Introduction

What about all those contradictions between the Gospels? A common and not unfair question.

There are entire web sites devoted to exploiting the purported differences and entire websites devoted to reconciling them (two leading apologetics sites are tektonics.org and http://www.christian-thinktank.com). At times it almost seems like an online game. Some though are skeptical of any attempts to "harmonize" the Gospels. Certainly a complete harmonization is beyond our abilities from a purely historical standpoint. But that does not mean that many of the differences between the Gospels are not subject to harmonizing.

Here are a few principles to keep in mind when reviewing the Gospels, and especially the "differences."

1.   Harmonizing Historical Accounts is a Common Historical Practice

Some people are dismissive of attempts to harmonize apparent differences in the Gospels because they think it is merely a tool of Christians desperate to preserve the doctrine of inerrancy. Harmonization, however, is a fact of life in all historical studies rather than the special province of Christian Apologists.

It should be clearly understood that a serious attempt to harmonize what purport to be historical accounts of the same event is not simply a perverse concern of Christian apologists. Any student of history, especially ancient history, is familiar with the problem, and any responsible historian confronted by apparently discrepant accounts in his sources will look first for a reasonable, realistic way of harmonizing them.

R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, page 112.

2.   Make Sure Your Accounts Are Discussing the Same Event

Before concluding that there is a discrepancy, be sure that the accounts are discussing the same fact, event, or saying. This is especially important when reviewing the Gospels. Too many critics take it for granted that similar sounding sayings or events must be variant accounts of one original utterance or happening. This goes too far. Remember, Jesus spent two to three years as a public teacher/prophet/healer, who traveled through Galilee and Judea, spoke to many groups at many different times, and was alleged to have healed many people. It is also clear that Jesus had a message, a theme. He was not espousing extemporaneously, but trying to deliver a particular message or messages to the Jewish people. Inevitably, then, he was to repeat the same teachings in different circumstances to different people, at many different times. And those retellings would be variants of other sayings and messages he gave. It is difficult to retell the same story or message in an identical fashion time and again.

For example, I heard a pastor speak at my church about reaping and sowing. I was so impressed with the message that I ordered a copy from his ministry organization. I got a copy of the reaping and sowing message, but it was one he delivered at another church a few weeks earlier. The message and stories were similar, but not identical. There were variants. So too with Jesus.

If Jesus' public ministry lasted for two or three years, as is commonly assumed, it is highly likely that he repeated much of his teaching on different occasions, hence the form of it would naturally vary to suit different audiences. Any preacher is apt to use similar forms of expression and similar illustrations in different contexts, and there is no reason to think that Jesus was different in this.

R.T. France, op. cit., page 112.

An example of this phenomenon may be the Beatitudes. Matthew 5:3-10 records a set of them and so does Luke 6:20-26. However, despite their similarities the two sets are also different. But, "why should it be assumed that Jesus only ever uttered one set of 'beatitudes' which were then drastically recast in transmission into the two radically different sets...?" Ibid. The answer is that it should not be assumed. Indeed, it is more likely that Jesus often spoke of beatitudes in different ways to different audiences.

Another important example could be the Sermon on the Mount. Much of the teachings from Matthew's Sermon on the Mount are reproduced by Luke in a "Sermon on the Plain." Did Luke completely rework the Sermon on the Mount and change its geography? Or was he aware of a different occasion in a different place where Jesus gave a similar teaching? We may not be able to answer that question. But certainly there is no reason to assume that one or both got it wrong.

3.   Account for the Subjective Perspective of the Source or Author

It is the rule, rather than the exception, that witnesses to the same event will not all describe the event in the same way. After hearing the Sunday message in church, my wife and I will often discuss the message on the way home or over lunch. In those discussions we often focus on different parts or points of the message. We do not always even remember all that the other one does (indeed, we may not have even heard the same things due to bathroom breaks, taking care of a child, taking notes of a previously made point or being otherwise distracted), and sometimes the meaning was taken differently. Though we are describing the same event -- even accurately doing so -- our accounts are not identical. We had different perspectives.

But such difference of perspective is not necessarily a contradiction, nor does it render either witness unreliable. Provided that each account is read with due awareness of its author's aims and emphases, which will affect his selection of material as well as his 'angling' of what he records, there is no reason to accuse either of falsifying the record.

France, op. cit., page 114.

A good example of such differences of perspective is the resurrection of Jesus, each told from different perspectives by different witnesses who saw and heard different things, or the same things according to their own perspective. Luke and John, for example, use a source concerning the inspection of the empty tomb that Matthew does not. Indeed, it seems that Luke and John may themselves have different sources for their inspection of the empty tomb account. Luke's source seems to derive from Peter. Luke 24:12. John's takes into account a source derived from the disciple John. John 20:3. By reading them together we get a fuller picture, not a more confused one.

4.   Remember that the Authors Wrote According to a Different Literary Convention

Ancient literary conventions did not emphasize exact – and were likely not capable of procuding -- verbatim records of what was said. And sometimes it emphasized topical order rather than chronological. This understanding is reinforced by the many vague "chronological links" used by the gospel authors--such as, "then" or "in those days" or "immediately."

As early as the second century some Church fathers thought that a part of Matthew's excellence as a Gospel writer lay in the fact that he, unlike Mark, wrote in chronological order (cf. Eus. 3, 39, 15f). Later it became almost axiomatic that the Gospel narrations should be chronological. In the nineteenth century this was the common assumption upon which the 'accuracy' of the Gospel was attacked or defended. However, the ancient Hellenistic world recognized that chronological narration was only one of many literary methods, one which was not always the most desirable (Daube, p. 416). The rabbis went even further. They were convinced that the Old Testament often was not in chronological order. For example, the Egyptians' threats against Israel (Exod. 15:9) occurred after they already were destroyed (Exod. 15:1-8). The orders of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 were chronologically different. Also, Ezekiel's vision (Ezek. 1) could not have preceded his call (Ezek. 2); the prophet rearranged the texts. Consequently, the Rabbis fashioned a rule for biblical studies: there is no before and after in Scripture (cf. Mek. On Exod. 15:9; Martin, pp. 179-86). This principle of biblical interpretation probably was current in the New Testament period.

Earle E. Ellis, Gospel of Luke, pages 6-7.

Darrell L. Block agrees and provides specific examples:

Sometimes the Evangelist discusses issues on the basis of topical consideration rather than sequence. For example, the first three events in Matthew 8:1-15 are miracles, but Luke has the same events in a different order. Checking Luke 8:22-56, one can see a sequence of four miracles, and order Mark 4:35-5:43 also possesses, but Matthew 8-9 breaks this order up. This means that we cannot always know exactly where the sayings of Jesus fall in sequence within his ministry. It was more important for the Evangelists to give Jesus’ teaching, and sometimes group it with related events, than to be concerned with sequence. These differences in order are not an example of error in reporting; rather, they reflect differences in theme and emphasis in terms of intended presentation. They give evidence of conscious choices in ordering events with the Gospel accounts.

The Words of Jesus in the Gospels, in Jesus Under Fire, page 85.

As Professor France notes, probably the single largest category of alleged discrepancies are due to a misunderstanding of how chronological links were used and how topical concerns often overrode chronological ones. R.T. France, op. cit., pages 115-16.

5.   The Gospels Writers Had Their Own Interest and Emphasis

I have a number of books on military history, including several that discuss WW II's War in the Pacific between Japan and the United States. These books use many of the same sources. But they are very different books, including different discussions of the same events, different organizations of material, and different emphasis and opinions. I benefit greatly from the diversity and learn new and different things from each of them. Much the same is true for the authors of the Gospels.

Each of the evangelists wrote his gospel for a specific situation, and with his own particular message to convey.... They are Christian theologians, men with a message, writing to commend Jesus in their own distinctive ways to their own different readerships. It is hardly surprising, then, that one gospel reads very differently from the other, and that the same story or dialogue may be presented in markedly different ways.... But such a difference of perspective is not in itself a problem for the accuracy of the record each evangelist provides.

France, op. cit., page 116.

Another example of this may be the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. Luke is an author who seems to have more of a focus on, perhaps appreciation for, the role of women in Jesus' ministry. As a result, he focuses more on them throughout his account, and especially in the resurrection accounts. He is more specific and tells more of their story than does Matthew and Mark. This is not a discrepancy per se (though it may prevent us from reconstructing exactly how the events unfolded Easter morning). It is a difference in focus and emphasis.

6.   Our Gospels are Translations of Aramaic Sayings

Jesus preached in Aramaic -- the language of his time, place, and people. All of the Gospels, however, are written in Greek (with some useful Aramaisms left in various places).

So what the gospels offer us is at most a translation of what Jesus said -- and all translation is to some extent an interpretation, not an exact equivalent. Modern translation theory rightly recognizes that the search for a literal, word-for-word equivalence between two languages is not only futile but can lead to serious misunderstanding. What we need is rather some kind of dynamic equivalent, a way of expressing the substance and tone of the original in a form appropriate to the language into which the translation is being made, which may often need to depart quite substantially from the form of the original.

France, op. cit., page 117.

This principle may be especially useful when reading the Gospel of John.

In the case of John, that individuality is most consistently evident, so that there is a distinctively 'Johannine feel' to the teachings of Jesus as John records it. But that fact does not by itself indicate that John has falsified or invented the 'teachings of Jesus' which he presents, merely that in his case the interpretative work which is essential to any good translation has been more thoroughly carried through.

Ibid.

Conclusion

These are just some things to keep in mind as you are reading your Gospels. Be cautious and approach purported "contradictions" as a cautious historian would. And when you are tempted to find a "sure" contradiction or responding to someone who has rashly done so, stop and consider the alternatives.

©2004 Christopher Price

Questions or comments concerning this article or the use of this article should be directed to Christopher Price.