douglas

I was discussing the Gospels with a Baptist neighbor who believes in the "perfection" of the gospels. I told him that even the Gospel writers themselves didn't believe that other, previously written Gospels were "perfect" and tried to correct these mistakes with their own versions. (Mathew & Luke corrected Mark, John corrected all three others). The only example I could come up with was the differences regarding the day of the crucifixion.

Can someone throw out a couple other well-known examples to help me save face?

sakrilege

The fig tree

Malachi151

Well, there is a difference here between what are explicitly declared corrections, and what we can infer are corrections. In theory, every contradiction between the gospels is a form of correction by the later gospel.

Another interesting question to ask him, however, is this:

Are all of the gospels written by eyewitnesses?

If he says yes to this, then you know he never read the gospels, because the gospel of Luke explicitly states in the introduction that it is not an eyewitness account, but the compilation of research by the author.

Clivedurdle

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html

Of Antioch - 180's.

Pete getting to me, but might Luke have been writing to this guy?

dzim77

Perhaps instead of "correcting" the other writers (as you say), the authors were writting to different audiences for slightly different purposes, thus yielding the different emphases in the gospel accounts?

Amaleq13

Compare the accounts John's baptism of Jesus and absence thereof.

aa5874

Well, first of all the book called John is just different to the other Gospels, both in chronology and the words of Jesus, it is not a correction but a different story, with a common event the crucufixtion.

However, this is one of the major contradictions in the Gospels, and in my opinion, destroys the credibilty of the Gospels.
If we look at Matthew 16:13-20, we read that Jesus asked his disciples who do they think He is, and in v16-20, 'And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not reveal it unto thee but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say unto thee , Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church and the gates will not prevail against it'.

Now the book of John writes a completetly different story and shows that Christ was revealed to Peter by flesh and blood, if fact by Peter's own brother. And this revelation occured at the beginning of Peter's selection as a disciple, not long afterwards as the author Matthew implied
John 1:40-42, 'One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon Peter, and said unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

So it can clearly be seen that the way the church was established through Peter is highly questionable.

Other major descrepancies are the birth of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 1-2. The genealogy of Joseph in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. The place where Jesus lived after birth as recorded in Matthew 2 and Luke 2.

There is also a profound difference between Matthew and Luke's story of Jesus' birth which is normally overlooked, Matthew's story is one of fear, where God himself appears to be concerned for the safety of His Son and warns that no-one should reveal His son's location.

However, Luke's story is one of celebration, where God sends multitudes of angels and much praising, even the shepherds openly worshipped Jesus and told others of his birth immediately. It appears that God is not scared of anyone, according to Luke, His Son's birth is a happy occasion.

This fearful depiction of Jesus, in Matthew, is shown again in the crucifixion, Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out with a loud voice..... M y God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?

And now look at Luke's crucifixion, Luke 23:46, 'And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit....

So we see that Luke's Jesus dies in complete acceptance of God's will, whereas Matthew's Jesus dies in disbelief and fear.

In effect Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually depict a different Jesus, but we are duped into believing, by the guile of the authors, that the characters are the same because of the same name.

Doug Shaver

<mode = "facetious">
That shows how much you know about apologetics. In the evangelical world, you're giving an eyewitness account as long as you say there was an eyewitness to what you're giving an account of.
</mode>

douglas

Thank you to everyone for the insight.

Is it a commonly held belief that Mark and Luke had unwittingly created an early "adoptionist" movement (ie. Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism by John and un-adopted at the crucifixion hence the cry of dereliction) which Luke and John were trying to squash with their re-writing of what Jesus' supposed last words were? It seems to me this is a clear of example of Luke and John trying to "correct" Mark. John especially would have seen this as heresy, considering his belief that Jesus was...

"the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning." John 1

robto

Not sure how much of a case you can make for Luke being anti-adoptionist; there are some very adoptionistic-sounding remarks in the speeches in Acts.

The baptism itself was re-written in a very blatant way. Mark and Luke present it straighforwardly, Matthew has John the B say "I need to be baptised by you!" rather than the other way around, and John omits the baptism entirely, and just has John the B say he saw the dove come down.

Clearly, as time went on Christians got more and more uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus needed to repent and be baptised.