Have you ever been in a car wreck? If so, the incident probably stands out in your memory as if it happened yesterday. My first accident occurred just after I’d just dropped my eldest children off at school while I was taking the youngest to nursery. It was winter in England, when the sun rises late, and unsurprisingly it was drizzling. As I was turning across a lane of traffic, my son asked me why elephants have trunks. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, a gray car, whose headlights were off, ran into the side of my vehicle.
The report from the person who ran into me was very different. She said she was driving to work along the Pershore Rd when a car turned right in front of her. She slammed on the brakes but could not stop in time. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
Both stories are absolutely true but told from a different perspective and for a dissimilar purpose. I wanted to justify why I did not see her; she wanted to show she was not at fault (she did not remember whether or not her lights were on). One day, I will put this crazy incident in a book, probably emphasizing my son’s brilliance in asking such a question or the Lord’s miraculous protection, but not particularly addressing the color of the cars. I may not even mention the time of year. Both the purpose and the perspective of the accounting affect what is written.
Imagine you are part of the group of eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life who travel around and tell folks about Him and His teachings. You also have to ensure that the leaders of the groups formed get the message straight, sort out disputes, and much more. You tell the stories of what Jesus did and said again and again. Those who travel with you find they learn them by memory. (Rabbis in New Testament days could memorize 300,000 to 2000,000 words accurately; the average person would have found it easy to memorize 15,000.) You write letters to the new churches, encouraging them, sorting out confusion, and laying out doctrine (50-57 AD). However, as Jesus predicted, not everyone welcomes the new movement with open arms. Persecution begins, and you find that those spreading this message often die a violent death.
It soon became imperative that what had, until now, been maintained by word of mouth, perhaps because the apostles had little time for writing, was written down for the benefit of future generations. Thus, the gospels, or accounts of Jesus’ life, were written. Mark has been dated to ~64-70 AD and is based on Peter’s recollections of, and sermons about, the events of Jesus’ life. John Mark, a scribe mentioned in Ac 12, 13, and 15, penned it. Matthew was written in ~50-80 AD, possibly drawing on information supplied by Matthew, the tax collector. Luke, the physician, is the author of Luke and is upfront about his sources and the purpose of his book (Lk 1:1-4). It was probably written soon after Matthew. These three books are called synoptic because they essentially tell the same stories, if from different points of view and for various purposes. The Gospel of John was written last (~90-110 AD), and there is some doubt about who wrote it. There are also significant differences between John and the first three gospels. Does this matter? Should it cause us to doubt the truth of Scripture?
When I was 18, someone told me, “If it is true, you can think about it, and it will still be true.” This made a huge impact on my life. So, let’s consider the consistencies and contradictions in the gospels.
We will first notice that four different people wrote the four gospels for four different purposes. Remember the car wreck story? Mark was written for use in the evangelism and discipleship of Roman Christians. Thus, John Mark translated many Aramaic expressions into Greek, used Roman time periods, and included several Latin words. He emphasized Jesus’ servant nature and compassion but also showed that Jesus was a prophet, priest, and king through the stories of His life. He left his readers to decide, as Jesus asked, “Who do you say that I am?” (Mk 8:27) According to Mark (and Peter), Jesus is the Son of God. If one accepts that God inspired the Gospel of Mark for the purpose of relating information about Jesus to Roman and Gentile believers, there is no problem with believing it is true.
Matthew was written in polished or “synagogue” Greek with a different audience in mind: Jews. It also had a different purpose: proving that Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies: He is the Messiah. Thus, the book is littered with references to the Old Testament and is eminently suitable for teaching Jewish believers. Matthew did not so much catalog the events of Jesus’ life as group them around several teaching themes. If one accepts that God inspired the Gospel of Matthew to teach Jewish people about their Messiah, there is no problem believing it is true.
Luke starts his book by saying that he has carefully collected and analyzed what has been written and told by eyewitnesses and has put together an orderly account of Jesus, the man’s life. This gospel is meant to be a complete narrative, not a series of teachings or an evangelism and discipleship manual. It was also written from Luke’s viewpoint. As a member of the healing profession, Luke had compassion for the sick, the poor, and the outcasts. Thus, he carefully related stories of Jesus’ love for Gentiles, lepers, tax collectors, and other marginalized groups.
Interestingly, Luke also emphasized Jesus’ Jewishness, even though this cultural group usually isolated itself from others. Perhaps he wanted to make the point that Jesus was inclusive and embraced diversity! If one accepts that God inspired the Gospel of Luke to give an orderly and full account of the events, there is no problem with believing it is true.
Traditionally, it is held that John the Apostle, someone known as a “son of thunder” and “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” was the author of the Gospel of John. Some suggest that it was actually written by Lazarus, and others that it and 1, 2, and 3 John were the product of a Johannine school of thought that consisted of John’s disciples. Regardless of who wrote it, the author told us why he wrote it (Jn 20:30-31). The book neither presents the incidents in Jesus’ life in the same order as the synoptic gospels nor mentions much we learn elsewhere. Rather, John is highly organized around seven signs or miracles that culminate in the raising of Lazarus and seven “I am” statements and discourses that culminate in Thomas calling Jesus “my Lord and my God.” Known as the “spiritual gospel,” John contains several themes, including light vs. dark, belief and faith, and the titles of Jesus. Nonetheless, John’s gospel includes the same general narrative of Jesus’ life, shows that Jesus is the Messiah and fulfills Old Testament prophecy, teaches the same principles, and gives the same reason for Jesus’ death and resurrection as the other gospels. If one accepts that God inspired the Gospel of John to show us that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, because, by believing in Him, we will have eternal life, there is no problem with believing it is true.
When one reads the Gospels, it is evident that unique perspectives and goals have resulted in four different but complementary books.
And, to some degree, that makes the gospel story more believable—the folks who put the Bible together did not remove the parts that, at first glance, appear inconsistent. Just as the testimony of two witnesses at a car accident being identical would make us suspect they conferred, if the stories in the gospels were an exact match and not presented from each person’s unique point of view for their own purpose, we might wonder if something was rigged.
Having said that, would we not expect multiple witnesses to at least agree about the basic facts? Like, who went to the tomb and found it empty? Or why Jesus was arrested? Or who His ancestors were? Or who performed a particular action? Or even how long Jesus’ ministry lasted? Why do the gospels contain discrepancies concerning these things? Remember, if it is true, you can think about it, and it will still be true. Let’s think about that next time.