one, two, three or four short ‘books’ – “the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” , as evidenced by the continuing flood of new attempts to explain and interpret the scriptures that continue to flow from authors and preachers, adding to two thousand years’ worth of such material. To the sceptic, however, the presence of four gospels presents an equally endless opportunity to question belief, from the very general - why four, not three or five - to the detailed - why does some material in one gospel flatly contradict material in another? Having four versions of Christ’s life, teaching, death and resurrection presents a challenge to Christians and an opportunity for sniping by non-believers. There are indeed significant differences among the four accounts, including apparent contradictions. Does this mean one account is true, the other false? How can we know what is true and what is false? Also, since these are not the only texts of their general period that purport to tell ‘the Jesus story’, the question may quite legitimately be asked, “Why four – why not three, or five, or more - and why this particular four?” This essay examines some of the issues arising from the inclusion of four (and only four) gospels in the New Testament in the light of questions that might reasonably be posed by an “earnest enquirer” – one who is perhaps attracted by the Christian faith, wants to learn more and seeks to test what he or she is being told. It concludes that yes, having four accounts of the gospel has been and can still be a problem for the church, but not in the end a problem for faith. The irreconcilable dilemma There was only one catch and that was Catch-22 . . . If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Joseph Heller, Catch 22 (1961) One way to approach these issues is by a relatively simple answer ‘from faith’, which can be offered in response to a non-Christian challenge, to fundamentalist assertions based on isolated texts and to questioning and to doubt on the part of Christian adherents or potential converts: God doesn’t communicate his truth to mankind by using the Bible’s authors as dictating machines or shorthand typists, but through stories and lessons told and written down by fallible humans, striving to communicate transcendent concepts through the inadequate medium of human language. One account from one perspective by one fallible reporter is simply not enough to explain Jesus. ‘Four and only four’ results from judgements by later fallible people, striving to discern what was most clearly ‘true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report’ from among a much wider range of texts that purported to be accounts of Christ. In recognising our four gospels we believe that the original writers, those who selected the gospels, and the later translators of the texts were all inspired and assisted in their work by the Holy Spirit. This answer implies that we too share the grace of our personal knowledge of God through Christ and can apply this grace to understand and interpret the scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit. A second approach places less reliance on personal faith and direct personal understanding. Instead it seeks to understand the scriptures and their role in the light of painstaking research, investigating and analysing any and every aspect of how they were written, by whom, with what purposes in mind, for what audiences, in what contemporary and historic context and affected by what influences. This approach also seeks to assess the likely validity of both the canonical texts and other accounts and the process of their selection. Research and conjecture of this general kind has gone on almost since the original texts were written, but the last one hundred years or so has seen an explosion in the range of research methods, alternative philosophies of approach, and debate among and between both general theologians and an increasing variety of specialist researchers. It seems certain to continue to attract research indefinitely, and the research seems certain to continue generating controversy.
|
