Inspiration and Differences in the Gospels

[rlvaughn]

All four of the "Gospels" differ in their accounts of the same events. Their writers were people, same as us.

In another thread robycop3 and I briefly discussed the model prayer in Matthew 6:9-15 and Luke 11:2-4. The context was the difference in the two accounts.

Anyone who reads the four Gospels of the Bible is aware that there are differences in the manner in which they report some of the same events. In the case of Matthew 6:9-15 and Luke 11:2-4, I would dispute that they are the same event, but any of us who have studied the Bible know this to be the case in various reports. One example might be the superscription or accusation written above Jesus on the cross, in Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19.

On the one hand, the differences seem to be disconcerting to some. On the other hand, if there were no differences, why would we need four Gospels? How do you harmonize the differences in stories recorded by the four authors? Is this simply a matter of their different perspectives? Is it a matter of their literary genre? Something else?

How does this problem harmonize with the fact that all scripture is given by inspiration of God?

 

[AustinC]

Inspiration does not mean exact wording between one person and another. The time between the actual sentence Jesus used and the writing it down on papyrus is decades. The idea is the same while the wording is slightly different.
From what I have read, this slight difference actually makes the event more believable as it shows that the two writers were not colluding with each other. They independently expressed what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. The Spirit agreed with the meaning being conveyed and was fine with a different wording. I find no reason to be concerned.

 

[SavedByGrace]

How does this problem harmonize with the fact that all scripture is given by inspiration of God?

simply put is does not. there are no contradictions in any part of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, though there are paradoxes. The Four Gospels are "reports" from 4 different people, which different views on the Life of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no evidence to say that Jesus did not give both versions of the prayer, one used by Matthew, and the other by Luke. Like the number of angels present after the Resurrection. Matthew and Mark say one angel, and Luke and John say two. There is no contradiction here. The first 2 Gospels focused on the 1 angel and the 3 and 4 Gospels on 2. So we have the Crucifixion of Jesus, where Matthew 27:43, it says, "And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way", and Mark 15:32 says of the 2 thieves, "Those who were crucified with him also reviled him". Yet in Luke we read, "40 But the other responded, and rebuking him, said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our crimes; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (chap 23). Matthew and Mark do not give the account of the conversion of one of those crucified with Jesus. There is no contradiction here, just that one Gospel is more detailed, as Luke was an Historian.

 

[Yeshua1]

simply put is does not. there are no contradictions in any part of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, though there are paradoxes. The Four Gospels are "reports" from 4 different people, which different views on the Life of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no evidence to say that Jesus did not give both versions of the prayer, one used by Matthew, and the other by Luke. Like the number of angels present after the Resurrection. Matthew and Mark say one angel, and Luke and John say two. There is no contradiction here. The first 2 Gospels focused on the 1 angel and the 3 and 4 Gospels on 2. So we have the Crucifixion of Jesus, where Matthew 27:43, it says, "And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way", and Mark 15:32 says of the 2 thieves, "Those who were crucified with him also reviled him". Yet in Luke we read, "40 But the other responded, and rebuking him, said, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our crimes; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!” 43 And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (chap 23). Matthew and Mark do not give the account of the conversion of one of those crucified with Jesus. There is no contradiction here, just that one Gospel is more detailed, as Luke was an Historian.

Would be like the witnesses of a car accident, as some saw it right from beginning, others after it happened, but both were accurate in describing what they saw!

 

[Jerome]

It would be like expecting three different BB members—for instance, DaChaser1, JesusFan, and Yeshua1—to write about something in the exact same way.

​

 

[Yeshua1]

It would be like expecting three different BB members—for instance, DaChaser1, JesusFan, and Yeshua1—to write about something in the exact same way.

​

well, could post it as a Bapticostalist, as a free will baptist, and as a Calvinist one!

 

[37818]

On the other hand, if there were no differences, why would we need four Gospels?

God gave each a different purpose in teaching and in giving of the history.

How do you harmonize the differences in stories recorded by the four authors?

Different details given regarding events. The purpose in a teaching may change the order an account needs to be told. Jesus would repeat some of His teachings. But an account only needs to report one of the times.

Is this simply a matter of their different perspectives?

Only in part. Each account was given to a different church audience. Matthew and James. Mark, Peter and Jude. Luke and Paul. John to bring them all together.

Is it a matter of their literary genre? Something else?

Maybe some of that. And somethings yet to be understood.

How does this problem harmonize with the fact that all scripture is given by inspiration of God?

The problems are with interperters. With those who attempt to change the texts. (Known variants). And translaters imposing what they want the text to mean.

 

[John of Japan]

In Matthew we have the "Sermon on the Mount." In Luke, we have the "Sermon on the Plain. Same sermon, somewhat different content, preached at two different times. Didn't you preachers ever preach the same sermon twice after tweaking the outline? Each furlough I preached the same message dozens of times. The family got tired of it, but....

 

[rlvaughn]

Would be like the witnesses of a car accident, as some saw it right from beginning, others after it happened, but both were accurate in describing what they saw!

They're 2 accounts of the same event by 2 different men.

While a cop, I was asked once, "If you received 4 accounts of the same incident from a rocket scientist, a news reporter, a schoolteacher, & a homeless person, which one would I believe?" I replied, "All of them..."

Houston Baptist University professor Michael R. Licona has written a book titled Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? He also has blog posts on the subject. In one, he told this story about two seemingly contradictory accounts.

“In June 2017, two convicts in the state of Georgia killed two corrections officers who were transporting them, took their guns and fled. One morning, my wife told me the two had been captured in Tennessee by a guy who saw them trying to steal his car and held them at gunpoint until the police arrived. A few moments later, we saw a reporter on television saying the two convicts were captured after their stolen car had crashed during a high-speed police chase. I looked at Debbie and said, ‘What? But you said . . .’ to which she replied, ‘Just wait and hear the entire story.’

“Both accounts are true. The convicts had stolen a car. The police tracked them and were in a high-speed pursuit when the convicts crashed their stolen car and fled on foot through the woods. They were trying to steal another car when the home owner confronted them, held them at gunpoint, and called the police. Here were two stories that seemed irreconcilable to me at first but were easily harmonized.”​

Such illustrations can be helpful in understanding how two (or more) different accounts of the same event can be reconciled. What might first appear to be contradictory information can actually be complimentary information that completes the story.

On the other hand, such an illustration may be harmful if we are led to simply consider the Gospels as four different human perspectives of four different guys. Inspiration cannot and should not be set aside on a shelf somewhere. Does the word proceed from God, and is he just an “okayer” after the fact of men’s written explanations? Unless I am misunderstanding him, Licona seems to hold something closer to the latter. He says believes the Bible is inspired and inerrant. He does not believe either of the following:

• that God dictated the words to the biblical writers who acted merely as scribes
• that God, in a manner unknown to us, used their personalities and various writing styles to pen every word as he desired

Rather (in my words, not his), Licona seems to conclude that God acted in the circumstances in which the authors of the Bible wrote, but that they wrote in their own words, arguments, and logic. After they had written what they had written, God approved of what they wrote.

 

[Van]

Certainly the scoffers search for inconsistencies and use them to attack the premise the bible is inspired and thus inerrant. OTOH, it is possible, at least for many of these claimed inconsistencies, to show they are not necessarily inconsistent. But these efforts usually rely on speculation.

As pointed out by others, it is expected that the same event might be recounted differently due to differing viewpoint and purpose of the retelling.

One truth is comforting, the important points made the gospels are all the same, we are sinners unable to avoid eternal punishment by our perfectly just God, and God, due to His love, has provided salvation for those who believe as determined by God.