Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?: What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography

by Michael R. Licona, Craig A. Evans (Foreword)

Anyone who reads the Gospels carefully will notice that there are differences in the manner in which they report the same events. These differences have led many conservative Christians to resort to harmonization efforts that are often quite strained, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Many people have concluded the Gospels are hopelessly contradictory and therefore historically unreliable as accounts of Jesus. The majority of New Testament scholars now hold that most if not all of the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography and that this genre permitted some flexibility in the way in which historical events were narrated. However, few scholars have undertaken a robust discussion of how this plays out in Gospel pericopes (self-contained passages).

Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? provides a fresh approach to the question by examining the works of Plutarch, a Greek essayist who lived in the first and second centuries CE. Michael R. Licona discovers three-dozen pericopes narrated two or more times in Plutarch's Lives, identifies differences between the accounts, and analyzes these differences in light of compositional devices identified by classical scholars as commonly employed by ancient authors. The book then applies the same approach to nineteen pericopes that are narrated in two or more Gospels, demonstrating that the major differences found there likely result from the same compositional devices employed by Plutarch.

Showing both the strained harmonizations and the hasty dismissals of the Gospels as reliable accounts to be misguided, Licona invites readers to approach them in light of their biographical genre and in that way to gain a clearer understanding of why they differ.

Genres: Christianity, Christian, Theology, History, Education, Religion

308 pages, Hardcover

Published December 19, 2016

About the author

Born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1961, Mike became a Christian at the age of 10 and grew up in a Christian home. He attended Liberty University where he earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Music Performance (Saxophone). During his undergraduate studies, he had a strong desire to know God, devoting himself to studying the Bible daily. He decided to learn Koine Greek in order to read the New Testament in its original language and later completed a Master’s Degree in Religious Studies.

Toward the end of his graduate work in 1985, Mike began to question the veracity of his faith and wondered if there was any evidence to support it. He decided not to go into Christian ministry at that time. Finding answers to his questions consumed him and he almost jettisoned his faith. He investigated the evidence for Christianity and a number of other major world religions. He also considered the arguments for atheism. His investigation solidified his belief that God exists and that he has actually revealed himself to mankind in Jesus Christ and that the Christian view provides the most plausible and unified theory of reality.

In July of 1997, Mike formed TruthQuest Ministries in order to give an official name to his growing ministry and to allow future donors to make tax-deductible gifts. In October 2001, the ministry was renamed “RisenJesus” in order to avoid confusion with other ministries named “TruthQuest” and more closely reflect its vision of equipping 100,000 Christians to share their faith using the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection.

Mike is the author, co-author or editor of six (6) books: The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2010), Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy and Science, with co-editor William Dembski (Baker 2010), Paul Meets Muhammad (Baker, 2006) which is a debate on the resurrection of Jesus between the apostle Paul and the prophet Muhammad, the award winning The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus with co-author Gary Habermas (Kregel, 2004) which is a comprehensive self-study course, Cross Examined, a legal novel defending the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, and Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock which lays out in a concise manner what to say to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when they knock on your door.

He also contributed a chapter in Buried Hope or Risen Savior: The Search for the Jesus Tomb, Charles L. Quarles, ed. (2008), an entry in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Ed Hindson and Ergun Caner, eds. and a chapter in The Big Argument: Twenty-Four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaelogy, and Philosophy Have Proven the Existence of God, John Ashton, Michael Westacott, eds. (Master Books, 2006). He is a featured scholar in Lee Strobel’s new book The Case for the Real Jesus (Zondervan, 2007) and his DVD The Case for Christ (2007). Mike was also one of the authors selected for the Erasing Hate2007 tour (www.erasinghate.com).

Mike has a Ph.D. in New Testament (University of Pretoria). He completed all requirements “with distinction” and the highest marks. He is a frequent speaker on university campuses, churches, Christian groups, retreats, frequently debates, and has appeared as a guest on dozens of radio and television programs. He is a member of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Mike is associate professor in theology at Houston Baptist University and the president of Risen Jesus, Inc.

Reviews

[Travis Wise · Rating 3 out of 5]

4-5 stars for the basic thesis; 1-2 for the organization. Basic idea/thesis: gospel writers followed the writing standards of 1st century (not 21st century!) biographers in their accounts of Jesus; this accounts for most of the differences in the gospels that drive us nuts. Eschewing strict chronology; paraphrasing speeches; compressing details to fit needs or focus; all of these the gospel writers do, and all of these ancient biographers did (specifically Plutarch), and there was nothing surprising about it.

Not really a new idea. What Licona does—that is somewhat new, and also terribly boring—is spends nearly half the book systematically summarizing dozens of examples from Plutarch in which these things happen. I got the point from the preface… and the point was indelible after the first two or three examples. Good for a reference, not for readability.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book addresses the "synoptic problem," the fact that parallel narratives in the various gospels (particularly the between the first three) do not always seem to agree on every detail. Licona gets at addressing this problem by looking at Plutarch's Lives. Since Plutarch wrote accounts of various men whose lives intersected in many ways, his work contains multiple accounts of the same events. Thus by studying the discrepancies in these accounts, we can get a feel for what was "acceptable" in the ancient genre of biography. Doing so will help us to understand what the Gospel writers felt to be "acceptable."

Licona takes an extensive look at Plutarch. As in, over half of the book is concerned with various events in the lives of Caesar, Brutus, Antony, Cato, Cicero, and others. Licona mines the various accounts to see what kinds of tricks Plutarch had up his sleeve. The ancient historian would rearrange events, change details, modify timing, vary words, adapt focus, etc. Then Licona finds the same things happening in the Gospel accounts.

Licona is evidently very wary of drawing many conclusions. But I will. What is clear is that the Gospel writer's idea of accuracy does not match the modernist view. But this does not mean they were "inaccurate." It does not mean they were not inspired, or even inerrant. It just means that those words might not mean what we think they mean. If one Gospel has Jesus healing lepers on his way into Jericho, and another Gospel places that account on his way out of town, does this create an intractable problem. No, the Gospel writers were being faithful to the facts, even if such modification would be acceptable in a modern biography.

Another issue is how dialogue and details change (even if they don't contradict). We tend to forget that the Gospels span three years but can be read in an hour. If one Gospel has Jesus saying certain things on the cross, and another has different sayings, isn't it possible that both were said? Same thing at the empty tomb or at the feeding of the 5,000, or anywhere else. I think Licona underplays this possibility. Also, we shouldn't read too much from silence. If one Gospel writer says one demoniac is present, and another Gospel writer mentions two, do they contradict? No, the first Gospel writer is not precluding the possibility of other demoniacs; he is merely being selective. Keep in mind that Matthew, Luke, and John are all about the length of one scroll. If they had written much more, they would have been too long (Licona doesn't mention this; this is merely me expostulating).

All in all, this survey is helpful, even if it's mostly raw data and very little in the way of conclusion. We should not overlook differences in the Gospels, nor attempt facile harmonization, but nor should we let such differences keep us up at night.

[Joel Sanford · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? to be an enlightening and thought-provoking read. It was not, however, an easy read. The vast majority of the book constitutes a side-by-side analysis of differences between ancient Roman author Plutarch's Lives and the four Gospels of the Christian Biblical canon, which Licona carries out systematically and thoroughly, sparing the reader seemingly no detail. This can make slogging through the middle chapters difficult, even tedious at times, especially for those unfamiliar with either ancient Roman political history or new Testament studies. Stylistically, too, Licona's writing tends to be rather dry, with the welcome exceptions of his brief introduction and conclusion.

These complaints reveal something of a double-edged sword since these same characteristics which make the book such an arduous read also make it so valuable in terms of rigor and independent verifiability. As a case study, an evidence-based test of a hypothesis, and a work of reference the book is quite an accomplishment. The organization is straightforward and easy to follow, and included is a glossary of a handful of more obscure or technical terms as well as several appendices and indexes to help readers keep track of and locate information on particular sections of narrative, historical figures, authors, Biblical passages, and ancient sources. All of this makes the book quite useful as something one might keep on a shelf and refer to regarding specific Gospel stories or passages as they come up in study or discussion.

In reflecting back on the book as a whole, one of the things that stands out to me most is actually how limited it is in scope. Licona is focused in on what ends up being a rather narrow question, and he is careful not to venture too far outside this with overreaching speculations or conclusions. He does not, for example, attempt to provide or even hint at an explanation for all the differences between the Gospels, much less provide definitive answers to questions about authorship, date or relative timing of composition, or historicity of events. This is a bit complicated because these questions are of course relevant to the study, and he is forced to deal with them at certain points, but the main focus throughout remains on the narrow question of whether the Gospel authors appear to have used the conventions of Greco-Roman biography in their writing.

So, what of this central question? Does Licona make an adequate case that the Gospel authors write with the conventions of Greco-Roman biographers?

I would have to say yes. The evidence presented throughout the study certainly seems to point in that direction, or, at least, I have trouble imagining a better explanation to account for the same evidence. In reading through the whole Gospel analysis, it first of all becomes clear just how many differences exist in the pericopes under consideration. While some of these are no doubt explainable as simple errors, differences in available testimony, or differences in authorial perspective, it seems to me these can't account for all the differences, and at least some element of intentional alteration or creative license must be at play.

But, what difference does it make? Whether Licona is right or wrong, what's at stake? And, if he's right, what should it mean for us reading and understanding the Gospels?

Licona actually spends very little time in his book addressing these questions directly. As I read him, I believe his own answer would begin with the idea that understanding more how the Gospels were written – that is, the literary rules and conventions followed by their original authors – provides us greater clarity and insight into what the Gospels originally were (and were not) meant to communicate. This then has implications for all sorts of questions we could ask about Jesus, his life and ministry, and the early Christian community and tradition.

The Bottom Line

For Christians, non-Christians, and anyone in-between, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? is a valuable resource for better understanding the Gospels in the literary context in which they were written. While it falls far short of explaining every difference in the Gospels, it does starkly reveal the true complexity of issues surrounding their composition and forces readers to abandon overly simplistic or extreme views of them as either wholly unreliable or wholly factual. The book's level of detail, however, is not for the faint of heart, and for this reason, I wouldn't recommend it to everybody. It's best use is as a reference for more in-depth study of problematic passages or for those who wish to see the evidence laid out in all it's detail before buying into a new theory or idea.

For a more extensive synopsis and review:
https://allthingsmatter.net/review-why-are-there-differences-in-the-gospels-by-michael-r-licona/

[Ben House · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn From Ancient Biography is by Dr. Michael Licona, an Associate Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University.  This book is published by the renowned Oxford University Press. Dr. Licona has also written The Resurrection of Jesus, Evidence for God, Paul Meets Muhammed, and other works.  His website, Risen Jesus, offers a number of resources and details about his ministry.

In my meandering book hunting, I came across Michael Licona's works about a year ago.  It was yet another pleasant reminder of how God has raised up so many scholars and teachers in the Kingdom.  He is not a novice or new comer, but I was not previously aware of his work.  I continue to be impressed by Houston Baptist University because of the big names that are associated with that school.  Along with Dr. Licona, Dr. Louis Markos and Dr. Nancy Pearcey also teach there.  If I suddenly get an all expense paid scholarship to HBU, I will go just to take their courses.

Let me now speak about this particular study, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?

First, notice that this book is published by Oxford University Press.  I quickly snatch up and buy almost any book I find that OUP publishes.  If it is part of the "Oxford Book of ___________________" collection, I usually want it.  But most of my reading and collecting from OUP are in the fields of history and literature.

University Presses are astounding.  They publish far too many books for the average reader to even become aware of.  Yes, many are obscure, esoteric, and deeply academic studies.  Yes, many are priced way beyond the range of any but college libraries and wealthy folks.  But they also publish many readable histories, biographies, and other studies.

In spite of the paranoia we conservative Christians have, college presses publish lots of books that are both politically conservative and favorable to Christianity.  There are, in our times, way more than the 6,000 of Elijah's time who have not bended their knees to Baal.  Then there are some folks who genuinely respect the academic and spiritual freedom of Christians.

Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach, also an OUP publications, is one such example of a great study by a Christian scholar.  Dr. Thomas Kidd's historical books are published by various secular academic presses.  Michael McVicar's Christian Reconstruction:  R. J. Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism was published by the University of North Carolina Press. The University Press of Kentucky has published Bradley Birzer's biography of conservative intellectual Russell Kirk and more recently has published Imaginative Conservative:  The Letters of Russell Kirk.  And the list goes on.

Second,  this book is a win/win for people who are in classical Christian education.  The reason is that at least a third of the book is a detailed survey of Plutarch's Lives and some other ancient biographies.  The other large emphasis in the book is the Gospel accounts.  I suffered great embarrassment while reading about Plutarch's Lives because it is a book I have read from, but have never read.  I should have long ago read it and should have been teaching it.  But here is a resource for that future eventuality.

Okay, I have read the Gospels!  The jist of this book is that the Gospel writers employed methods of writing that were common for the literary culture of their times.  Biographies in our time (20th/21st centuries) are of a different caliber than biographies of the past.  This is not a good versus bad pairing, but a "this is different from that" approach.  Just read a book a book on a historical figure written in the 1800's and then read one written in the last twenty years.

Third, there is in the history of the past century or two what was called the Higher Critical Movement.  The force of this movement is still strong.  The higher critics seemed intent on not just scholarly study or literary/historical/theological criticism, but also undermining and attacking the Bible.

At the same time, although getting less attention, is what is sometimes called the Lower Critical Approach.  Studies of authorship, dating, context, and other topics is a legitimate way to critically study the Bible.  The word Gnosticism never appears in the Bible, but that was a cultural and philosophical movement that is under attack by the New Testament writers. Differences in Paul's writings in Romans and James' Epistle call for some serious and microscopic examination and study.

Fourth, this book takes the differences in wording, placement, context, and details found in the four Gospels and seeks to explain them.  Am I happy or convinced by all of Dr. Licona's efforts?  No.  Quite frankly, I am usually content to read the Gospels with complete acceptance and don't worry about reconciling differences.  But sometimes pastors, teachers, and scholars have to do the heavy lifting.  I would recommend that any reader who is feeling that the premises are shaky on this book should skip over to the Conclusion so as to better understand Licona's perspective and method.

My first "go-to" book on this topic would be Vern Poythress' Inerrancy and Worldview:  Answering Modern Challenges to the Bible.  But Michael Licona's Why Are There Differences in the Gospels would not be far away.  There are, of course, a number of resources.  Remember Christian, the Bible is not a the new, little kid with glasses who is being bullied.  Christian theology and the Scriptures have endured and prevailed through many ages and battles.

Fifth, this book is not an easy read or a devotional read.  Granted, any study of theology can and should impact the heart as well as the mind.  Also, one might wish that they could get the basic sense of this work without having to wade through 36 accounts from Plutarch.  Hopefully, Dr. Licona will write a simplified version of this work for the more general reader.

But we need the scholars who are willing and able to give not just an example, but an entire book length case study of the topic at hand.  This book does exactly that.

I look forward to reading more from Michael Licona.

[Jon Håversen · Rating 4 out of 5]

God bok av Licona hvor han forsøker å gi en forklaring på hvorfor det finnes forskjeller i evangeliene. Boken er fylt med interessant forskning og bærer preg av grundig arbeid med tematikken. Licona mener at sjangerspørsmålet langt på vei løser "floken" som er ulikhetene mellom evangeliene. De fire evangeliene bør undersøkes som historiske dokumenter, nærmere bestemt som gresk-romerske biografier, og forfatterne av slike type dokumenter dro nytte av forskjellige litterære og retoriske virkemidler når de skulle formidle hendelsene de skildrer. Eksempler på dette er 'overføring', at en handling blir overført fra en person til en annen, eller 'forflytting', at en hendelse blir tatt fra sin kontekst, og lagt til i en annen. Et eksempel kan være historien om Jesus og den romerske offiseren i Luk 7 og Matt 8 hvor Lukas skriver at offiseren sendte noen jødiske eldste for å oppsøke Jesus, mens i Matteus sin skildring av samme historie er det offiseren selv som oppsøker Jesus. Her viser Licona til andre historikere som skriver i sjangeren gresk-romersk biografi og viser at dette ikke var et unormalt grep i denne sjangeren. For eksempel skriver historikeren Plutark om en hyllest som den politiske lederen Pompeii skrev og angivelig fremført i en rettsak. I kilden 'Cato den yngre' står det at Pompeii sendte en svigersønn for å holde talen på vegne av han. Mens i kilden "Pompeii" står det at Pompeii selv var i retten og holdt denne hyllesttalen. Den praktiske forskjellen mellom de to versjonene er så og si ingenting ettersom hyllestens budskap til syvende og sist har sitt opphav i Pompeii uansett om han selv holdt talen, eller om hans svigersønn gjorde det. På samme måte sier Licona at ulikheten mellom Matt 8 & Luk 7 kan forklares ved at til syvende og sist så er det offiseren som oppsøker Jesus, og det er mer eller mindre uvesentlig om han sendte noen på vegne av seg selv eller ikke. Det lille minuset med boken er at jeg opplever at Licona unngår å få frem hvordan dette kun er én del av en "cumulative case" når man snakker om ulikhetene i evangeliene. Jeg syntes det til tider kan virke som at Licona har for mye tillit til denne løsningen alene, det er viktig å si at, ja dette er én del av forklaringen, men det er også mange andre svært viktige elementer som ikke er med i denne boka. Alt i alt verdt å lese, men den er til tider svært tung å komme seg igjennom.

[Katerina · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Why Are There Differences in the Gospels, Michael Licona considers how the gospels follow the literary conventions of Greco-Roman biographies. The first chapter looks at the compositional devices used by 1st and 2nd century biographers. The next two chapters evaluate overlapping accounts within Plutarch's Lives to observe how these compositional devices were practiced in actual biographies. The next two chapters do the same with differing accounts from the four New Testament gospels.

It is evident that Licona has done his research. Unfortunately, this book reads like research notes. While he successfully makes his case, seeing that case requires the reader to delve into the details herself. Doing so does help one better see how Greco-Roman biographies differ from modern accounts, but I fear many will miss out because they set the book aside. Still, for those concerned about difference in the gospels, this book is well worth working through. The three stars is an average: two-stars is for its readability (only okay) and four-stars for its information (quite helpful).

[Joey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting reading for sure. It was enlightening to see the gospels placed in context alongside Roman biography from the same era. It did, however, drag a bit, because really Licona's point is made in the first example (pericope), and all subsequent examples, while sometimes interesting to read just for the history, don't produce a lot of ah ha moments. I understand that it would have been tough to do otherwise though, given the relative lack of other biography from the same region and time.

Four stars instead of three because it really did change the way I look at the differences in the gospels. It really did help fill in some gaps in my understanding, and it answered some nagging questions that have lingered in the back of my mind for most of my life. For that I am grateful.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A couple of things to note here:
1) This book, I believe, is not really meant to be read from start to finish (unless you're just really interested in the different ways Plutarch explains different events across his biographies).
2) However, it is an EXCELLENT resource for explaining why there are differences in the Gospels if you're good at navigating the content of the book to find what you're looking for. It's written in a way where it is easy to jump around and find what you're looking for.

Highly recommend for seminary students. For everyone else, Licona's newer book, Jesus Contradicted, is probably a better fit for you. It covers the exact same concepts as this book does, has other topics as well, and is written for the lay person.

[Karl · Rating 5 out of 5]

A 5/5 for what it aims to do. Though its main method of going through pericopes (like 50 in total) one at a time and analyzing the differences both sounds and is laborious (though, personally, I loved every minute of it), it isn't "HARD" by any means, and Licona provides a bunch of notes and resources and even a glossary. His style of going through the pericopes is methodical, but it isn't BORING like you'd expect; his personality isn't that of a boring professor, and this is shown even better when he's not going through the pericopes thsemselves.

AWESOME BOOK but do be expected to put in the work required for a deeper understanding.

[Robin · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is a lot of interesting information in here, and Licona provides a compelling argument for the similarities between ancient Roman biographies and the gospels. This book will serve as an excellent resource to reference in the future, though it was a little bit tedious to read straight through, particularly in the summaries of some of the Roman biographies. Still, I would recommend it for anyone who struggles with the existence of differences in the Gospels.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a little difficult to review for it is more organized data than a narrative. However, the data provided is paradigm shifting for understanding the differences in the Gospels. Licona’s thesis is well-argued and goes a long way from defanging both the critics’s charge of contradiction in the Gospels and the Christian’s employing of harmonization. This is a must read if you are interested or bothered by the difference in the Gospels.

[Kristoffer Kruse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Læst ifbm. Speciale. God bog. Jeg kunne godt bruge mere om implikationerneaf bios genren

[Benjamin Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very specific reading... Not one that a pastor puts on a church foyer. Great content, but not accessible or applicable to most

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

Should be read together with The Mirror or the Mask by Lydia McGrew.

[J.J. Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Even after taking graduate work with Licona, I still have a few issues with his thesis. Still good insights.

[James Chappell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Licona's latest was an interesting study of how ancient writers such as Plutarch, when writing biographies, used narrative devices such as displacement, compression and spotlighting, to achieve points they were trying to make about those they were writing about. In my opinion, he succeeded in showing that the same devices were likely applied to the Gospels yet stops short of asserting that they certainly were.

Yet it stops short of achieving five stars because while it achieves what it aims to do, an engaging writing style is somewhat missing, leaving this particular work a little on the dry side, somewhere between popular and academic level. While this still leaves it as useful as a tool for understanding how ancient writers wrote biographies, and while it put to rest many of the concerns that critic like Bart Ehrman have about apparent disagreements between the Gospels, I found myself wishing it had been written by Peter Enns, who writes with brevity and a sense of humor.

[Cal · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am forever impressed with this honest nature of this book, amidst the incredible drive to ignore the subject and it's issues.

Christianity teaches you to love the truth and so Christians assume that the truth is safe, but oh boy, the truth can take you places you did not expect.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A few years ago I met Dywane Wade in person.  It was a really neat time, and usually when I tell this story, I'm looking to highlight how cool he was.  He was friendly with everyone.  Flirting with the girls, signing things for the fellas.  Because my experience, I'm more likely to mention some things over others.  For instance, telling of his willingness to sign jerseys and programs.  To make my case, I called a friend who was there.  I'd forgotten, but he actually gave his stuff to one of the girls to have it signed.  So all the years I've been telling the story, I was omitting a key detail.  My buddy didn't physically present his program to Wade, but another friend did so on his behalf.  Yet I don’t think I was wrong or was in error.  The spirit and truth of what I was attempting to convey was preserved.  Moreover, my friend was telling a divergent version of this story, where he admits that a third party had his paraphernalia signed. Yet these differences do nothing to undermine the truth of what happened that day.  


The above illustrates much of what is going on with the Gospels.  Lacona has written a laconic, focused, and elucidating thesis that the Gospels were written in the form of "ancient biography".  Liberties such as the one I've described were expected and accepted.  Spotlighting, telescoping, compressing.  He compares them to other contemporary examples, and he makes a convincing case.  



Notes: 


Genre should be ancient biography (3)


Plutarch as the archetype 


Spotlighting, compression, highlighting, paraphrase, etc.  License taken with the material in order to emphasize a point. We see it in film all the time


The law of biographical relevance. (108)