If there is disagreement between the four Saints' Gospels...?

Question

...is one version preferred above the others? Does it differ between denominations?

Having just finished them all, my money would be on St John as the fullest account, but what's the 'official' line?

Ta much.

Answer 1

Matthew was writing to a Hebrew audience and one of the purposes of his Gospel was to show from Jesus' genealogy and fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies that Jesus was the long-expected and promised Messiah, and thus should be believed on. Matthew's emphasis is upon Jesus as the Messiah or promised King, the "Son of David" who would forever sit upon the throne of Israel.

Mark wrote for a Gentile audience as is brought out by his not including things important to Jewish readers (genealogies, Christ's controversies with Jewish leaders of His day, frequent references to the Old Testament, etc.). Mark emphasizes Christ as the suffering Servant, the One who came not to be served but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

Luke is the only Gentile author of any of the New Testament. He has long been accepted as diligent and master historian by those who have used his writings in geological and historical studies. As a historian, he states that it is his intent to write down an orderly account of the life of Christ based on the reports of those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4). Because he specifically wrote for the benefit of Theophilus, apparently a Gentile of some stature, his gospel was composed with a Gentile audience in mind, and his intent is to show that a Christian's faith is based upon historically reliable and verifiable events. Luke often refers to Christ as the "Son of Man," emphasizing His humanity and shares much detail that is not contained in the other Gospel accounts.

The Gospel of John, written by John the Apostle, is distinct from the other three gospels and contains much theological content in regards to the person of Christ and the meaning of faith. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are often referred to as the "Synoptic Gospels" because of their similar styles and content. The Gospel of John begins not with Jesus' birth or earthly ministry but with the activity and characteristics of the Son of God before His becoming man (John 1:14). The Gospel of John emphasizes the Deity of Christ as is seen in his use of such phrases as "the Word was God" (John 1:1), "the Savior of the World" (4:42), the "Son of God" (used repeatedly), "Lord and...God" (John 20:28) in describing Jesus. In John's Gospel, Jesus also affirms His Deity with several "I Am" statements, most notable among them is John 8:58, in which He states that "...before Abraham was, I Am" (compare to Exodus 3:13-14).

Answer 2

The "official line" is first of all that there are no discrepancies; secondly, that there are, but they're put there to "test our faith;" thirdly, that what appear to be discrepancies are really due to unenlightened interpretation, and if you come to Bible Study on Tuesday we'll explain what the "correct" interpretation is. Etc etc.

It doesn't matter how many times glaring contradictions in the scriptural accounts are pointed out; you'll still have your "Christian" "literalists" saying "The Bible is 100% true and contains no contradictions." And it would surely be a blasphemy to rank one above the others, since they were all "inspired by God."

At any rate John is a marked departure from the so-called "Synoptics," describing many incidents that the others apparently have no knowledge of, e.g. the pouring forth of blood and water from the side of Jesus after he was pierced with the lance; but he also leaves out much that the others all include. His account of the "Last Supper," for example, takes up something like 20% of his entire gospel; and yet he makes absolutely no mention whatever of the "Institution of the Eucharist."

Answer 3

Simple, four differant writers, four differant audiances, four differant times when written.
Each written wrote what he say, heard, smelled etc. and not everyone is at the same place and time for each event.
Each writter was giving an acount to differant people and therefore would phrase thing in a way that that culture would more easily understand.
And the Gospels were written at differant times, why repeat something already written down, why not concentrate of what has not yet been written.
For those who believe they know the truth and need no further "proof", for those who disbelieve no amount of "proof" will suffice.

Answer 4

John was considered the "loving disciple" though all accounts are amazingly close considering the different time frames and locations they were written in... Most modern bibles concur if they werre written from direct translations of the scrolls by a diverse group of denominations to avoid biases... I have a blog written that is about the core issues of the new testament if you care to read evolvingissues.blogspot.com feel free to send questions to my email address there as well. Hope this helps in some way.

Answer 5

The disparaties you mention are surface things and can easily be explained by careful comparison between the texts.

One example of this is the death of Judas. In one account, we are told that he hung himself. In another account we find that he fell headlong and burst open and his entrails spilled out.

If we have decided in advance that the Gospels are inaccurate, then we can stand on our chairs and holler, "Lookee, lookee! See! I told you so..." If we believe that the Gospels contain no errors, then we have our work cut out when we find these kinds of things. What we choose to do will expose our bias.

Let's unpack the Judas scenario:
Does the fact that one records Judas as having fell headlong and bursting open preclude him from having hung himself first? What if he hung himself, was left to rot and bloat in the hot sun for a few days, and then the branch he was on broke? He would fall and burst open and his entrails would spill out.

Does the account say this is what happened? No. We can not be dogmatic about it. Is it plausible? Sure. Can we say that the Gospel writers contradicted themselves? Not if we wish to 1) remain true to biblical inerrancy and 2) can find a reasonable explanation that does not require overly much invention. Since we in fact have to deduce something, it would not be fair to elevate it to the level of doctrine, and an honest Christian will tell you this.

In the final analysis, in order to get a criminal conviction, the American court system only requires presentation of enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt. When someone has been accused, we assume he or she is not guilty until we have been shown clearly otherwise. In the case of the Gospel writers, we ought to assume their innocence until clear and compelling evidence can indicate otherwise. If I can introduce reasonable doubt against the case of the prosecution, it ought to stand.

Furthermore, the fact that there are differences in the accounts is one of the key indicators of their originality and honesty. Had they been inventing, don't you suppose they would have colluded to agree on all points? This is one of the ways that a forensic analyst catches fabrication.

Tom

Answer 6

They merge them.

Look at the differing accounts of the Nativity. One has the three wise men, Herod, the escape to Egypt, etc., while the other doesn't mention any of these things. They combine the two accounts to create a third which doesn't exist in any Gospel.

Three of the Gospels depict a three year Ministry while the forth depicts a one year ministry (or is it vice-versa?). And in different regions, Jerusalem or Galilee, take your pick.

They merge these also.

Answer 7

Yes, loads, Father Guido's set the fireworks up, I have no time now, put I will try and come back and light a few myself later.

Read Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Nag Hammadi, for a good start on seeing the discrepancies from a wider viewpoint.

Answer 8

There is no disagreement between the four Gospels except those who want it that way, the Gospels writers were relating incidents and words concerning Christ in their own personal way and with their own unique understanding, the amazing thing is that the truth stands out clearly despite each persons own recollections of the events.

Answer 9

What disagreements exist? If believe the gospel is part of the inerrent word of God, they should all agree.

There are points which seemingly disagree on the number of individuals at events, but as the style of writing during the time suggests, one person (the leader) was often written as representing several others.

Were there other "differences" that you came across?

Answer 10

each gospels fits together- there is no one better than the other- due to the fact that the Bible is God breathed. Why may there be some "differences"-let me try and explain this is simplistic terms, if I may. There are 4 people who know someone, and each one is asked about that person- will each person say the exact same thing? Of course not- each part is true about that person, but every one will give a slightly different slant to the person. Each will not say the exact same thing, due to the relationship they have with that person.