When it comes to understanding the gospels, how do we understand some of the apparent historical, chronological differences?
One well-known example is the chronological difference between Matthew and Mark’s respective accounts of Jesus cursing the fig tree. Matthew 21:10-22 records Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple before he curses the fig tree. In Mark 11:11-26, Jesus curses the fig tree first and then drives out the moneychangers from the temple. The fact is, both cannot be chronologically true at the same time.
Another oft-cited difference comes in the temptations of Jesus. In Matthew 4:5-8, Jesus is first taken to the top of the temple and tempted and then to the pinnacle of high mountain. But we turn to Luke 4:5-9 and we find the order is reversed, with the temptation on the mountain taking place before the temptation on the temple. Again, we cannot insist both are chronologically true at the same time.
Not only do we find some of these apparent chronological inconsistencies between the gospels when recounting the same events, but we also find them placed at different points in their respective gospels too. So whilst there is a broad chronology, inasmuch as Jesus’ birth (if it is recounted at all) comes at the beginning and his death and resurrection are given at the end, in between those events we often find the same event recorded in quite different places. So, for example, the feeding of the 5000 comes 50% of the way through Matthew’s gospel whereas in John it arrives in the 6th chapter, the first quarter of his gospel. There are several other examples you might find.
So what do we say about that? How do we explain these apparent chronological discrepancies? Let me share a couple of quick points and then a long(ish) quote from Kaiser & Silva’s Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics.
First, and perhaps obviously, we should recognise that it is not a new issue. The four gospels have sat side-by-side in the same book pored over in intricate detail for many hundreds of years. The idea that nobody has noticed these apparent discrepancies before is, let’s say, naïve. They have been noted throughout church history. It’s hardly a killer blow to the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture to point out what everyone who reads the Bible with any seriousness at all has long known.
Second, we understand the Bible is God’s Word. Our starting assumption as believers is that God has made himself known to us in scripture and he has guided the process of writing such that his Word has come to us in the form he wants us to have it. It does not contain mistakes or errors. Certainly this is the claim scripture makes for itself. To disprove that claim, one must show that these are unintended chronological discrepancies that undercut the truth of what God intends to convey. Unless it can be shown that these apparent chronological differences are necessarily mistakes and/or undermine the truth claims being made in the gospel itself, and therefore the credibility of the writer, we can continue to take the gospels at their word.
Third, it is historically flawed to assume that historical writing (if, indeed, we are to take the gospels as straight history, more on which shortly) will adhere to the same practices and principles of modern historiography. Even the most cursory reading of ancient historical texts tells you that the norms presupposed for a legitimate history then are not the norms we presuppose today.
Fourth, notwithstanding the previous point, just because historical documents adhere to different norms and standard to modern historiography does not mean they are either necessarily untrue in what they claim nor that they aren’t legitimate historical documents. Consider, for example, a WWI frontline soldier’s diary. They, in no way, correspond to modern ideas of proper historiography but that does nothing to undercut that what they recorded and saw may well nevertheless be true as recorded and, therefore, has legitimately true historical things to tell us.
Fifth, we have to contend with the fact that only one of the gospel writers even claims to be writing an orderly historical account. John is explicit in his purpose in John 20:31 and he makes no claim to be writing a 21st Century biographical account of the life and times of Jesus Christ. No such claim is made by Matthew or Mark either. Even Luke’s claim to be doing so must be understood by the standards and approach of the day to that activity. It is a category mistake to take modern histography and superimpose it onto ancient historiography, and an even bigger category mistake to take modern historiography and impose it onto ancient literature that doesn’t even claim to be engaged in writing history per se. Again, none of that undercuts the truthfulness nor historical claims of the gospels. It is simply that we have to understand authorial intent before we can legitimate judge what claims they are actually making and assess the terms on which they are then made.
With all those points said, let me quote Kaiser and Silva on the gospels themselves. How do we account for some of these things? Here is what they say:
In the case of the Gospels, every indication we have is that the writers expected their statements to be taken as historical. Luke, in particular, as he begins both his gospel and the book of Acts, makes that purpose quite explicit (see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-3), and the other writers give no clue that their intent is significantly different. The very reason we do not feel compelled to interpret the parables historically is that they are presented in a somewhat stylized fashion, so the reader or hearer is immediately aware that they belong to a different genre (literary type).
No doubt there is a measure of truth in every lie. The reason many students of the Bible believe they can downplay the historicity of the New Testament narratives is that these narratives do not always conform to the patterns of modern history writing. If we want to do justice to the literary character of the Gospels and Acts, therefore, we must take note not only of their historical character but also of some additional features.
Especially helpful here is the way the gospel of John expresses its aim: “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31). Admittedly, one would not expect to read a statement of that sort in Churchill’s history. The author of the fourth gospel had more in mind than the reporting of facts; he wanted to change the lives of his readers.
One must not fall into the trap of making sharp and false distinctions. John hardly minimizes the historical truth of his narrative: “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true” (19:35). Nevertheless, it would be wrong-headed to focus so much on the historical question that we fail to appreciate other aspects of the gospel, particularly as they may have affected its composition.
Even a cursory look at the gospel of John makes clear that it is not a history textbook – much less a biography – in the usual sense. Nothing is said about Jesus’ birth or childhood. In spite of some chronological references (eg. to the Passover in 6:4), we read most of the gospel with only a vague notion of its temporal setting. Moreover, the proportions are perplexing: almost a third of the book (chaps. 13-19) is devoted to the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life! Especially intriguing is the similarity of style between the narratives and the discourses: in this gospel (but not in the others), Jesus speaks the way John writes.
These and other features help us to understand that the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels is not to be described in terms of modern historiography, which stresses clear and strict chronological sequence, balanced selection of material, verbatim quotations, and so on. In a real sense, the gospel writers are preachers. They select the events of Jesus’ life and his teachings, guided not by comprehensiveness but by their purpose in writing. They arrange the material not always on the basis of sequential order but with a view to impress upon the readers certain specific truths.
We get into trouble, therefore, when we approach the text with questions that the gospel writers were not interested in answering. Even Luke, who seems to have been the one most concerned with providing historical details, was not writing an essay intended for an encyclopaedia. Surely, he never imagined that, twenty centuries later, searching readers would be analyzing every word he wrote and comparing it with the details of the other gospels as well as with other documents and archaeological data from the Mediterranean world.
In short, we must read the Gospels and Acts with the expectation that there will be gaps of information and imprecise descriptions that make it difficult – sometimes impossible – to resolve apparent discrepancies. This does not mean for a moment that the biblical writers are not dependable. Lack of absolute precision is of the essence of human language. The degree of precision expected of a speaker or writer depends on the subject matter as well as on the stated (or implied) aims. We do not accuse a public speaker of irresponsibility if, when speaking to a general audience, he or she gives a rough figure for, say, the cost of sending a satellite into space. But if one were preparing a financial report to be audited by Congress, imprecision could land that person in jail.
Think of it this way. If Matthew had given every detail some moderns expect, with the exhaustive precision necessary to answer all potential problems, his narrative would not only have been excruciatingly long, but worse, the impact of his message would have been engulfed by the information overload. Given his purpose, however, Matthew has indeed presented the truth in the most persuasive way possible.
If you prefer video format and want some in-depth discussion of the historical accuracy of the gospels, you can do a lot worse than listening to Dr Peter J. Williams here: