Do the Four Gospels Contradict Each Other?

Can They Be Trusted As Reliable Historical Sources?

Many secular scholars today sell books and give lectures about how the four canonical gospels contradict each other. Just this past week, I was engaged in a back-and-forth with someone who was convinced that the gospels are not historically reliable. “Their accounts of Jesus's crucifixion are all different,” he said, and therefore, they must be the result of “legend building.”

I also recently received a question from a former student who said this: “Professor Blake, I was asked this week why the resurrection accounts in the four gospels seem to contradict each other. They don’t seem contradictory to me, but am I missing something? I remember you saying several times that the Gospels should be read synoptically. How does that apply here?”

In this article, I will do my best to answer these two questions: 1) Are the Gospels historically reliable? And, 2) Do the resurrection accounts contradict each other?

The Origins of the Four Gospels

Let’s start by over-viewing the four gospels and giving readers some background about their origins. The information below is stuff that most people learn in Bible college and/or seminary, but that is rarely discussed in churches.

 Most scholars today believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, although there is no consensus on this. There are prominent scholars who believe Matthew was written first, followed by Luke, Mark, and John. One thing almost all biblical scholars agree on is that John was written last.

For most of church history, it was believed that Matthew was written first, followed by Luke and Mark, which came about as the result of Peter giving a multi-day-long retelling of the life of Jesus to a group of Roman elites in Rome, who then requested that he write it down. Whether that actually happened or not, there is strong evidence that Peter is the source behind Mark’s Gospel. Mark was, after all, a pupil of Peter after he broke off traveling with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:37-39) and is thought to have become his scribe.

Much like Peter is believed to be the apostolic authority behind Mark’s Gospel, Paul is believed to have been highly involved in the writing of Luke, who was a companion of Paul during the latter years of his life. Remember, Luke and Acts were originally a single work in two volumes. Roughly the last third of Acts, wherein Paul is traveling with a group of fellow ministers and companions, is written by Luke in the first-person plural.

The source behind Matthew is believed to be the disciple himself. However, some early church witnesses convey that Matthew was written collectively by the apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem during the early church Jerusalem phase. Of course, John is the source behind the gospel which bears his name, and he is believed to have written later than the others, perhaps even as late as the 80s or 90s AD, but as early as AD 65.

It must be said that Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all very similar and follow a similar outline in conveying Jesus’ ministry. They also frequently convey similar or identical events. The fact that the first three gospels share many commonalities has been researched and discussed at length in the field of New Testament scholarship over the centuries. That is why these three gospels are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, because they all follow a similar pattern and have much in common.

Remember, if you ever hear someone refer to the “synoptic gospels,” they are talking about Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Luke, on the other hand, starts his infancy narrative at the beginning of John the Baptist’s life (actually, the foretelling of his birth) and focuses more on Mary’s perspective. Luke rightly depicts Jesus as the new and greater David. 

Matthew was written mainly for a Jewish audience. He depicts Jesus as the long-awaited messianic king. Mark was written for Gentile converts, mainly in Rome. Luke was written for a broad Gentile audience and depicts Jesus as the savior of the world, not just the Jewish Messiah. John was written for the faithful living in the Greco-Roman world and uses all sorts of Greek analogies and ideas to show that Jesus is the divine son of God, fully God and fully man, who came in fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel but also to save the entire world from sin and its consequences. John wrote, he says, so that we might “go on believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, we might have life in his name” (John 20:31).

Who Chose the Gospels?

The next important topic we must cover is this: Who chose the Gospels? Most people know that there were other Gospels written in the first 3-4 centuries after Jesus’ life. There are, to name a few, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Phillip, etc. Many secular scholars make a living saying that these other gospels are just as valid as the ones in our canon, and that we can learn as much from them about early Christianity as we can from the four canonical gospels (by the way, the word “canon” is a term used to refer to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible; the English word “canon” is a transliteration of the Greek word kanōn which means “measuring line”).

Is this valid? No. From the earliest records we have on hand, the church has been using the same four gospels we find in modern Bibles. Many of the non-canonical gospels mentioned above went through the vetting process when they first appeared on the scene in the second and third centuries and were resoundingly rejected by the early church. Here are a few examples of some of the earliest Christian writers and teachers affirming the inspiration of the four Gospels and rejecting others:

Irenaeus, writing Against Heresies in the 2nd Century: “So Matthew brought out a written Gospel among the Jews in their own style, when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the church. But after their demise Mark himself, the disciple and recorder of Peter, has also handed on to us in writing what had been proclaimed by Peter. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set forth in a book the gospel that was proclaimed by him. Later John, the disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned against his chest, also put out a Gospel while residing in Ephesus of Asia.”

Tertullian, writing Against Marcion in the late 2nd/early 3rd century: “I lay it down to begin with that the documents of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by the Lord himself… In short, from among the apostles, John and Matthew implant in us the faith, while from among the apostolic men Luke and Mark reaffirm it.”

Origen, writing Homilies on Luke in the late 2nd/early 3rd century: “For Matthew did not ‘take in hand’ but wrote by the Holy Spirit, and so did Mark and John and also equally Luke… For there is also the Gospel ‘according to Thomas,’ and that ‘according to Matthias,’ and many others. These are the ones ‘that have been taken up in hand.’ But the church of God accepts only the four.

When it comes to the non-canonical gospels of the second, third, and fourth centuries, the truth is that these gospels were never considered by the early church to be canonical because they didn’t meet the criteria of being apostolic and doctrinally sound. The four canonical gospels were all written in the first century. The fraudulent gospels, like Thomas and Peter, were believed to have been written in the second or third centuries. Going back even further than the quotes given above, Ignatius of Antioch (who died in the early second century) mentions Matthew and John before the year 110. Around the year 100, Papias the Elder is believed to have discussed the origins of all four canonical gospels, although he only mentions Matthew and Mark by name.[1]

Who chose the four gospels? The short answer is that they seem to have chosen themselves since no single person or council can be pointed to prior to the first century to verify their selection. All we know is that from the first century onward, they have been used as Scripture and considered apostolic and authoritative by the church.

Do The Four Gospels Contradict Each Other?

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get to the specific questions: Do they contradict each other? And what of the resurrection narrative?

The sad part about modern scholarship is that many scholars start with two presuppositions that they also conclude with: 1) the gospels are not historically reliable since they contain supernatural events, and 2) they contradict each other. The fact that numerous events the Gospels record are historically verifiable, or that they contain loads of historically verifiable facts, means nothing to some of the biased scholarly world.

The reality is that the Gospels represent the most robust historical sources on record when it comes to understanding first-century Judea. There is no close second. It also seems that the more archaeological discoveries we unearth from that time and place, the more they confirm the Gospels’ historicity. As Dr. Jeremiah Johnston recently put it, "modern archaeology has become the best friend of Christianity."[2]  

The Gospels are not only historically reliable but also completely agree when it comes to conveying the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. One need not worry about those who point out small differences in the details of specific events the gospels record. When read synoptically—with the understanding that the Gospels are four separate, in some cases, eyewitness accounts of similar or identical events—they fit together.

Whenever you are challenged by a skeptic with the notion that the Gospels contradict each other, ask for specifics. Then go to the Word, read the various accounts for yourself, and see how the different perspectives of whatever specific event you’re looking at all fit together to give you a fuller picture of what happened.

Where the Gospels provide different details surrounding specific events, we shouldn’t assume they contradict each other; we should recognize that we’re being given a fuller picture of what happened than we often get.

When it comes to the resurrection narrative, this is one of the classic places where secularists try and point out a discrepancy in the details. I’ll admit, on the surface, there appear to be several different things going on in the accounts. When Christians have historically tried to harmonize them, skeptics accuse us of being disingenuous. When one sees that they can be harmonized, it is often said that the Gospel writers conspired with each other. The truth is that amid the chaos of that day, there was very likely a lot going on for the disciples who were at first wondering if their Lord’s body had been stolen, only to then experience five different appearances of Jesus to individuals or groups of disciples.   

The truth is that even if there were discrepancies, the Gospels would still represent stellar eyewitness accounts of the events of that day. All of the major details of what happened are perfectly harmonious. Let’s see if we can’t sort out the minutiae for ourselves.

In John’s Gospel, we see Mary Magdalene going to the tomb early, before the sun had risen, and finding there the stone rolled away from the tomb. It doesn’t say she looked into the tomb, just that the stone was rolled away. John also records that she ran and told Peter and John, “They have taken him out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” At some point thereafter, Peter and John ran to the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there with no body. John, it says, believed when he saw the empty tomb and the linen cloths. At some point after this, Mary, who had been weeping outside the tomb, looked in and saw two angels sitting where his body had been. Then she encountered Jesus in the garden and cried out to him, “Rabbi!”

In Luke’s Gospel, we read that the women from Galilee came early in the morning to the tomb, but it doesn’t say whether this was before or after sunrise. There, they encountered two angels who told them, “he is not here, he is risen.” When they made it back to where the rest of the disciples were staying, they told everyone what happened. The disciples thought they were seeing things or telling a tale, but Peter, it says, got up and ran to the tomb, which is consistent with what we read in John, which tells us that Peter and John both got up and ran to the tomb upon hearing the news of the rolled away stone.

In Matthew and Mark’s accounts, the women traveled to the tomb together first thing in the morning. There, they encountered an angel who told them, “He is not here, he is risen. Come, see the place where he was laid.” Matthew also records that an earthquake took place sometime that morning when the angel of the Lord first appeared in a bright light and rolled away the stone, and that Jesus appeared to the group of women at some point that day on their way back from the tomb.

Here’s what I think happened, and this is the result of reading synoptically. Mary Magdalene went alone to the tomb just before sunrise, ahead of the other women. When she got there, she saw the stone rolled away and started to run back to where the disciples were staying to tell them what she’d seen. On the way, she encountered the other women on their way to the tomb and accompanied them back to the garden to show them the rolled-away stone. As the women began looking in the tomb, perplexed, Mary left and ran to tell the male disciples what had happened. While she was away, two angels appeared to the rest of the women and told them, “He is risen.”

When Mary made it back to where the disciples were, she told them about the empty tomb. Peter and John were about to run out the door when the rest of the women, who two angels had visited at the tomb, arrived and told them the news. At that point, the two men took off running, followed again by Mary Magdalene, who had not been present for the first visitation by angels to the women.

When Peter and John arrived, Peter went into the tomb and saw the place where Jesus lay, followed by John, who saw the empty linen shroud and immediately believed. They left bewildered, but Mary, who had run after them, stayed behind and wept. While there, the same two angels who appeared to the women appeared to her, along with Jesus, to whom she cried out, “Teacher!” After this, she ran back to tell the disciples that she had seen him.

After this and throughout that day and evening, Jesus appeared to the other women (who may have made several trips back and forth from the tomb that morning), the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, Peter, and to the apostles (plus the entire group who were staying together).

This is only one possible retelling of the events of that day that incorporates most, if not all, of the details in a harmonious way. Can you imagine how frantic it must have been? How many times must the disciples, who were not staying far from the tomb, have gone back and forth on foot, in different variations and groups, to see the tomb? I would bet that many more people visited the tomb on that day than we’re told about in the gospels. They must have been in a frenzy.

Regardless of whether or not this retelling is correct, we know one thing: the major details the gospels relay about that day are all the same. Angels appeared, Jesus was resurrected from the dead, the disciples were losing their collective minds (as we all would be), and Jesus was appearing at random to various individuals and groups, which must have been a great time for him.

While there are many historical and scholarly reasons why you should trust the Gospels, for Christians, the ultimate reason is this: since the earliest days of the church, Christians have believed and accepted the four gospels as inspired and authoritative retellings of the life, death, resurrection and teachings of Jesus Christ. The New Testament, including the gospels, is the mechanism God chose to preserve the record of his Son's work for us on earth. Scripture repeatedly affirms that it is inspired by God and authoritative. You simply cannot follow Jesus – you cannot know him – apart from his Word. Along with his Spirit, the Word testifies to his Lordship and shows us the way to follow him here and now.

Do the Four Gospels Contradict Each Other?

[1] For more on this, read Who Chose the Gospels, by C.E. Hill.

[2] “The Face of God" Michael & The Shroud of Turin | Dr. Jeremiah Johnston -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OElbxDPsqpw&t=9s

Like this article? Let us know by leaving a comment below! Also, don't forget to check out our free devotions and online bible studies! For more great content, subscribe to our ministry.