I loved him, but we were clearly on two different pages. The café was dimly lit and there was a low buzz of people chatting and eating dinner around us. It was an awkward but cordial conversation. I wanted very much to understand where he was coming from, but the truth was we simply disagreed over the definition of a contradiction. We were discussing the Bible and my dear friend kept contending that the gospels were full of contradictions. I insisted it wasn’t and tried to explain. Many critics of the Gospels are just like my friend: quick to cry contradiction where tension seems more appropriate. As we continue to wrestle with the claims of inerrancy it behooves us to consider the historical difficulties of the four Gospel accounts. The worldview we apply to the study of the Scriptures determines how we see the historical difficulties in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
There is no denying that historical difficulties exist. Anyone who has spent any significant amount of time studying the gospels knows that there are some difficulties we have to wrestle with. Christians do not believe that the Bible is a simple, flat book, which requires no diligent study to understand. So even while we believe it to be the Word of God, inerrant, authoritative, and designed to be understood by men that does not excuse us from the hard work of studying the Scriptures and wrestling with its content. But that wrestling need not negate the doctrine of inerrancy. Part of the dilemma is that many people view historical writing wrongly.
We have already mentioned the importance of understanding that historical writing includes variation. As we consider the difficulties in harmonizing the four gospels, we should begin with a realistic worldview. That is to say, we should allow that the Bible uses the same basic tools of human writing that other writings do, in this case specifically variation. Such an honest and realistic expectation at the outset may limit the number of supposed “contradictions” that critics find in the Scriptures. Vern Poythress writes:
The genre of “Gospel,” like other genres that God has ordained, includes a range of instances – what we call “variation.” Each Gospel is different from the others. And the differences may include differences in historical focus and selectivity. We must not too quickly decide that writing history can take place in only one way, or with only one set of explanations. (Inerrancy and the Gospels, 43)
The principle of variation allows that each of the Gospel writers, while telling the same major story, are focusing on different events and interpreting those events in slightly different ways or to slightly different ends. That is all part and parcel of good historical writing. No one event can be interpreted through one lens or from one vantage point. The whole Bible is a testimony to God’s multi-facetedness, even his Trinitarian nature, in that it repeatedly tells stories from different angles and to highlight different themes. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do this particularly as it relates to the life and passion of Jesus of Nazareth.
Each of the four gospels give us the truth about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But that is not the same as saying the each of the gospels are exhaustive, none of them claims this. Nor is this the same as saying each of the gospels communicates that truth in exactly the same way. Poythress notes:
Each makes choices about how it is going to tell the history. Each is interested in highlighting theological significances and relationships to the Old Testament. Matthew is noteworthy for his Jewishness, for his compression, and for the introduction of subtle hints of extra significance. Mark is noteworthy for action and for concentration on the main points. Luke is noteworthy for care in historical research. John is noteworthy for theological depth in interpreting the significance of events. (74)
Each Gospel writer offers us a slightly unique picture of the same story, and a Biblical worldview allows for this. If we are going to fairly interpret the text, we must follow the Bible’s own worldview and not impose on Scripture an unrealistic standard.
It is only fair that we consider carefully some specific examples of tension, but as we do we should begin with this knowledge in place. The principle of variation allows us to see the distinctions in the historical documentation of the life of Jesus not as contradictions, but as honest evaluations from multiple perspectives.
God, as the overseer of history, of the emergence of genres, and of the very writing of Scripture is satisfied with variation in the Scriptures. It reflects his own Trinitarian nature to present a multi-faceted history of the life of Jesus. It also rewards us who study it, because we can learn more from four unique gospels then we would ever learn from just one. As we turn to consider specific examples of tension, we must begin with the principle of variation in place.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 