Variances between the Birth Narratives of the Gospels
The introductions of both Luke and Matthew give genealogies to show Jesus’ Davidic descent. However, the careful reader will notice that their genealogies are entirely different after David, as they trace his lineage through different sons of David. I explain elsewhere[1] how such a blatant, unexplained difference could have been understood by early Christians, so we will move on to what I believe are more substantial differences in the gospels’ details regarding Jesus’ origins.
In the first chapter of Luke, Mary is told by an angel that her miraculous conception will happen, before it happens; in the first chapter of Matthew, the angel only reveals it (to Joseph this time) after her pregnancy. Of course, if both are true, it would not be the first breakdown in communication between two betrothed, especially over such a critical matter.
The gospels give very little detail regarding Jesus’ early years, so it is perhaps surprising that some of the most glaring differences are from the short infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. They give entirely different stories. And this is significant because nearly every detail they give is an attempt to show how some prophecy was fulfilled. Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, the wise men who brought gifts, Herod’s slaughter of the innocents, their flight to Egypt, and the subsequent return to Nazareth are only details found in Matthew. According to Matthew, they only “made” Nazareth in Galilee their home because they were afraid of Herod’s brother who ruled over Judea: in other words, it seemed that Bethlehem of Judea was their origin. It should be noted that Herod was said to have killed all children of Bethlehem under two years of age[2] based on the time of birth that the wise men gave him, so Jesus likely, according to this narrative, would have been between one and two years old.
Luke’s narrative, like Matthew’s, seeks to make every detail point to some explicit or implied prophecy in order to show that Jesus was the Messiah, except that there is not a single point of overlap between the two accounts. Luke begins with the revelation to the parents of John the Baptist of his impending birth, followed immediately by the announcement of Jesus’ birth to Mary, who is already living in Nazareth; then Mary goes to the hill country of Judea to visit her cousin Elizabeth, John’s mother. Both women appear to speak prophetically. Elizabeth was barren and elderly, yet was given the ability to bear this child, continuing the motif of barren women who bear children from the Torah. Mary then returns home to Nazareth. The way Luke places Jesus in Bethlehem of Judea is by having Caesar Augustus require a census which, for some odd reason, requires that Joseph return to Bethlehem because of an ancestor who had died a thousand years before (or maybe because that was simply his home town). They remained in Jerusalem long enough to take him to present him at the Temple in Jerusalem (near Bethlehem) according to the law of Moses. It could be that that was the reason for the entire trip anyway, and Luke threw in the detail of the census just to bring up the important prophetic point that Jesus was descended from David, at least through his “stepdad”.[3] But after the purification, and meeting with two prophets who further confirm that he is the hope of Israel, Luke has the family return to “their own” town of Nazareth. They do not remain in Bethlehem.
Of course, it’s possible to cobble together the two accounts to harmonize them. Maybe John was right, and the world could not contain the written account of all the important details of Jesus’ life, and the gospel writers split the task. Maybe Matthew’s magi caught up with the family in Bethlehem on their next trip to Jerusalem when Jesus was one year old, a trip that Luke confirms they made every year. However, the single detail that seems to get in the way of such a harmonization is whether Nazareth or Bethlehem was their hometown. But like I said, I am not concerned with details so much with prophetic message. The more important difference between them is not his home town, but the fact that none of their prophetic details align. This is not the case with most of the rest of the synoptic gospels’ accounts, which overlap almost constantly. There are some glaring differences as we’ll see, but none that entirely permeate the text like they do in the infancy narratives, at least until we get to the crucifixion.
I’ve heard of many bible studies of the gospels with “life of Christ” in the title of the course. However, the gospels are not about the life of Christ. They are primarily concerned with showing his Messiahship, which for Luke and Matthew includes brief accounts of how he came into the world; for Luke, it also includes one short incident when Jesus was twelve. For the rest of all the gospels, their theme is only expounded upon by presenting what he taught and did during his fairly brief ministry at the end of his life. In fact, a great deal of the gospels’ time is spent on Jesus’ very last hours, and on his post resurrection appearances.
As in the infancy narratives, the rest of the gospels have plenty of differences. Many such differences are the order in which certain events are recounted. For instance, was Jesus tempted by taking him to the pinnacle of the temple first, then the mountain top, or vice versa?[4] Was Peter’s mother-in-law healed before Peter was discipled, or after?[5] Did the women buy spices before or after the Sabbath for Jesus’ burial?[6] Did Jesus overturn the tables at the Temple at the beginning or end of his ministry?[7] In Matthew 6, Jesus teaches the Lord’s prayer publicly; in Luke 11, he teaches a shorter version of it to his disciples privately. In Matthew 21, Jesus curses a fig tree that withers immediately; Mark 11 on the other hand has Jesus curse the fig tree, then cleanse the Temple of the merchants; then they return the next day to see that the tree has withered. In a later book when we examine literary devices, I plan on showing Mark’s intent here.
There are often differences in many of the quotes of what Jesus taught. For instance, in three of the gospels, Jesus warns his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, by which he figuratively meant their teaching. But Matthew 16’s account adds the Sadducees. And Mark 8 adds Herod, but not the Sadducees. In at least the earlier part of Mark and Matthew, Jesus is constantly telling people not to reveal him; in the other gospels, Jesus is pretty much open about his healing and messiahship.[8]
But I want to focus on differences in the narratives that appear to be of the highest importance to the gospel writers, which recount the end of Jesus’ life, where the authors spend so much time. These, like the infancy narratives, are primarily concerned with including a great many details that all show that Jesus is the Messiah, so major differences between the accounts, one would think, would tend to raise questions. But before we move on to these more important matters, I want to round out the discussion with differences in testimonies across the New Testament, not just in the gospels.
Testimonies of Paul vs. Acts
Once again in the letters attributed to Paul and Acts, we find different narrative details given, especially regarding timing and place. We’ve noted already the author of Luke-Acts does not often seem to be concerned too much with placing events in chronological order. However, the narrative of Acts 9 appears to be more or less narrating sequential events. He has Paul’s damascene conversion, then him preaching in Damascus “for several days”; after “some time had passed”, the Jews plot to kill Saul (a.k.a. Paul), but he escaped through the city wall, and then seems to go straight to Jerusalem, where he also preaches. Barnabas brings him before a council of apostles. Again, some Jews try to kill him, and this time he flees to Tarsis via the port of Caesarea.
In stark contrast, Paul’s own testimony is quite different. In his letter to the Galatians, he seems to present a proof that his gospel is from God, and not invented by humans. In order to do so, he argues vehemently that he had no contact with the apostles when he first began to preach. To prove this, he testifies quite adamantly that he did not go to Jerusalem to the apostles, but instead he went into Arabia, and later returned to Damascus. Only then after three years did he go up to Jerusalem, but while he was there he only saw Peter for fifteen days and “James the Lord’s brother,” but no other apostles. That doesn’t sound like he appeared before a council, as in Acts. Where did he go from there? Via Caesarea to Tarsus, which is in the region of Cilicia, as in Acts? No, he says he went through Syria to Cilicia, and remained unknown to the congregations of Judea.
Again, you could probably figure out a timeline that somehow allowed both Acts and Galatians to be harmonized, but it is interesting to note that the accounts have very little in common, and harmonizing them is difficult. And these are not the only differences between Acts and Paul’s writings. In Acts 9, it’s the Jews who try to seize Paul. In 2 Corinthians 11, it’s the Governor. There are several more interesting differences, but these will suffice.
Once again, these are all less important differences between Acts and writings of Paul, at least from the perspective of trying to understand the primary purposes of the authors. Such differences do not affect matters of prophecy, as we saw in the gospels, or matters of doctrine, except as they may undermine the veracity of testimony. We will return to Paul and Acts’ differing views below when we compare potentially much more important doctrinal matters. To read more about major differences between the accounts of one of the most important messages of the New Testament (the crucifixion), check out my book here.
[1] Bible Proofs God’s Way, p. 263.
[2] A detail for which we have no extra-biblical historical corroboration, despite having many records from the time.
[3] Or mom, as I explain in my last book, cited above.
[4] Compare Mattew 4:5-8 and Luke 4:5-9.
[5] Compare Luke 4:38, 39; 5:10 and Matthew 4:18, 19; 8:14, 15. Interestingly, however, Luke begins many accounts with “ounce” rather than “then” as in the other gospels, as if he is not interested in giving them in chronological order.
[6] Compare Luke 23:56 to Mark 16:1.
[7] Compare Matthew 21:11, 12; John 2:11-15. I’ve seen preachers make the blanket statement that he did it twice without even considering that there is no need for harmonization; see below for more examples of how the ancients could play with chronology without it being considered dishonest.
[8] There is some debate about this, but I will skip the proofs for now. Here I’ll merely note that, although Jesus did not explicitly state that he was the Messiah for most of the narrative of his ministry, there were many clear indications that he acknowledged it, even in the “less christologically developed” synoptic gospels (in the view of many scholars), as in Matthew 21, where Jesus accepts what is essentially worship. See more on this below.