Do you believe the Gospels can have a theological agenda while at the same time being trustworthy in what they report?

Answer 1

This depends entirely on what one means by 'theological agenda.' However it is true that the gospel writers each had their own viewpoint in setting out their records. In many ways their purposes were entirely similar in that they wanted the future generations to have a record of Jesus life and teachings. How each one went about it is where the differences come. For example it is suggested that they had different 'target audiences' which determined parts of their work. Matthew is the most 'Jewish' gospel as he focuses particularly on fulfilled prophecy more than the others. John, considered to be the last written, wanted to get people to believe. The others also did as well, but John merely stated it plainly, and this criteria determined the structure of his book, whereas the others are more of a chronological narrative of Jesus' life and ministry (hence the term 'synoptic gospels').

The important thing to realize is that the writers all based their accounts on essentially the same facts. The way they told the story makes for a richer and fuller picture than we might otherwise have. They each have different styles and different ways of saying essentially the same thing. Much has been made of Jesus being referred to as 'the son of man,' for example as if this was stressing His humanity. In actual fact it is a direct allusion to the 'son of man' in Daniel 7:13-14, clearly a reference to a divine person. John is known for his 'I am' sayings (which are a direct allusion to Exodus 3:14) and yet, when Jesus came walking on the water (as recorded in Mark and Luke), He said not just, 'It is I, be not afraid' but in the Greek He said ego eimi, I am, the same as in John.

The 'theological agenda' is really just the writer, as we may look at a diamond from different angles, putting forth a slightly different aspect, according to what God impressed upon them from their knowledge of Jesus. This in no way invalidates any of the facts, which are in total agreement. Mark, for example, paints a picture of fast moving and continuous action and busyness which we don't get as clearly from the others - often through the repeated use of the words 'and' together with 'immediately'. This certainly does not change any of the meaning of what is reported, nor its validity. John is much more richly theological and oriented towards the meaning of Jesus' life and teachings.

Thus the 'theological agenda' enriches the picture, it does not diminish it, but deepens it. Most certainly the writers were all keen at the same time to put forward a trustworthy record which would stand up to scrutiny. The non-inclusion of writings such as the Gospel of Thomas in the canon of acceptable works, because it contained errors, is one sign that such scrutiny occurred. The fact also, that the writers at times included material which was less than flattering to themselves indicated that they wished to 'tell it like it is' rather than remove such details. This would also apply to stating that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection.