The Gospels Contradict Themselves! | Dr. James Barker

Summary

The interview examines disagreements among the four Gospels and asks how readers should interpret them. Professor James Barker argues that the Gospels contain both direct contradictions, where accounts cannot both be true as described, and discrepancies, where accounts differ but might be reconciled. He cautions that attempts to make every detail agree can require inventing events or changing the chronology—interpretations the Gospel texts themselves do not provide.

Main Ideas

• Differences between Gospel accounts are longstanding and were noticed early. Barker describes interpreters as taking varied approaches: harmonizing the accounts, accepting differences without resolving them, or treating them as reasons to doubt the accounts.
• Harmonization can create additional narrative details. For example, some interpreters proposed that events such as Jesus’ anointing or the cleansing of the Temple happened more than once. Barker notes that these solutions can produce a combined story not explicitly told by any individual Gospel.
• The Gospels may reflect literary rewriting. Barker’s view is that later Gospel writers sometimes knew earlier accounts and reshaped them—adding details, altering emphasis, correcting or clarifying information, and sometimes changing chronology. He presents this as a way to understand differences without assuming that every account was intended to match the others.
• Readers need not treat every discrepancy as equally consequential. Barker distinguishes questions about historical detail from central Christian beliefs, arguing that a disagreement over when an event happened need not overturn a reader’s larger religious commitments.
• Neither extreme is persuasive to him. Barker rejects the claim that the Bible contains no contradictions, but also rejects the claim that one error makes an entire work worthless. He compares this to finding an error in Aristotle or in his own writing: an error does not automatically invalidate everything else.
• He emphasizes human authorship. In Barker’s view, treating Scripture as divine should not erase the possibility that its human authors made mistakes or deliberately reworked material. He suggests that readers can take the texts seriously while acknowledging their differences.

Examples Discussed

• Jesus’ genealogies: Matthew and Luke provide different genealogies. Barker rejects the modern claim that Luke’s genealogy is simply Mary’s, noting that Joseph is named in the passage. He also discusses older attempts to explain the differences through levirate marriage.
• Judas’ death: Matthew says Judas hanged himself, while Acts describes a different death. Barker considers it plausible that Luke’s account deliberately rewrites Matthew’s version, rather than combining the descriptions into one event.
• The fig tree: Barker suggests Luke may have transformed the story of Jesus cursing a fig tree into a parable about giving a tree more time to bear fruit.
• The resurrection accounts: The Gospels differ in their descriptions of appearances and the disciples’ reactions. Barker gives Matthew’s account of some disciples doubting and John’s account of Thomas as examples of how one writer may develop or recast an earlier theme.
• Details and corrections between Gospels: Barker points to differences over Mark’s combined Old Testament quotation, the designation of the Sea of Galilee, and titles such as “King Herod” and “Governor Pilate.” He interprets some later wording as clarification or correction.
• Jesus’ birth accounts: Barker regards Matthew and Luke’s accounts as potentially complementary in some respects, proposing that Matthew emphasizes Joseph’s perspective and Luke Mary’s. He also argues that Luke may share Matthew’s belief in Jesus’ miraculous conception while not relying on Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah.

Historical Approaches Mentioned

• Tatian created the Diatessaron, a harmony combining the four Gospels. Barker says Tatian sometimes treated accounts as separate events and sometimes combined them, making choices about order and details.
• Origen acknowledged differences and sometimes accepted each Gospel on its own terms, while harmonizing accounts in other cases or drawing allegorical meaning from differences.
• Porphyry used Gospel disagreements to challenge their credibility.
• Augustine responded to such challenges by proposing ways the accounts could be reconciled.

Barker’s overall recommendation is to examine disagreements passage by passage, consider the range of historical interpretations, and avoid denying the differences or assuming that only one method of resolving them is possible.

Speakers and Sources Featured

Speakers

• Jacob, the interviewer and host
• Professor James Barker, the guest

Historical Figures and Works Discussed

• Tatian and the Diatessaron
• Origen
• Porphyry
• Augustine
• Aristotle and Homer, in an analogy about errors in a text
• The Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts