Historical Jesus - Lesson 5

Dr. Mark Strauss
Historical Jesus
nt315-05
Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels
Lesson Transcript

In our last session, we talked about the general reliability of the gospel tradition. In this session, we turn to alleged contradictions among the gospels and claims of historical inaccuracy. We should start off by noting that claims of contradictions sometimes come from expecting the gospels to deliver something they were never intended to provide. The gospels are not always verbatim transcripts of what Jesus said, nor are they videotapes of events in his life. It's a common and acceptable method of history writing, and this applies to both ancient and modern world, to summarize accounts, paraphrase speeches, and report events from a particular vantage point. Most apparent contradictions in the gospels can be explained from common practices in history writing. New Testament scholars have long recognized that in most cases we don't have the exact words of Jesus, in Latin that's ipsissima verba, but rather we have the ipsissima vox, the authentic voice of Jesus. That is His essential message as communicated through the author's words.

Now this should be obvious in one sense since Jesus taught mostly in Aramaic, but our gospels are written in Greek. All of His words are translations. Many variations in wording among the gospels may be attributed to different translation decisions. The gospel writers, however, are more than just authoritative translators. They are authoritative and inspired authors and interpreters. When we speak of the inspiration of scripture, we're talking about the inspired authors of the text, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the case of the gospels. What they write, including their interpretation of Jesus's words and actions, is the inspired word of God, and sometimes those words move beyond simple translation or paraphrase to expanded interpretation. For example, Jesus's beatitude in Luke, "Blessed are the poor," Luke 6:20, becomes in Matthew, "Blessed are the poor in spirit," Matthew 5:3. While it's possible that Matthew's phrase is original or that Jesus said both on different occasions, more likely Matthew is clarifying the spiritual significance of Jesus's words.

Similarly, in Matthew 7:11, Jesus says, "How much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?" In the parallel, in Luke 11:13, Jesus says, "How much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?" We can't say for sure if Jesus originally said "good gifts" or "the Holy Spirit" or whether he said both, but since the coming of the Holy Spirit is a leading theme in Luke and Acts, the author may be preparing for this by emphasizing that the greatest thing that God gives is the Holy Spirit. That would be an inspired and authoritative interpretation of Jesus's words.

Another example of this is the centurion statement at the foot of the cross. While in Mark's gospel, the centurion says, "Surely this man was the Son of God. Mark 15:39. In Luke, he says, surely this was a righteous or an innocent man," Luke 23:47. Both statements are important to their respective gospels. Son of God is a key title for Jesus in Mark and Jesus's innocence or righteousness is the central theme of Luke's passion narrative. Perhaps the centurion said both or Luke may be emphasizing that Jesus's status as the son of God means he is the innocent and righteous servant of the Lord of Isaiah 53. In this case, he would not be citing the exact words of Jesus but their theological implication. Our point is that we must not insist that everything Jesus says in the gospels is a verbatim citation. Sometimes we have an authoritative and inspired interpretation of those words.

In addition to interpretation, we often have abbreviation and omission in the gospels, the gospel writers are clearly selective, omitting some material and including additional material. Sometimes this leaves readers with the impression of contradiction. For example, Matthew is famous for abbreviating accounts. While in Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree on one day and the disciples discover it withered the next day, in Matthew, the cursing and the withering appeared together. Apparently on the same moment, the same day. It would seem Matthew was not interested in providing a strict chronology, but in emphasizing the fact of the miracle.

A shortened version of events also appears in the healing of the centurion servant. In Matthew chapter eight, verses five through 13, the centurion himself comes to Jesus. While in Luke 7 he sends a group of Jewish elders, but what seems like a contradiction is simply an abbreviated way of speaking. If I left a message for our dean through his administrative assistant and someone later asked, "Did you tell the dean this?", I would say yes, even though I did not speak with him directly. The centurion spoke with Jesus through the elders. Something similar happens when James and John request the chief seats in the kingdom in Matthew chapter 20, verses 20 and 21 and Mark 10:35-37. While in Mark the request is their own, in Matthew, it comes from their mother, and we can harmonize this easily by suggesting that the two brothers approached Jesus through their mother even though it was their request.

Mark, who portrays the disciples in a more negative light, does not mention the mother and so emphasizes this was their prideful request. Another example of omission is when one gospel speaks of two individuals, while another refers to only one. There are two demon possessed men in Matthew 8:28, but only one in Mark 5:2. There are two blind men in Matthew 20:30, but only one in Mark 10:46. Two angels appear at the tomb in Luke 24:4, but only one in Mark 16:5.

Now, we should not simply gloss over these difficulties. They're legitimate concerns and questions, but in each case the essential story stays the same. Mark mention of only one person may be a way of simplifying the story by emphasizing the spokesperson or the main character. Okay, in addition to interpretation and omission, we often have the reordering of events in the gospels. Precise chronology was clearly not a concern for the gospel writers in many contexts. For example, in the temptation accounts in Matthew chapter four and Luke four, the order of the last two temptations is reversed. Matthew ends with Jesus on the mountaintop while Luke ends with Jesus on the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem.

These climaxes are not surprising since Matthew elsewhere emphasizes mountaintop revelations and since for Luke, Jerusalem and the temple are particularly important themes. Both writers are more interested in the event's significance than its chronology. Perhaps the most famous example of reordering of events relates to Jesus's clearing of the temple. While the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke placed the episode at the end of Jesus's ministry, John places it at the beginning. Now it's certainly possible that Jesus cleared the temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry, once at the end, but it was also within the gospel writer's authority to rearrange events to emphasize their significance.

In some cases, the episodes are different enough that they should be treated probably as two separate events. For example, there are three scenes in which Jesus is anointed with expensive perfume in the gospels. Matthew and Mark described the anointing of Jesus's head by an anonymous woman at the home of Simon the leper during the last week of Jesus's life. This is in Matthew 26 and Mark 14. A similar episode appears in John 12 where the woman is identified as Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus in John 12. While these are probably descriptions of the same event, Luke describes another anointing much earlier in Jesus's ministry in Luke 7:36-50. In this case, Jesus is dining in Galilee, not Judea, with a Pharisee named Simon and the woman is identified as a notorious sinner. While both anointings occur at the home of a man named Simon, this is an extremely common name in first century Israel.

Other details in the account are so different that we should probably think of two separate events. This passage also raises the difficult question of what are called doublets. These doublets are two episodes often in the same gospel, which some scholars claim arose from the same historical story. An example are the two feeding miracles. First of the 5,000 and then of the 4,000. Both Mark and Matthew report both feeding miracles. Luke and John have only the feeding of the 5,000. Have Matthew and Mark mistakenly treated two versions of the same story as two different historical events? While this is possible, it's just as likely that Jesus fed the multitudes on more than one occasion. While historical difficulties in the synoptics generally relate to episodes they have in common, in John, the problem is that there are almost no episodes in common.

How can this gospel portray such a different perspective on the life of the same Jesus? Some scholars find this question so difficult, they construct their portrait of Jesus almost entirely following the synoptic gospels. This is to a certain extent understandable, since John presents such a different perspective and is a more interpretive gospel. Over the last few decades, there's been an increased interest in a respect for the historicity of John. For one thing, John is the only gospel where the author actually claims to be an eyewitness. In the prologue, he says, "The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only son who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." He says, "We have seen his glory." Then in 19:35, he says, "The man who saw it has given testimony and his testimony is true," and in 21:24-25, he reports, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know his testimony is true."

This claim to be an eyewitness seems credible since the author provides many incidental details one would expect only from an eyewitness, such as the name of the high priest servant whose ear Peter cut off. His name was Malchus. That's in John 18:10. And the number of fish caught in the miraculous catch of fish in John 21. That number was 153. The author also shows great familiarity with the geography of Jerusalem before its destruction and knows the traditions and customs of Palestinian Judaism such as the use of stone jars rather than ceramic ones for ceremonial washing purposes. See John 2:6.

Most of the alleged contradictions between John and the synoptics are quite easily explained by recognizing that John, like the other gospel writers, selected, omitted, abbreviated, arranged, and interpreted his material in such a way as to emphasize particular themes. This editing process means we have different and complimentary presentations, but not necessarily contradictory ones.

But what about Jesus's unique style of speaking in John and Jesus's more explicit claims to deity? While it's certainly true that John is the most interpretive of the gospels and that the author feels free to interpret, explain, and elaborate on Jesus's words, it's going beyond the evidence to claim that the discourses are pure fiction. We must not overstate the differences between Jesus's speech in the synoptic gospels, Matthew, mark, and Luke, and in John, a striking example of this appears in John 11:25-27 and it's paralleled in Luke chapter 10, where Jesus speaks in a manner similar to that in John. Jesus says this, he says, "All things have been committed to me by my father. No one knows the son except the Father, and no one knows the father except the son and those to whom the son chooses to reveal him."

These words recall many passages throughout John. Similarly in Mark 9:37, Jesus says, "Whoever welcomes me does not welcome me, but the one who sent me." This language echoes John 12:44 and John 13:20. The phrase, "the one who sent me" occurs 23 times in John. These passages indicate that Jesus's manner of speaking in John may not be as different from the synoptics as is sometimes supposed and really could reflect the speech patterns of the historical Jesus.

Finally, we must deal with the exalted Christology of John's gospel. How do we account for John's explicit affirmations of Jesus's deity, as in John 1:1, "The word was with God and the word was God" and John 20:28, where Thomas addresses Jesus as "my Lord and my God"? Again, these differences should not be overstated. There's little in John that cannot be found implicitly in the synoptics. Jesus, for example, exercises the attributes of God forgiving sins, Mark 2:5, reading minds, Mark 2:8, and receiving worship, Matthew 2:11, 14:33, 28:9. He's the judge of all humanity, determining people's eternal destiny, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:31-46. Following the resurrection, he mediates the Holy Spirit, the very presence of God to his people and promises the divine presence among them, Matthew 18:20, Matthew 28:20.

These are all divine attributes. In summary, most of the so-called contradictions in the gospels can be quite easily explained as normal practices of history writing, including things like omission, inclusion, summarizing, paraphrasing, rearranging, and interpreting the words and deeds of Jesus. In our next session, we turn to Jesus's explicit and implicit claims about himself and his mission.