Read the Gospels Symphonically, Not Harmonically

I was trained to read the Gospels in harmony. That means to read them side-by-side to create a unified account of what historically happened. I’m grateful for my excellent teachers. But this particular focus, I believe, can use a slight corrective.

A harmonic reading is an extension, in some ways, of the Enlightenment project, which sought the historical Jesus. This has its merits and I believe has its place in the history of interpretation. But it’s also, I’m convinced, limited. The three quests of the historical Jesus of which NT Wright, Ben Witherington III, and others have taken part, for example, have added much value to our understanding of the texts and historical background of the NT itself. 

But there’s more.

Importantly, a harmonic approach to reading the Gospels, I believe, is not the primary intention of the Gospel writers themselves in writing their accounts. God sovereignly ordained four accounts of the Gospel, not just one. If he wanted a total harmony, he would have simply authored one. I make this argument more fully in my recent teaching “Reading the Gospels Symphonically” from the “NT Survey” six-part series I’m teaching right now. 

What’s helpful about a harmonic approach is to see the differences—not contradictions, but different vantage points—of the Gospel accounts. What do we do with the two angels at the empty tomb in John 20:12 versus the one angel at the empty tomb in Matthew 28:2? Here they are

• Matt 28:2: “There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.”
• John 20:10–12: “Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.”

In the last 150 years of scholarship, especially the last 50, this has been handled primarily in terms of history: Well, what really happened? That’s a valid question (and we can respond with valid answers). But is that what the apostolic tradition of the New Testament writers set out to answer primarily? Yes and no. Yes, these events happened and yes they were historical (Matthew doesn’t say it was only one angel; he could have been emphasizing the one when there were actually two, which is what I believe happened). 

But is there more here than history? What I find interesting is this notion: That the apostolic writings we have, called “Gospels,” were written primarily theologically not historically. Even as historical documents, though, their historical veracity is not measured in the same way we do today. Their historiography is not the same as our 21st-century, scientifically informed way of viewing history. 

I develop this notion more fully via video here. (If you’re not sure on this and want to dig deeper, please watch my full account in this video.) 

So while history and harmony have their legitimate places, I advocate for reading the Gospels symphonically. A symphonic reading is still harmonic on some level, but it emphasizes distinction not sameness. And this, I believe, honors Holy, inspired, and authoritative Scripture supremely because I believe it honors the way in which the Gospel writers intended their writings to be read. That is, they were primarily writing theology—reasoning about God (which are the two components of “theology”: “logos” of “theos“) through God’s Son—not just history. That’s why John starts with the Logos theology in John 1:1, to clarify what Gospel really is.

Consider giving this perspective a shot, because if adopted, I believe it will impact positively how you teach and preach (and read) the Gospels: watch here for my case for a symphonic reading.

How will it impact us?

If we read the Gospels this way, I think we’ll stop quibbling among ourselves as much as we do to find the harmony, and we’ll more quickly discover the unique and beautiful sound each Gospel account was published to make. In the end, I believe our preaching and teaching will be simpler for us to prepare and more cohesive for us to communicate.

Practically, this means preaching or teaching primarily out of one text on a given occasion instead of trying to blend two or three (or sometimes four) together. Then, when we do blend two or more together, having been formed by a symphonic reading first, then we’ll better know how to read them together since we’ve allowed their uniqueness its proper place in context.

Note: We must remember, historically, that the first “harmony” of the Gospels, the second-century The Diatessaron, was written by Tatian and implicitly rejected by Eusebius as heterodox in the fourth century (Ecclesiastical History, 4.29) and later Epiphanius (also in the fourth century) in his Panarion also implicitly condemns Tatian’s harmony as heterodox (see Pan. 46). We don’t find affirmation of it as orthodox otherwise (and in fact, Tatian himself apostatized). There’s a reason for this rejection, which can be developed separately, but these simple data points alone should give us pause for reading the Gospels primarily from the grid of harmony. 

So let’s consider more deeply what each Gospel uniquely has to say, understanding that the narrative itself is cohesive, the stories really did happen—physically and historically—as we read them to have in each Gospel. But more than that, they tell us about God himself, which is the heart and goal of theology. A symphonic and theological reading of the Gospels, I believe, is what will make the Gospel itself sing the way it was made to be sung.

Watch here for a fuller treatment of this and let me know what you think (link starts video at 18:15).