Do the Gospels Contradict Each Other?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The four canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—form the foundation of the New Testament and are the primary sources for the life and teachings of Jesus. For many readers, they present a single, unified story told from four different perspectives. Yet a closer reading reveals that these texts often differ in significant ways. But do the Gospels contradict each other?

In this article, I’ll explain how the four Gospels were composed, why they contain discrepancies, and how both ancient and modern readers have understood these differences. Along the way, I'll point out examples of historical and theological inconsistencies, and the various attempts to explain them.

The Four Canonical Gospels

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the first three Gospels in the New Testament, are called the Synoptic Gospels by scholars. The word “synoptic” is Greek and literally means “seen together.” The reason for this classification is simple: these three Gospels, when examined side by side, share a lot of sayings and stories, sometimes even using the exact same words. As Bart Ehrman writes in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, “This phenomenon is virtually inexplicable unless the stories are derived from a common literary source.”

Scholars have known for a long time that although Matthew is the first Gospel in the New Testament canon, Mark was the earliest of the canonical Gospels to be written, likely around 70 CE. Matthew and Luke were written after that, between 80 and 90 CE according to most scholars, and both used Mark as a primary source. Mark wasn’t their only source, but the high degree of agreement between the synoptics is evidence that Mark was foundational for the authors of Matthew and Luke.

The Gospel of John is another matter. Generally agreed to be the last of the canonical Gospels written, John seems to have less agreement, both in theology and narrative, with any of the three Synoptic Gospels, prompting some scholars to believe that the author of John was completely unfamiliar with the Synoptics and thus used different traditions as his sources. While this may be the case, several contemporary authors have challenged this conclusion.

In his book The Fourth Synoptic Gospel, New Testament scholar Mark Goodacre argues that the author of John actually knew all three Synoptic Gospels for a couple of different reasons. First, John often leaves out important incidents (like Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness or the establishment of the Eucharist) but then refers to them briefly, possibly assuming the reader already knows the context from the Synoptics.

Additionally, both Mark and John feature a secret Messiah theme and have comparable narrative structures. That is, both are centered on the crucifixion narrative, making the rest of the book simply a long introduction to it.

Goodacre’s argument is still a bit of a minority position among scholars, but I wanted to mention it here in the context of whether the Gospels conflict with each other.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Do the Gospels Contradict Each Other?

While all four Gospels share core features, including stories of Jesus teaching and performing miracles, the passion narratives in which Jesus is betrayed, arrested, and crucified, and the empty tomb and resurrection, scholars have long noted several historical and theological inconsistencies. These include different genealogies, chronologies, and other specific narrative details, such as where the story took place. Let’s look at just a few, beginning with Jesus’ early life.

Let’s start with some historical errors. Matthew describes Jesus’ family living in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt to escape King Herod’s slaughter of children, and eventually settling in Nazareth. Conversely, Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, traveled to Bethlehem for a census, and then returned to Nazareth soon after Jesus' birth, with no mention of Egypt. Furthermore, while both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies of Jesus which trace his ancestry through his human father, Joseph, they name different ancestors. Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon, while Luke traces it through David's son Nathan. Furthermore, the two genealogies give entirely different names for Joseph’s father.

Then there is the incident known as the Cleansing of the Temple and when it occurred. The Synoptic Gospels place Jesus’ dramatic clearing of the money changers from the Temple at the end of his ministry, during his last week in Jerusalem. John, however, places this event near the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Which is correct?

There are also inconsistencies among the Gospel writers regarding the chronology of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus shares the Passover meal with his disciples on Thursday evening and is crucified on Friday. In John, though, the Last Supper takes place before the Passover meal, and Jesus is crucified on Friday at the exact time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered, thereby emphasizing Jesus as the sacrificial lamb.

Finally the details of Jesus’ resurrection accounts differ as well. They vary on exactly which women went to the tomb, whether the stone was already rolled away when they arrived, and how many angels they encountered. Moreover, Mark 16:8 states the women told no one after seeing the empty tomb, while the other Gospels explicitly say they told the disciples.

This is not an exhaustive list of issues. It’s  only a small sampling of the type of contradictions found in the Gospels. But what is the reason for these discrepancies?

Why Do The Gospels Contradict Each Other?

In order to answer this question, it’s important to understand a broad conclusion shared by many modern biblical scholars: the Gospels were not written to be historical books, in the modern sense. Their true purpose is well put by Richard Burridge in his book What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, which says, “The evangelists were not simply recording history; they were writing theology in narrative form.” In other words, the authors of the four Gospels were not concerned with getting every historical detail right but rather with convincing readers that Jesus was worthy of the high status Christians claimed for him.

This is one example of why the Gospels differ in the details: although all four authors were committed to Jesus, their theological agendas differed. Bart Ehrman summarizes these agendas very briefly:

With such different portrayals of Jesus and his mission, it’s no wonder that other differences emerged as well.

Also, in terms of chronologies and narrative contradictions, we must keep in mind when the Gospels were written. According to most scholars, they were not eyewitness accounts. Jesus died around 30 CE, but the earliest of our Gospels, Mark, wasn’t written until at least 70 CE. Even if Mark had been an eyewitness to the events he wrote about, how accurately could a person remember events from 40 years ago?

On the other hand, even if the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts, isn’t it possible that some eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry could have still been alive in Mark’s time, and couldn’t Mark’s author have asked them about Jesus’ life? While that is technically possible, Bart Ehrman notes that there are good reasons to think that such eyewitnesses were not consulted by the author of Mark:

The same is true of all four Gospels, although as we go later into the 1st century, it also becomes less likely that any eyewitnesses were still alive, given the short life expectancies of the 1st century CE.

To sum up, N.T. Wright explains the differences between Gospel accounts by noting that the Gospels are not so much histories as arguments being made:

Internal Inconsistencies in the Gospels

In addition to instances when the details of the Gospels contradict each other, sometimes they even contradict themselves. A few examples can demonstrate what I mean:

John 3:22 says, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John,” but a note added in John 4:2 unambiguously says, "it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized.” Moreover, in Luke 1:35, Mary is told by an angel that her son will be the "Son of God." However, in Luke 2:48–50, when Jesus is found in the temple, Mary is confused by his actions, and both parents are explicitly said to not understand what he was saying to them about being in his Father’s house.

In John chapter 2, Jesus performs his first miracle or “first sign” in 2:11, at a wedding in Cana where he changes water into wine. Later, in 4:54, he performs his second sign, healing an official’s son. But wait! John 2:23 says that while Jesus was in Jerusalem, after his first sign, many people came to believe in him “because they saw the signs that he was doing.” This indicates that after his first sign, he performed other signs, and then later performed his second sign.

Finally, John chapter 5 places Jesus in Jerusalem for a festival. However, at the very beginning of Chapter 6, the narrative abruptly shifts, stating that "Jesus crossed to the far side of the Sea of Galilee," with no narrative explanation of how or when he traveled from Jerusalem to Galilee.

The History of Reconciling Contradictions

If we can spot contradictions in the Gospels today, did ancient Christians spot them as well? They did, and ancient Christian authors used a number of different arguments to explain and justify these inconsistencies.

One of the first things we know was done to eliminate inconsistencies was called harmonization. That is, ancient Christians fused the stories of the four Gospels together into one tale, simply leaving out contradictions they couldn’t reconcile. The most famous of these was called the Diatessaron, created by the 2nd-century scholar Tatian. This was a widely-used text that made the four separate Gospels into a single, continuous narrative which eliminated contradictions.

Then there were allegorical or spiritualized interpretations which were popular among well-known exegetes.  Foremost among these exegetes was the 3rd-century scholar Origen who, in his Commentary on John (Book 10, section 4), argued that when literal details clashed (such as timelines or locations), the text must be pointing to a higher spiritual truth.

Finally, 4th-century bishop and theologian Augustine of Hippo explained contradictions in the Gospel texts by arguing that the authors simply recorded events in different orders or emphasized unique details, which, when combined, offered a richer, more complete picture of Jesus’ life.

Pagan Responses to Contradictions in the Gospels

If ancient Christians saw these discrepancies between Gospels, what about their non-Christian opponents? Ancient pagan writers and critics of Christianity did indeed note contradictions in the Gospels. In fact, by the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as Christian texts became more widespread, pagan intellectuals read them specifically to challenge their historical accuracy and coherence.

For instance, a 2nd-century Greek philosopher named Celsus wrote a book called The True Word, one of the earliest comprehensive critiques of Christianity. We don’t have any complete copies of this work and we know it mainly from Origen’s refutation of it, known as Against Celsus. Celsus attacked the Gospels for their narrative inconsistencies, particularly noting the differing accounts of the resurrection and arguing that the stories not only contradicted each other but were badly constructed. He also argued that Christianity had simply plagiarized its main ideas from older pagan and Jewish traditions.

Similarly, Porphyry, a 3rd-century Neoplatonist philosopher and disciple of the great Neoplatonist Plotinus, wrote a 15-volume work titled Against the Christians. In this work, Porphyry gleefully pointed out divergences in Jesus’s genealogies, factual errors like the ones I noted above, and narrative discrepancies across the Gospels. He furthermore said the Gospel authors were badly educated and vulgar and that since the disciples had fled when Jesus was arrested, they could not have witnessed his private trials or the resurrection. These stories, he argued, were therefore simply fabrications.

Conclusion

Do the Gospels contradict each other? As we have seen, yes. If there were only one Gospel in the New Testament, there would presumably be far fewer contradictions. However, Gospels can even contradict themselves at times. In reality, though, there are four NT Gospels, with four different authors writing at different times and in different circumstances, all of which led to contradictions.

These inconsistencies included different chronologies, different genealogies, and, especially in the case of John, very different theological messages. In addition, narrative details sometimes vary widely between them. So what were ancient Christians to make of these discrepancies?

Christian authors responded in a variety of ways. Tatian simply harmonized the Gospels into one overarching story, thus eliminating any disagreements between them. Origen argued that any such contradictions were merely indications of a higher meaning, while Augustine said the four authors simply emphasized different facets of Jesus’ story. Pagans, however, were not so forgiving, pointing out the same contradictions as evidence of Christianity’s invalid basis. If the stories contradicted each other, they must not be true.

None of these contradictions, however, stopped Christianity from flourishing and developing through the ages, however. If you’re interested in how Christianity developed after Jesus, check out Bart Ehrman’s course Ancient Christianities featuring Dr. Paula Fredriksen.