Now, what does all of this have to do with the contradictions between these Gospels? Well, think about it: If four different people write about someone’s life and public ministry, they’re going to choose different details to emphasize and they’re probably going to arrange their material differently. We also have to realize that these books are Gospels and not biographies, which means they are not detailed, chronological accounts of the life of Jesus. They are written to present a message and to help us understand who Jesus is, what He did and what difference that makes for us.

Now, we need to address the question of contradictions: Don’t these four Gospels contradict each other in many places?

Each of the four Gospels is unique in its perspective and somewhat distinct in its purpose, each colored by its author’s background and interests and focus. Sometimes this can mean that the Gospels differ from each other, but I do not believe that they differ in ways that are contradictory. In fact, given the fact that these were written by different men with different perspectives, the picture of Jesus and His life and ministry which emerges is remarkably consistent. I have read all four Gospels in their entirely at least a dozen times. I have never walked away from such an experience thinking, “Wow, these books are contradictory!”

So, my initial encouragement to you if you want to understand these Gospels is to read them in their entirety. Instead of reading some internet article on supposed contradictions between the Gospels, read the Gospels themselves in their entirety. Take time to get to know them, and then you can think about apparent or supposed contradictions in their context.

Once you read them, you’ll see some distinct characteristics:

1. Matthew quotes from the Old Testament a lot, saying “This was to fulfill what was written . . .” many times.
2. Mark is the shortest of the Gospels and has the quickest pace, using the word “immediately” a lot.
3. Luke is the longest and most detailed Gospel, giving detailed descriptions of historical context and even certain medical-oriented things.
4. John is the distinctly different Gospel and seems most clearly focused on Jesus being fully God, the Son of God, the Word of God in the flesh. He also records much more of Jesus’ teaching about who He is, saying “I am . . . ” several times.

You’ll also notice that Matthew, Mark and Luke use a lot of the same material, but arrange it differently. The current best theory on this is that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke were each expanding on Mark’s Gospel to provide more detail.

• Mark wrote in Rome to a Roman audience and so he focused more on the power of Jesus.
• Matthew expanded Mark’s Gospel for a Jewish audience, emphasizing that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel and the Jewish Scriptures.
• Luke was a doctor and a historian, so he’s the most “academic” of the Gospel writers, and he writes for a Greek, intellectual audience.
• John was the last living Apostle who wrote his Gospel decades after the others, probably, and he decided to go in a different direction, emphasizing things that were not included in the other Gospels.

Now, what does all of this have to do with the contradictions between these Gospels? Well, think about it: If four different people write about someone’s life and public ministry, they’re going to choose different details to emphasize and they’re probably going to arrange their material differently. We also have to realize that these books are Gospels and not biographies, which means they are not detailed, chronological accounts of the life of Jesus. They are written to present a message and to help us understand who Jesus is, what He did and what difference that makes for us.

Over 90-95% of the apparent contradictions between the Gospels can be cleared up by keeping a few facts in mind:
1. Different people may report on a common event truthfully but include or exclude different details.
2. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, which means He gave the same or very similar teachings in multiple places on multiple occasions.
3. Gospel writers don’t necessarily arrange material chronologically, even if it seems like they do. Their arrangement of the narrative is suited to their purpose, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate just because the order of events is different between the different Gospels.

Of the remaining apparent contradictions that are not so easily resolved, I can say this: Christian scholars have examined and explained almost all of these “contradictions” with reasonable explanations. I will list below some resources to help you with further study. To put it briefly: No one has been able to prove contradictions which have no possible explanation as to their harmony. If the burden of proof is put on those who would call something a contradiction to do so beyond a reasonable doubt, it has not been done.

If you have a specific contradiction in mind that you cannot resolve, you may leave it in the Comments below and I’ll do my best to help you.

The Benefits of Differences

In one sense, it’s really very reassuring that the Gospels are not identical in every respect. These differences show us that the Gospel writers did not collude with one another to make sure their stories matched just right. If you have multiple witnesses retelling events from different perspectives, you should expect the accounts to differ somewhat: Details will be included by one person which are excluded by another, etc.  This is normal and supports the truthfulness of the witnesses’ accounts.

Resources for further study:

A very helpful paper: Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels
Are there contradictions in the Gospels?
Specific Bible contradictions addressed

Jason A. Van Bemmel is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. This article appeared on his blog Ponderings of a Pilgrim Pastor and is used with permission.