Posted: March 6th, 2024

Gospel Inconsistencies in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s views

Gospel Inconsistencies in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s views
Gospel Inconsistencies in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s views
1. Introduction
Some of the most frequently used strategies to explain inconsistencies in the Gospels include: interpretation based on historical context; literary genre of the text; intention of the author; and the influence of oral tradition, which has an impact on the synoptic Gospels, passed down allegedly by Jesus’ disciples during their ministries. This investigation is expecting to find out whether and to what extent Gospel inconsistencies are, as found, interpretable and comprehensible, and what implications one inconsistency may have on the finding of another. Also, is it justified to argue that every Gospel inconsistency is, in fact, an obstacle for Christian faith and thus a Bible inerrancy? As such, a literature review and a systematic study to methodically identify and analyze inconsistencies in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John will be carried out in order to answer the proposed inquiry.
As such, there have been numerous explanations put forward by Christian believers to justify such inconsistencies. The Augustinian hypothesis is one of these theories, which suggests that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written as supplements to the Gospel of Matthew; and in later years, the idea of further human authorship for the Three synoptic Gospels became commonplace. However, with the advance of modern science and a rising number of scholars who study biblical texts, many more hypotheses have been established.
Gospel inconsistencies have been a point of Christian debate for years. On the one hand, many believers swear it is virtually airtight and truly irrefutable proof of the Holy Spirit leading the writers of the Four evangelists in their writings. On the other hand, skeptics argue that the finding of inconsistencies, such as events, dates and timeframes, between two or more Gospels provides a basis for them to challenge or argue the authenticity. This inevitably poses a threat to a religion which is believed to have a very strong foundation of faith, based on the truth and reliability that Christians put onto the Holy Bible.
As one of the main New Testament books, but also the substance and message of the people who wrote them. The Gospels are the first four books of the New Testament. Although the identity of the writers of the Gospels is not confirmed, it is well believed that the first Gospel, that of Matthew, was in fact written by a Christian named Matthew, also known as Levi. All Gospel writers were Jewish, and they made use of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The world’s best-selling and most widely distributed book prior to the printing press, the Bible has, as of 2001, been translated into 2,400 languages. Wycliffe Bible Translators has significantly helped these efforts, having recently translated the New Testament as of 2017 for the Umbugarla language of the Northern Territory of Australia. But translations such as this should not be taken as a simple and straightforward task. Whether it is about analytical linguistics, religious history, marketing, or the understanding of cultures, a biblical language analysis is necessary.
1.1 Purpose of the Study
Upon undertaking this systematic exploration of the conundrum, my chief ambition had been to guarantee an impartial and straightforward analysis in my effort to irrigate and invigorate the understanding of the unsuspecting faithful. From experience and conventional belief, many Christians have always perceived the four personalities penning the Gospels as being more or less uniform and convergent in their opinions and interpretations of the events they describe accompanied by the intended lessons. This school of thought has not been entirely baseless; a vast majority of scholars and divinity students across generations have occasionally dismissed the inconsistencies, each maintaining that with regard to the events and the scope of Christ’s teachings, the evangelists remain fairly harmonious. It is against this backdrop that I formed the primary purpose of the current study as essentially being to discern and measure the consistency or lack of it amongst the views and reporting methods of the four authors on various episodes in the Gospels. It is my anticipation that engaged readers shall be left not only edified and properly informed but also appreciative of the reality that indeed, the apparent disharmony and inconsistency amongst the evangelists should actually be seen and construed as providing a deserved compliment to the sanctity and authenticity of the Gospels as reflecting variegated and free-will internal inspirations; a factor that has a good potential to offering the much needed impetus in enriching our spiritual cravings and contemplations for the omnipotent and enigmatic force that roves and reigns in our daily lives. By extension, the study writers and does not mention and what the chapter talks about. The completion of this study will aid in gleaning and subsequently gaining a better and informed understanding of some of the most extraordinary insights that have long been associated with the divine revelation. For instance, to what extent and which kind of evidence do the variations and inconsistencies amongst the evangelists offer to critics and scholars who propagate the so-called ‘human development theories’ aimed at debunking the belief that the Bible is essentially the true word of God relayed to mankind by divine inspiration? Can one consistently ignore or intermingle oral and historical circumstances and justifications leading to the composition of the Gospels and at the same time hold as to an unwavering doctrinal assertion that the scripture is essentially and systematically without any error. Quite significantly, how best and to which philosophical and theological school of thought would one should approach and interpret apparent variations in the Gospel’s description of revelation and the extraordinary phenomena in iconographic literature associated with the life of great divine personalities such as Christ? The completion of this study will be a vital ingredient of what the writers and apostles were trying to portray and achieve in their message to all and sundry, the possible synthesis and harmonization of the currents and the emerging multiple theories that had been advanced and propounded regarding the inconsistencies and many other minor skeptics that have always been associated with the New Testament.
1.2 Scope of the Analysis
It is relevant to mention that the writer embraced to examine the inconsistencies in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The rationale behind analyzing these inconsistencies is also detailed as the major objective of the study. The writer intends to analyze all the inconsistencies, specifying the location as to where they are found in the texts. However, such a detailed explanation of the inconsistencies is not provided in the scope of the analysis. Instead, the broad sections of the study are only listed in line 23. The analysis covers key themes and perspectives such as the birth and early life of Jesus, his ministry and teachings, and his crucifixion and resurrection. On top of that, the possible explanations and interpretations for these inconsistencies are also explored, including the historical context, literary genre, theological perspectives, authorial intent, and the influence of oral tradition and the synoptic Gospels. Well, the immediate sentence gives the reader a navigational map to understand the upcoming paragraphs in line 1. Through reading the scope, the reader can know what to expect from the study. However, providing a detailed layout as to what would be included in the study could disrupt the reader’s flow. Hence, the writer has chosen a general layout instead of a detailed explanation which could be included in the introduction. It is suggested that the explanation which follows the detailed layout of the coming study should be included in the introduction. By doing so, the explanation can be a bit lengthier, and it would also give a clear vision to the reader about how the study is going to be organized. An appropriate explanation should be long enough to give a full coverage of the layout of the study so that the reader can fully comprehend and appreciate the upcoming chapters.
1.3 Methodology Used
The methodology used in the study involves referring to the Bible itself as the main source, both in the analysis and interpretation processes, and the consultation of various resources from various authors. Particularly, the ‘inter-biblical’ scenes and outsides, such as the ‘outside of the Bible’ similarities and the scenes that are in more than two Gospels, are focused. Outside examples include ‘The Book of Enoch’ and ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’. These sources are employed to explain reasons of the supposed inconsistencies, such as the usage of some authors using ‘The Book of Enoch’ or potential of the scholars using more of these materials in the newer analysis nowadays. Furthermore, Library of Congress and its search has been used as essay progresses. It allows the researches of the most contemporary analysis and add some reliability to the interpretation. Similarly, Google Scholar has been used too. Through typing key words such as ‘synoptic problem’ and ‘Gospel discrepancies’, it gives various contemporary and established opinions and ideas from scholars. For data analysis, most of the Gospels have been used to compare with each other, such as comparing all four ‘synoptic’ Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s with different other ones. This can help to identify and finalize the areas where the inconsistencies and consistencies happen pacifically and accurately and supports any interpretations that the scholar might have. The findings on the methodical analysis then are sought through both taking note on frequency the supposed inconsistencies happen in the Gospel and summary of what types of apparent discrepancies are to each other. Also, all things like times that are being mentioned and any different given names to a same person are actually examined.
2. Key Themes and Perspectives
The birth narrative in Matthew refers to Jesus as the ‘King of the Jews,’ a theme that runs right through the gospel to the death of Jesus. Matthew’s genealogy, which we find in chapter one of Matthew’s gospel, sees Jesus as the son of King David and Abraham. There are periods of time and events of history that are represented by 14, the numerical value assigned to King David’s name. Luke also explains how Jesus is a son of David, but whereas in Matthew the genealogy runs through David’s son Solomon, in Luke it runs through David’s son Nathan. In Luke, Jesus is presented as the universal savior, a theme that runs right through Luke’s gospel. When Jesus is presented in the Temple, for example, in the early chapters of Luke’s gospel, Simeon talks about Jesus as ‘a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.’ When the angels announce the birth of Jesus in Luke’s gospel, they do so by speaking to shepherds – people who are rejects, who are sinners in that society. So you reveal it first to the people who haven’t really got much hope in life, who are kind of rejects, and it’s the shepherds that are the first people to hear about the birth of Jesus. In that way, Luke is showing Jesus as the savior for everyone, for the Jews and also for the Gentiles. We will compare these gospels at times and we’ll compare these key themes at times, but I wanted to point out that in actual fact if we look at both the perspective of Matthew and Luke, the birth narratives have more common ground than what sets them apart. And in particular, what we cannot ignore is that both Matthew and Luke agree that it is a virgin birth. And that is a key theme in terms of Christian interpretation of who Jesus is and what Jesus came to do. I will talk more about theological interpretations later, but it’s really important to understand that both Matthew and Luke’s gospels make it clear that Jesus coming into the world isn’t just any normal birth, but it’s something that’s really significant and supernatural as well. In Matthew 1:18, Matthew writes: ‘Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.’ And also in Luke 1:30 onwards, ‘The angel said to her, do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now you will conceive in your womb and bear a son and you will name him Jesus.’ So both Matthew and Luke have a virgin birth at the heart of their birth narratives about Jesus. We also see in Matthew that Jesus’ family – so Mary, Joseph, and Jesus – have to flee to Egypt because King Herod is threatening their lives. This is known as ‘the flight into Egypt’ and the Old Testament prophecy that is used to explain why Herod’s so desperate to try and kill the baby Jesus is from the prophet Hosea.
2.1 The Birth and Early Life of Jesus
Inconsistencies in the gospel accounts start with the genealogy of Jesus given in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The Gospel of Matthew traces Jesus’ genealogy from Abraham to Joseph. This genealogy encompasses about 42 generations: “From Abraham to David fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ fourteen generations” (Matthew 1:17). On the other hand, Luke provides a genealogy that runs from Joseph as son-in-law to Heli, who is identified as the father of Joseph, and traces all the way to Adam and to God (Luke 3:23-38). However, Augustine in his work “Harmony of the Gospels” made an attempt to reconcile the two genealogies in a manner that has been widely accepted but still discussed. He argued that Joseph’s father, Jacob, had Mary as the wife but also by a levirate marriage, Joseph’s father also had Joseph’s brother and managed to get another son from David’s kingly lineage. In that case, Joseph’s biological lineage is traced to David through his mother while the kingly lineage was transferred through his father to Solomon. However, this attempt to harmonize the inconsistencies does not work. First, the text of the gospels makes no indication that the genealogy given in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are intended to show Joseph’s biological and kingly lineage. Second, Augustine accuses the scriptures of lying because there is no mention of the possibility of a levirate marriage in the scriptures. Therefore, a critical analysis and interpretation of the genealogy show that the genealogies in the gospels of Matthew and Luke are inconsistent and irreconcilable.
2.2 The Ministry and Teachings of Jesus
Another key part of the analysis is the exploration of the ministry and teachings of Jesus. Here, comparisons are made of events known as the “Temple cleansing” that occurs during the time in Jerusalem. Each of the analyses in chapters four and five of Matthew, as well as chapter three of John, describe Jesus going to the Second Temple and taking action. However, there are differences in John, as Jesus is more provocative and announces a prophecy against the Temple; unlike Matthew where there is a specific mention of the part where the public in the Temple are cured and children are singing Jesus’ praise – this scene does not feature in John’s account. The attention is also drawn to Luke’s decision to move the events of “Temple cleansing” to the start of Jesus’ ministry; unlike the order provided by Matthew and Mark. This observation is heavily linked with another inconsistency, the “Synagogue Healing” in Luke. The Gospel notes that “the man had a shriveled hand” and Jesus was “teaching and Pharisees and the teachers of the law were there”. However, during those times, synagogues were usually used as a meeting place for prayer, study of the scriptures, and where services are held; not for healing. It is intriguing how Luke’s gospel seems to have incorporated into the story the Jewish tradition statement that “you shall not pluck the ears of corn of your neighbor”, which is a concept that the healing revealed in the Temple. Such detailed comparison of the content within different Gospels, and analysis on the possible reasons for such inconsistencies and variations, provide much support to the conclusion that those inconsistencies and variations are inevitable; and they serve to enhance the unique theme of each individual Gospel. It strengthens the argument that those who aim to read the Bible should be prepared to appreciate its significance, and the complexities found in the different ways in which the Gospels have been crafted by the successors of the apostolic tradition.
2.3 The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus
At the heart of Christian faith is the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. This central event in the Christian story is told differently in each of the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. A key research strategy in looking at these inconsistencies is to read each Gospel on its own terms: what is unique about Matthew’s Gospel, how does Luke’s Gospel stand alone, and so forth. However, many of the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the birth narratives were present in the story of the crucifixion. These are compounded by contradictory meanings and messages when comparing the details and themes of each story. For example, there are fundamental questions about whether the crucifixion is told as an act of submission, an act of defiance, or an act of prophecy in which Jesus fulfills his own prediction. These 3 fundamental meanings are attached to Matthew, John, and Mark’s accounts respectively and imply distinct theological implications for each Gospel. However, once again, the research suggested that the inconsistencies can be an entry point to a deeper understanding of the Gospels. The opportunity in this first age of Bible criticism is to explore the role of Redaction criticism in addressing the inconsistencies found throughout the various evangelical accounts, in particular through the focus on the theological consistency. It allowed the consumers and interpreters of the Bible, both during the First World War and today, to make more informed decisions on the impact of the inconsistent, contradictory, and oftentimes confusing narratives of the Bible. This idea of working with and understanding the Gospels as a “patchwork” of different traditions can help address the inconsistencies in the crucifixion narratives. A methodology such as Literary Criticism, in which the Bible is seen as a piece of great literature to be critically analyzed, can be implemented to address the presumed contradictory nature of the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Literary scholars will often look at the central themes that unite a piece of literature and what techniques the author used in order to communicate his message to the audience. By doing so, the apparent inconsistencies, such as the changing attitudes of the disciples or the contradictory words of Jesus on the cross, can actually serve to create a much more vivid and impactful image of the crucifixion itself. Literary critics argue that a more nuanced, evidence-based approach is better for addressing the contradictions in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. However, Redaction criticism, as well as the application of these inconsistencies helping foster a deeper understanding of the Bible, is a more likely option. It is a field of critical scholarship that seeks to show how the editors and compilers of the Bible have put it together and how the narrative was shaped. This is an approach that begins with an analysis of the differences found in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion and looks to discover the theological reasons behind the inconsistencies. According to Christopher M. Jones in his book “Historical criticism of the Bible,” the main aim of Redaction criticism is to investigate the theological concerns of the Gospel writers in the composition of the narrative. By identifying the inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion, as not simply chronological variations but contradictions in meaning and message, the theological purpose of the author can be exposed and there is potential for a greater understanding of the Gospels.
3. Analysis of Inconsistencies
The analysis of the Gospels’ discrepancies is not an easy task. Discrepancies reflect how history is depicted and recorded. No two historians will write the same history book with the same details. If there are inconsistencies in the Gospels, it does not necessarily equate to a demerit in the value or the realities of the account of Jesus’ life. As the Gospels’ contradictions and inconsistencies is an age old Christian debates and thus we should deal with the inaccuracies of the Gospels not in a sceptical manner but in a critical manner. St Augustine once said that “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in the Scriptures, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.” This signify that in the early Christian tradition, people treat discrepancies in the Gospel in a hermeneutics (practices of interpretation) manner rather than trying to negate and proving that another’s argument is incorrect. This is a useful guidance for us to materialise the Gospels’ discrepancies. The language used by the Gospel writers e.g. the way the Gospel writers report deaths and miraculous incidents are also a potential source of difficulties. Another potential influence is the stereotyped forms of transmission. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus has been described as a worker of miracles. All His extraordinary actions are called ‘mighty deeds’ in Mark. This phrase-‘mighty deeds’ seems to be a well known term and could possibly pass to various groups in the early years of the church. The Gospel of Mark is known to be the earliest Gospel written and that the other Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke is known to refer heavily on the Gospel of Mark for their authors have hardly affected to the term of ‘mighty deeds’. So it can imply and make sense to us that Matthew and Luke, who wrote their Gospel considerably later, depend on Mark’s description of Jesus. Such influences tend to crystallize large units such as miracle collections. And hence we can see various types of miracles classified under a uniform heading as we seen in Luke.
3.1 Differences in Chronology
With all our knowledge today, we understand that the biblical authors wrote for different reasons, are interpreters in their own right, have their own backgrounds, and most importantly wrote in different literary styles. According to Powell (2018), in the ancient world, there were no established and uniform rules as to how an author is supposed to record history or events. As a result, an author had more freedom in terms of rearranging events and in selecting and omitting details. These freedoms allowed biblical authors to shape historical material in a way that would best serve their theological purposes or the message they were trying to communicate through their writings. Therefore, the differences in chronology as found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should not be used as evidence against the historical reliability of the Gospels. Nevertheless, these differences should not be dismissed too quickly either. Modern readers should recognize that the ancient Gospels were written in different times, for different audiences, and have different messages. There are always reasons behind every single difference, and the awareness of the reasons behind the differences in the end may actually help to enrich the understanding of the Gospels. As such, Keener (2012) suggested that “instead of treating every Gospel chronology as if it corresponds to modern ideas of precision at the emphasis of theological or narrative import, it may be better to consider what literary task each order accomplishes” and this is in relation to whether the author wrote in order to provide a history or purely for theology or pedagogy reasons.
3.2 Variances in Details and Events
Another important area of study in the exploration of the inconsistencies among the Gospels is the differences between the details and events in the narratives. Such variances will not only be able to raise critical questions for a thorough study on these contemporary texts, but also indicate the possible intentions of the authors. The Gospel according to Matthew states that “some men brought to [Jesus] a paralytic, lying on a bed” before Jesus to cure the latter and Jesus did so. This verse is absent in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John. However, in other Gospels, Jesus healed the paralytic because “some people came carrying a paralyzed man” in Mark, “some men carrying a man who was paralyzed” in Luke, and “people brought to him a paralyzed man” in John, the wordings of the opening sentences of the same narrative. It is clear that the writers shared a similar style in detailing the scene of how Jesus cured the paralytic, yet failed to be consistent with the type of visitors who brought him.
3.3 Discrepancies in the Disciples’ Roles
Reflecting the differing focus found in the earlier gospels, Matthew and Mark emphasise the role and deeds of the disciples more than Luke and John. There is an interesting inconsistency that should be taken into account – whereas in Matthew the disciples are portrayed as having a strong faith, in Mark they are shown to be hopeless and a source of frustrations for Jesus. Mark wrote his gospel before Matthew, which would usually mean that the later author (Matthew) would have made more improvements to incorporate later developments in Christian thinking. However, quite the opposite is true in this case. A possible explanation for the change oxbridge essay pro research uk writings phd thesis writing in portrayal of the disciples between Matthew and Mark could be linked to the decision of the later author to make his Christian message more accessible and vivid through the use of simple and concrete language to describe the deeds of the disciples, as opposed to the objectivity reflected in the writing of Mark. In Matthew, the first calling of the disciples was followed by a miraculous healing of great multitudes and as the first miracle reported in this gospel was done in this merge event between preaching and healing, which has set a good precedent for Jesus’ disciples who were shown, on many occasions, performing miracles to the general public throughout the gospel. Also in Matthew, Simon Peter was foremost among the disciples and was shown to have a strong faith in Jesus by offering to build three tents on the mountain of transfiguration, whereas in Mark, none of the deeds of the disciples recorded in Mark 1:16 that Jesus called Simon and his brother, Andrew, casting nets into the sea, and notably “they were fishermen”. This is in line with the general critique of Mark wishing to emphasise the disciples as a bunch of people without understanding nor faith and Jesus as the true saviour. However, this consistent and common-negative portrayal of the disciples could also raise some questions. Instead, any differences within the disciples are well hidden and disguised. One would find that only a few of the disciples were named, apart from the common listing of names in gospels, and even fewer of them were given the opportunities to talk and show their understandings and faith towards Jesus. This inconsistency in the disciples’ roles between Mark and the rest of the gospels could be interpreted as providing a challenge and devotion; we are asked to reflect on our own cases of imperfection.
4. Possible Explanations and Interpretations
4.1 Historical Context and Literary Genre
4.2 Theological Perspectives and Authorial Intent
4.3 Oral Tradition and Synoptic Gospels