In Defense of the Faith - Why can't the gospels agree?

May 1, 2016

Hunt, Dave

Why Can’t the Gospels Agree?

Question: Christians try to explain away the contradictions in the narrative in the four gospels as resulting from four different witnesses, each presenting his own perspective on what happened. But that could not account for the variations in the words attributed to Jesus. Did He use the words that Matthew records, or did He actually say what Mark writes, or what Luke or John offer us? Words can’t be changed! If these writers really were eyewitnesses, why don’t their memories agree? And if they were inspired by the same Holy Spirit, why the contradictions?

Response: First of all, there are no contradictions between the four gospels. There are variations in the accounts, but they are exactly what one would expect from accurate independent eyewitnesses. Furthermore, as we and others have already noted, these variations prove that the gospel writers were not in collusion nor were they copying from some common document, as the critics charge. They give us independent reports exactly as each claims.

The variations are actually an important evidence of the Bible’s authenticity. They offer further proof that later copyists or translators did not alter the record in an attempt to make all the accounts superficially agree. The very fact that seeming contradictions were left in the gospels is verification that these records were considered by the church to be inspired of the Holy Spirit and therefore not to be revised but to be reverently left as they were. There was obviously not a “progressive revelation” or any “development” in the record, as the critics insist.

Why even have four gospels? If the record is inspired of God, why do it this way? Why not just one account, which would have saved space and paper and reading time, since the four gospels seem so repetitive? The Holy Spirit, who inspired these accounts, had good reasons.

One major purpose for having four separate gospels is the very one we have just noted: to demonstrate the authenticity of the record in a way that could not have been accomplished otherwise. Four witnesses provide an attestation that a single witness could not. Moreover, to tell the story from four different perspectives presents a broader view of Christ’s works and teachings than one account could give.

Nor were the disciples simply relying upon their faulty memories. If that were the case, we could have little confidence in the record they offer. Obviously they had no shorthand transcription, much less a tape recording to rely upon. They wouldn’t dare pretend to give us the very words of Jesus unless they were relying upon the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. Then why the variations in those words, if those who report them have provided an accurate record under the inspiration of God?

There are several reasonable possibilities. Jesus surely gave similar teachings on certain subjects a number of times in different settings to different people. In such cases, the wording would not and should not be exactly the same. Knowing the hearts of His listeners, Jesus no doubt introduced a particular variation in one place and a different innovation elsewhere.

There are, however, instances when such an explanation would not apply. Sometimes when the same teaching is given in different gospels it is clear that the same location and occasion is being described by each; and yet there is a difference in the wording recorded in the different gospels. How can that possibly be?

Here, as an example, is one of those instances that is given to us in each of the first three gospels. John, who provides incidents and teachings not found in the other gospels, doesn’t mention this particular occasion. All three other gospels record the same teaching and in the same setting—in the presence of publicans in the house of Matthew (also called Levi), whom Jesus had just called to be His disciple. The Pharisees criticized Jesus to His disciples for eating with sinners, and Jesus replied:

They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, for I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Matthew:9:12–13)

They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Mark:2:17)

They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Luke:5:31–32)

A Reasonable Explanation

Although these three statements by Christ vary slightly in wording, they all have the same meaning. Matthew alone gives us something additional: “But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. . . .” Why don’t the others record it? Why should they? Isn’t once enough? It is ironic that the skeptics, on the one hand, criticize the gospels for repeating the same incidents and teachings, yet when there is some legitimate variation they complain!

Matthew’s account lets us know that Christ made a pointed remark for the Pharisees’ benefit. He referred them to Hosea:6:6 as a rebuke for their lack of mercy. And He let them know that they needed to repent and that forgiveness of sin could only be on the same basis as physical healing—by God’s mercy.

We have three accounts in perfect agreement. The only difference is that two of the three don’t tell us all that Jesus said. In fact, perhaps none of them does. We don’t really know. There is no contradiction in the three accounts, however, nor is there anything to suggest either collusion or tampering with the record or to deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The same conclusion will be reached by thoroughly examining all of the gospels. Personal research can verify this fact for all other apparent inconsistencies.

—An excerpt from In Defense of the Faith (pp. 138-41) by Dave Hunt

Printer-friendly version