II Tim 3:16 "...all scripture is given by inspiration of God", yet the four gospels disagree?

Question

Matt 28:1-2
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary visit the sepulchre and see one angel.

Mark 16:1, 5
Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome visit the sepulchre and see one "young man".

Luke 24: 4, 10
Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, Joanna, and "other women who were with them" visit the sepulchre and see two men "in shining garments".

John 20:1
Mary Magdalene visits the sepulchre and sees no men or angels until after Peter and "the other disciple" visit the sepulchre. Mary eventually sees two angels.

II Tim 3:16 "...all scripture is given by inspiration of God", yet obviously those inspired can get it wrong.

Often I've heard it said either it is all right or it is all wrong. Care to explain why you believe all of these quotes are right when they contradict each other?

Answer 1

FIRST PREMISE



There are two ways of life--that of giving and that of getting. God’s Word shows that the former leads to real happiness, peace and contentment, but sadly this world has chosen the latter. As a result we have chaos and confusion today! Man has never been so mixed up, goalless, unhappy! What’s the reason?



Most Christians still accept the Bible as God’s Word. But more and more theologians question the infallibility of the scriptures, even question the divinity of Christ! To many, the Bible has become a mere collection of uninspired (supernaturally) writings, ramblings of bewhiskered, old “white-haired” prophets, the “acts” of Apostles who had followed a Nazarene “do-gooder” who traveled around Galilee and Judea performing wonderful healings (or so His followers claimed), and Who was finally killed and buried. Critics have a hard time explaining why His following and faith grew by leap and bounds, of course!



“Truth” has become relative, depending on circumstances. Sociologists and psychologists term it “situation ethics” today. But Jesus said “Thy Word is Truth”! (John 17:17). Fortunately, in this country to be a “Christian” is still considered honorable. But to obey the scriptures implicitly, to try to follow the teachings of Jesus, to live as He did, to accept all the Bible as a guide book of life, is considered being just a bit “way out,” “odd,” “different,” “fanatical.” Yet many of this world’s problems could be solved if mankind would only “. . . earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).



The Apostles did not have to recall from memory all the myriad events, conversations, parables, miracles of Jesus without some special assistance. Jesus promised that:



“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).



In his letter to Timothy Paul said that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16).



The truth is that God inspired the four Gospel writers to record exactly what He wanted. This is further supported by Luke who wrote: “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first . . .” (Luke 1:3). Actually Luke is telling us that he received his Gospel “from above”--from God in heaven by direct inspiration! Urquhart explains:



Luke is made to say both in the Revised and Authorized Versions that he has “had perfect understanding of all things from the very first:” whereas what he does really say is that he has “had perfect understanding of all things from on high. . . .” The [Greek] word anothen, which is here in our Version rendered “from the very first,” is used in the sense of “from above” again and again in the New Testament itself. “Every good and every perfect gift,” says James (1:17), “is anothen,” that is, “is from above.” Twice again he used the word, and both times in the same sense. He speaks of the “wisdom which is anothen--from above.” It occurs twice in John’s Gospel with the same meaning: “He that cometh anothen--from above -- is above all” (3:31); and “Jesus answered, thou couldest have no power at all against Me, except it were given thee anothen--from above” (19:11). It is quite true that the word is used in the sense of “from the beginning” in Acts 24:5, but why should we deny to it its more usual sense here (in Luke)--a sense which is demanded by the plain intention of the words?3 (emphasis mine).



So, Premise #1 is that God’s Word--the Bible--has been inspired by Him and Jesus Christ His Son, and therefore if properly translated from the original autographs or official copies, the scriptures are totally true and are God’s instructions to mankind on how to live a happy, prosperous life!





SECOND PREMISE



The Apostle Paul said in I Cor. 14:33: “For God is not the author of confusion, ...” Rather, He is the author of perfection, harmony, agreement! “Let all things be done decently and in order” adds Paul in verse 40.



If we have accepted the first premise, then the second follows automatically. It is that God not only inspired the scriptures but did so accurately, in total agreement with each other! (John 10:35).



By the time Luke was writing his Gospel, the Christian world was filled with fables and false gospels. Even Peter realized this when God was inspiring him to prepare portions of the New Testament for canonization: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (II Peter 1:16). Seeing this diversity of gospels being circulated, Luke records:



Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those thing which are most surely believed among us,



Even as they delivered them unto use, which were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word (Luke 1:1-2).



Luke not only wanted to declare the truth of what the Gospel really was but wanted to record it in order:



It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus (Luke 1:3).



The Greek for “perfect. . .in order” is άκριβώς . . . καθεξής according to the Greek New Testament.4 Thayer’s Lexicon5 lists these definitions for άκριβώς: “to know accurately, to do exactly,” “to investigate diligently” and “to learn exactly, ascertain.” .@ καθεξής is defined as : “one after another, successively, in order.” This same Greek word καθεξής is also used in Acts 11:4: “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order to them, . . .” Luke was going to research carefully his material so that he could write a perfect, orderly Gospel!



Godet adds this comment on Luke 1:3:



. . . , the author hopes he shall be qualified to draw a consecutive picture, reproducing the actual course of events: . . . It is impossible in this connection to understand the phrase in order in the sense of a systematic classification, as Ebrard prefers; here the term must stand for a chronological order.6 (First emphasis mine.)




A close examination of the Book of Acts supports Luke’s style of accurately, chronologically recording approximately thirty years of New Testament Church history. Luke was no illiterate writer, but a highly skilled scholar. He is referred to as a “physician” in Col. 4:14 which shows he must have had some (!) formal training and education. In fact, Godet says this about Luke:



The Circumstances that his profession was that of a physician is not unimportant; for it implies that he must have possessed a certain amount of scientific knowledge, and belonged to the class of educated men. . . . For these reasons, Luke must have possessed an amount of scientific and literary culture above that of most of the other evangelists and apostles . . . .



Not only is it {Luke’s Gospel} written in most classical Greek, but it reminds us by its contents of the similar preambles of the most illustrious Greek historians, especially those of Herodotus and Thycydides.7



Should we not expect to find Luke’s Gospel recorded accurately, logically, ‘in order”! Godet gives his literal translation of Luke 1:3 as follows: “I have thought good also myself, after carefully informing myself of all these facts from their commencement, to write a consecutive account of them for thee, most excellent Theophilus”7 (emphasis mine).



Actually, should we not expect to find all the Gospels “in order,” rather than arranged in a hodgepodge of disconnected, illogical, contradictory fashions. Premise #2 states that the chronological and historical portions of the Gospels are in order.




THIRD PREMISE



Since Luke and John give most of the chronological indications--which now can be absolutely dated--these Gospels can be used as a framework into which we can place the different events. Wieseler supports this premise too:



When we take a general view of the chronological character of the four Gospels, there can be no doubt, indeed it is generally admitted, that the most numerous or at least the most exact chronological dates and fulcra are furnished by John and Luke. John, as is well known, narrates the whole period of our Lord’s public ministry in connection with His journeys to Jerusalem for the purpose of keeping the different Feasts, omitting no single Passover occurring during this period, and even mentioning the one which was not kept by Him in Jerusalem {John 6:4}. He has therefore, by the very form of his narrative, furnished us with just such a scheme as we should most desire, in which to arrange the individual Gospel facts. While Luke not only supplies us with several special dates of the greatest importance . . . , but has in his preface expressly stated his intention of narrating the events he as about to record in this chronological order (καθεξής).8




On the other hand Matthew is acknowledged as having some portions of his work a collection of parables, miracles and sayings. And Mark has few chronological indications. This will be revealed more in detail as we study the Harmony itself.



Premise #3 is, then, that we will use Luke and John (especially Luke) as the basic chronological framework to build solutions to harmony problems. Of course, both Matthew and Mark will certainly help fill the “gap” in some areas of Christ’s ministry. All four Gospels are needed to tell the whole story! As Robertson said: “. . . The whole is infinitely richer than the picture given by any one of the Four Gospels.”




CONCLUSION



These premises combine to form the basis for the solutions to the harmony problems discussed in this Harmony. The key to applying these premises is to let the scriptures guide us into a complete understanding. We must not read into the scriptures what is not there. Pet theories, speculations and ideas must remain just that--theories, speculations and ideas -- at least until they are proven to be absolutely true! Therefore, I present my suggested solutions to the reader for close examination and consideration.



It IS possible to construct a totally accurate harmony! Any verses out of order should have tangible, explainable reasons for their alternate order. Perhaps someday we will be able to publish such a harmony!




Bibliography Notes



1 A. August Hobson, “The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem,” Historical and Linguistic Studies, Second Series Linguistic and Exegetical Studies, Vol. I, Part III, pp. 40-45,48.



2 Ernest De Witt Burton and Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek; Edward Greswell, Dissertations upon the Principles and Arrangement of an Harmony of the Gospels (hereafter referred to as Dissertations); Robert Mimpress, The Gospel Treasury and Expository Harmony of the Four Evangelists (hereafter referred to as Gospel Treasury); M. B. Riddle, A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English (hereafter referred to as Harmony in English); Wm. Arnold Stevens, and Earnest De Witt Burton. A Harmony of the Gospels; and James Strong, A New Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels.



3 John Urquhart, The Bible: Whence It Came, What It Contains, How to Read It, How to Use It; pp. 68-69. Also See Ernest Martin, Design and Development of the Holy Scriptures, Rev. Ed., pp. 303-304; J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 52, on Greek word άνωθεν, The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, pp. 86-87.




4 The Englishman’s Greek New Testament (hereafter referred to as Englishman’s Greek, p. 145.



5 Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (hereafter referred to as Greek Lexicon), pp. 24, 313.



6 F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, (hereafter referred to as Commentary on Luke), p. 38.



7 Ibid., pp. 11, 38, 33-34.



8 Karl Wieseler, A Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, (hereafter referred to as Chronological Synopsis), p. 25.

Answer 2

To be candid, John 20:1 is probably the most accurate, because it is an eyewitness account. The other three accounts are second or third-hand, and these things did happen at a time of startling for the disciples.

I believe all four accounts are elementally true, but like any event witnessed by men, is subject to the limitation of perspective. For example, the Matthew account tells of them seeing an angel (doesn't mean there was only one there), and going to get the disciples. John's account tells of after they were told by Mary, they returned to the tomb.

The purpose of having multiple testimonies to an event is to add clarity. Maybe the two Mary's had others with them who waited further back for them to approach the guards to get permission. The point is not trying to divide the testimonies because of where they disagree, but to use the disagreements to add clarity to where they DO agree.

They agree on this: 1)The tomb was empty, (2) Angelic messenger(s) stated that Jesus was risen from the dead.

What the diversity does is prove that it was not a 'rehearsed' testimony.

Answer 3

Any two passages (let alone the 4 that you mentioned) can seem to portray the same incident differently. If you don't want to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible based on these passages, you will.

Was the body of Jesus in the sepulchre when it was visited? No. Which major doctrine of Christianity is affected or refuted by this apparent contradiction? None. Do these refute or cast doubt on the actual fact of the resurrection? No, they are minor differences in details of the events. Do these passages change the essential thread of events? Not at all.

Christians themselves ask these questions of scholars and of God Himself. If this is enough for you not to believe, then I hope the rest of your belief structure is strong to handle this level of criterion...

Answer 4

Who cares if they saw 2 men 7 men or 100 men, who cares if it was, Peter, Paul, or Mary, the fact is the Tomb was and is empty. And that they all agree on and that is the most important.

Answer 5

They do not disagree they tell a different interation of the same story for 4 different mens percpective. Its important not to take things like this out of context.

Answer 6

They disagree because people wrote these books and people try to convince us they know what God says or wants, and that God holds them as special--their sect, etc. The Koran, the Old and New Testaments, the Gita, are all books written by people who said they were inspired by the words of God. You get to choose which one you believe, or none. I say, "May the God of your choosing bless you."

Answer 7

Still trying hard to destroy the faithfulness of Scripture,? Wewll, your dumb efforts are useless..
The Scriptures have lasted for centuries and will be here LONG after you are gone , Pal.

However, Bible does say something about YOU;
"Knowing this, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts..."
(2 Peter 3:3)

" Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy..."(1Tim.

Thannks for proving the Bible true!

Answer 8

Well G dad!

me and Jim went to the store
Well me Jim and Dave went to the store
Well really it was me Jim, Dave, and the other boys went to the store
Well the truth is it was me and the Boys went to the store

Well which is it? where did I contradict myself?

Should I have just said I went to the store, would that have been a lie?

Answer 9

No they do not disagree the translators disagree. read it in the Greek original writing. and do not for get three people telling the same story will agree even though its worded different with every writer.

Answer 10

when paul wrote that he was talking of the old testiment but the so called disagreements are from different few points and not neccereily contradictory

Answer 11

Just so you know it NEVER SAYS NO ONE ELSE WAS THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And it says they see an angel not ONLY ONE WAS THERE AND THERE WAS NO OTHER ANGEL