Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently

by Michael R. Licona

The differences and discrepancies in the Gospels constitute the foremost objections to their reliability and the credibility of their message. Some have tried to resolve Gospels contradictions with strained harmonization efforts. Many others conclude that the Gospels are hopelessly contradictory and, therefore, historically unreliable accounts of Jesus. In Jesus, Contradicted , New Testament scholar Michael Licona shows how the genre of ancient biography, to which the Gospels belong, actually allows biographers to be flexible in how they report events, construct a narrative, and make an argument. Licona demonstrates that the intentional changes to the Jesus tradition by the Evangelists reveal that the differences in how the Gospels report events are not grounds for their rejection. Instead, they are a result of the Gospel writers employing standard literary conventions common in their time for writing ancient biography. Licona introduces readers to the genre of ancient biography through Plutarch, who wrote 48 of the 90 extent biographies written within 150 years of Jesus, giving numerous examples of compositional devices employed by Plutarch, and comparing them with instances in the Gospels where the Evangelists appear to use similar techniques. Licona also examines Theon's Progymnasmata, a first-century textbook that provides six techniques for paraphrasing one's sources when writing a narrative. In doing so, he helps readers understand why the Gospels report many events differently. Finally, Licona concludes by addressing the thorny question of whether the editorial moves commonplace in ancient biography are compatible with the doctrines of the divine inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture. Rather than trying to resolve discrepancies by bending the Gospel narrative, which risks making them say things they aren't saying, Jesus, Contradicted situates the Gospels within their proper context and helps readers account for differences in the Gospels in a cohesive and historically cogent way.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Biblical Studies, Religion, Nonfiction, Christian, Christian Non Fiction

277 pages, Kindle Edition

Published May 28, 2024

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

[Jeremy Crump · Rating 2 out of 5]

A huge disappointment. Disclaimer: I've met and interviewed Licona; I like him a lot and I benefited a great deal from his book on the resurrection. I've eagerly awaited this book for some time (which is a popular version of his academic work, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?), before reading was basically already sold on his literary device theory (common among other evangelical NT scholars like Craig Keener, Craig Evans, etc.), and was looking to find a solid case for it based upon parallels to Greco-Roman biographies. Instead I found myself less and less convinced of this thesis as I went further in the book and as I subsequently read Lydia McGrew's book length response The Mirror or the Mask, which interacts with the academic version, I was thoroughly convinced that Licona (sadly) is mistaken yet (happily) the gospels are more reliable than he suggests.

On all of the following I am in agreement: (1) the gospels need to be read according to ancient literary conventions and standards for precision in historical writing, (2) the gospels are "literary" and construct their accounts in an artful way that is important to the telling and often goes unnoticed or is brushed aside by fundamentalist bible readers, (3) the gospels employ some "literary devices" such as paraphrase, telescoping, and asynchronous storytelling. All of this should be uncontroversial and does not necessitate a book like this. I'm also open to the idea (4) that the gospels likely contain some minor discrepancies - even contradictions - among themselves (though far less than Licona thinks). And I'm definitely in agreement that (5) "inerrancy" is not a good way of framing the issue of biblical inspiration and Christians need to articulate a far more nuanced (and biblical!) view of biblical reliability that allows for human error.

Yet, Licona's solution provokes more questions than answers since what he's proposing moves beyond conventional accepted literary devices (such as paraphrase) to outright inventions of dialogue, actions, characters, and settings. If true, I struggle to see how this would make the gospel authors less reliable than if they just misremembered things or got some details wrong or were reconciling contradictory pieces of testimony. Moreover - and I hate to say it because I respect him -Licona is just wrong in much of the conclusions he draws from the ancient writers and from the gospel writers. Re: the ancient writers, he over-reads statements of Theon to draw erroneous conclusions about historical writing in the ancient world and reaches immediately for literary device solutions to (alleged) discrepancies in writers like Plutarch without considering Plutarch might just be wrong or untrustworthy. Re: the gospels, he is so opposed to attempts to harmonize the accounts - to be fair, a lot of speculative and uninformed harmonization happens among evangelicals so he's right to be wary - that he reaches for solutions in "literary devices," some of which he admits aren't even found in the ancient writers (I would argue most of them aren't), when there are easier and less speculative harmonizations at hand. Unfortunately, Licona's solution is no solution.

P.S. If you are going to read Licona, at least for balance read Lydia McGrew's book length response, The Mirror or the Mask, which is a thorough and - to my mind - decisive refutation of Licona and Keener, et al. It has largely been (unfairly) dismissed by many evangelical NT scholars but she does her homework and she is no hack.

[Lamont S · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Superior Method of Analyzing Gospel Differences

Historically, from at least the time of St. Augustine, harmonizations have been commonly offered to reconcile discrepancies and possible contradictions in the gospels. Often these harmonizations are fraught with difficulty and are implausible.

Mike Licona has demonstrated that gospel differences are best explained through the use of compositional devices that one observes in other ancient biographies, namely those written by the classical biographer Plutarch. The kinds of differences that we observe among the gospels are also found in parallel passages among multiple biographies that were penned by Plutarch. Licona categorizes these differences and calls them compositional devices.

Compositional devices have superior explanatory power to that of creative harmonizations that have often been employed in Christian circles to explain gospel differences. Crucially, compositional devices also have superior explanatory power than the claims (usually by skeptics) that the discrepancies are the result of error. Since Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and were therefore acutely aware of the narratives in Mark for which they composed parallel narratives, the use of compositional devices is frequently a far more probable explanation of the discrepancies than what would otherwise be compositional errors.

Arguably the most interesting aspect of “Jesus, Contradicted” for me is that Licona has discovered in classical works the very compositional devices that many evangelical scholars have long suspected were employed by the gospel authors in parallel passages. Licona demonstrates this with very robust documentation.

Licona emphasizes at multiple points the importance of formulating a view of scripture that is consistent with what we observe in scripture. This common sense approach is so obvious to me that it seems the matter should hardly be a huge bone of contention. I think in a generation or two that approaches similar to Licona’s will be the future of evangelical biblical scholarship. As with every new paradigm, the old guard will not die easily. Those that hold to rigid forms of biblical inerrancy will continue to buck against ideas like the ones espoused in this book. Inevitably, after a sufficient amount of time passes, not only will Licona’s vision be mainstream within evangelical scholarship, but the next generation of scholars will look back in wonder as to why the more rigid views of traditional inerrancy ever had the stronghold that they now do in many evangelical circles.

There are no two ways about it. If you’re a Christian that is unfamiliar with the differences among parallel passages/narratives in the gospels, the revelations in “Jesus, Contradicted” will make you uncomfortable. However, they are important to acknowledge. Rigid views of inerrancy that rely on creative, strained harmonizations can be counterproductive to evangelism and in attempts at assuaging believers that may be struggling with gospel differences. Fortunately, while new understandings of how the gospels were composed may be difficult at first to accept, these new understandings ultimately strengthen the case for positive views of the historical reliability of the gospels.

[Adam Bloch · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is so hard to rate. All but the last chapter? Either a 4 or 5. The last chapter? (Chapter 12: Fine-Tuning Our Doctrine of Scripture: Inerrancy) Either a 1 or a 2.

On the one hand, I greatly appreciate the book--although I'm not ready to throw out harmonization, I appreciate that someone with faith in Jesus as the biblical Christ has taken the time to point these things out. I've seen similar trains of thought weaponized against Christians, so it's nice to see a Christian take this approach and say something like, "So what? This data should make our faith stronger!" It's always a relief to see that approach; so the introductory conversation with Habermas over whether Jesus rose from the dead was a great start.

On the other hand, there's a weird switch that happens near the end: The entire book is spent giving evidences to essentially say, "See? These aren't 'errors'--these are culturally-normative ways of conveying information and we should expect these sorts of things" only for the last chapter to say, "Well, the Bible has all kinds of errors so we have to redefine inerrancy." (These aren't actual quotes, but I think they accurately convey the gist) This leaves me scratching my head and it made the whole book feel like sleight of hand in order to convince readers of an alternate definition of inerrancy. I don't even disagree with the author's definition of "Flexible inerrancy," but I think he could have provided that definition without awkwardly saying that the Bible has errors (especially considering that the book seems to have been written to address a specific group of those supposed "errors" and the ones he uses as proof aren't the types addressed in the book).

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Licona’s book is ultimately a counter-argument against what he calls “traditional inerrancy” (a term that he distinguishes from his view of “flexible inerrancy” which is unironically a position of inerrancy that allows for error).

The primary focus throughout the bulk of the book are the apparent contradictions between the Gospel accounts. The claim is that attempts at harmonization ultimately fall flat, and he has a much better answer. As of now I disagree.

Licona categorizes the Gospels as “ancient biography” and explains differences as the employment of compositional techniques common to the genre.
A LOT of hay is made from a quote about ancient biography as a kind of portraiture and the fact that Greek scribes were used at all by New Testament authors.

Markan priority and source theory are established and repeated throughout, though not the primary focus. But the claim that felt weak was the connection between the Gospels and Ancient Biography through the likely use of Greek secretaries, especially for a book claiming probability over plausibility.

A few chapters take you through paraphrase, spotlight, transfer, conflation, and some other common tools available to an ancient historian. Some of these techniques are totally uncontroversial, such as those that explain that the Gospels are not exhaustive, are eye witness testimony, or that they contain paraphrase, translation, summarizing, or theological explanation. Regularly, the topic of inspiration without inspiration or inerrancy with error keeps returning.

The strongest part of the book was the exploration of various apparent contradictions, despite the author seeming very allergic to any traditional harmonization (things occurring more than once, the sermon on the mount and on the plain, cleansing the temple twice, etc.) The depth of biblical citation and side-by-side readings of the accounts worked really well.

The last three chapters become an apologetic against traditional inerrancy, even including some testimonials. It gets kind of cheesy. Once Licona establishes that the historian doesn’t have the means to prove or deny these kinds of things, the book probably should have ended. In these sections, I didn’t find value in Licona’s style of writing or lines of reasoning. I was much more interested in his analysis of the text from a technical perspective than his theological conclusions.

Sometimes frustrating for all that you have to take for granted. Similar phrases and conclusions are repeated too often. Interesting at times. I’m glad I read it, but would not recommend it. There has to be better material on the so-called synoptic problem. Maybe even Licona’s other book on the topic.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was a young man, probably around 20, the first time I found a problem in my Bible. I was well familiar with Judas's story. He betrayed Jesus and then racked with guilt he hung himself. Then I opened my Bible to the book of Acts. Acts describes him falling into a field and bursting into blood and guts. What? This was a real problem for me. Had the Bible just contradicted itself? This was also my introduction to harmonization. This is when we find a difficulty like this, and we see if we can make it fit together. For instance, maybe Judas hangs himself on a tree overlooking a cliff. Some time passes, perhaps his decomposing body falls from the rope, down the cliff, and explodes onto the rocks below. It was such an explanation that brought me back to peace with the Scriptures. Looking back, I'm not sure this is entirely satisfying. Imagine if you had two friends telling you of a fate like this one. One gives the first account, the other gives the second. Even if you later learned that the person truly hung himself but later fell and burst, wouldn’t you wonder if your friends were in good faith?

This is a long-winded way of setting up the issue Mike Licona is attempting to address. Shortcut: Licona believes the Gospels fit into a genre that allows for some fudging of the facts. It's not what happened so much as what those happenings mean that concern the apostles. Maybe Licona is right, but I'll tell you what troubles me. Licona keeps coming back to this refrain:

"Our view of Scripture should be consistent with what we observe in Scripture"

Seems innocent enough, no? But when you stop to think about it, it turns religion on its head. The Bible is not meant to be something we stand in judgment over. Rather the Bible stands in judgment over us. If this is the case, then the Bible tells us how to read it, not the other way around. And yet I'm sympathetic with Licona's project. If religion never holds itself up to scrutiny, we could never know which religion was the correct one.

Right now I'm reading Lydia McGrew's response to Jesus, Contradicted. I'll have more to say after I've heard from her.

[Mike Horne · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, how do you deal with the contradictions (at the very least in the Gospels)? You can try to "harmonize" the gospels, but Licona argues that you begin to push against credibility by harmonizing everything. He says treat the Gospels like ancient biography (Plutarch's Lives). They were not as hung up on accuracy as we are.

Lydia McGrew says that he is wrong. Her book deliniating his error is The Mirror or the Mask.

[Guilherme Cruz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Licona presents a seemingly clear and structured argument on the gospels being influenced by the 8 parameters of 1st century biographies: compression, spotlighting, conflation, simplification, expansion of narrative details, paraphrasing, transferal and displacement. However, his skepticism is too far-reaching - especially with his analysis of the accounts of the talents in Luke and Matthew, and the accounts of Christ's sermon on the mount and sermon on the plain. A simpler (not simplistic) and reasonable explanation for the variation yet similarities between these two accounts is that they're depicting two teachings of Jesus in two different locations with Christ slightly rewording and restructuring these two teachings for his audience.

Also, his suggestion of a flexible inerrancy is somewhat unhelpful as his gripes about certain passages are just wrong from the get go and his skepticism about Q being perfect is unreasonable as, like all problems with theology , he has a wrong idea of the doctrine of God.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit that Licona presents a cogent argument and he’s a good writer. Many of the compositional devices as applied to the gospels make sense. I was discussing this with my son the other day that the Greek language doesn't even have what we would consider quotation marks to precisely indicate exactly what someone said. And I don’t think writers 2000 years ago were concerned with that level of precision and, in that culture, this would include in other things like furniture, time, clothing, etc. Detail may have been important in some contexts (like building the tabernacle), but not modern precision.

I understand his argument, but I’m trying to figure out where is real disagreement is with the inerrantist. I’m also reading the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and it makes accommodations for 1st century writing styles and conventions: “Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed” (The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Exposition, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation”).

To bolster his argument, regarding the passages about the foxes, birds, and burying the dead, Licona writes: “Matthew, Mark, and Luke report Jesus saying something on the same occasion but often recall him using slightly different words. In those instances, they cannot all be recalling Jesus’ precise words.” I think this fits into the traditional doctrine of biblical inerrancy and doesn’t require his “flexible inerrancy” to resolve.

Licona approaches this issue as an historian and often states that to determine a solution, one should ask, “Which of the following do you think is more likely?” In studying history in general, I would say that is a proper view, but when that history involves God’s actions and will, I think we have to be careful because God’s work in this world and what we might consider “most likely” are often at odds. God has and does things that no one would consider “most likely.” Later, Licona writes, “…we should not be willing to settle for an answer that is merely possible (even though it allows us to maintain our present belief) when an answer that is more probably is available” (p. 147). “Probable” has been used to deny many things that conservative Christians believe: 6 day creation, the sun stopping during Joshua’s battle, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, a worldwide flood, etc. Most of these have been deemed improbable because of modern scientific theories. For Licona, he uses modern historiography to determine what is possible but improbable. On page 212-213, Licona quotes Michael Bird to emphasize this point, “Inerrancy should not be posed as an alternative to unbelief. As if one is asked, Do you believe in either (a) biblical inerrancy with Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, six literal twenty-four hour days or creation, the historical existence of Jonah and Job, that all the Psalms were written by David, the four Gospels were written independently [MP: not sure who believes that], Paul wrote Hebrews…” and then he states an alternative. This bothers me because his “flexible inerrancy” seems to give permission to dismiss anything in the Bible that history, science or some other discipline determines is possible but not probable. In one section he mentions that mistakes in Scripture have been found because we have multiple accounts of similar events, and then he goes on to say that what about the potential errors we can’t determine when there aren’t multiple accounts? I have to ask: for Licona, what can we know? His answer is: the resurrection. He states this in the beginning of the book when he recalls his conversation with Habermas and then again on page 215, “Christianity is true because of the person of Jesus and his resurrection.”

And here is what has been bothering me since starting the book. How important is the Bible to him outside of testifying to Jesus and the resurrection? He answers this on page 216: “Thousands became followers of Jesus during the decades before any of the New Testament literature was written. If none of the New Testament literature had ever been written, Christianity would still be true. We just would not know much about Jesus” (note the last sentence). That is an audacious statement. As if the scriptures were not a critical part of God’s plan to carry on God’s word after the apostles died and have it’s power be used to share the Gospel and provide wisdom to his followers to be more like Christ in everything they do. The Bible and Christianity and faith are intertwined. Licona seems to dismiss it as an optional biography or history book. And this is what I feared: while he claims to have a high view of scripture, he pares its importance down to its support of “essential doctrine” (which are the ones he has in mind?); and as for the other writings, it’s ok if they aren’t accurate or have mistakes because they really don’t matter.

In the final chapter, he stresses the need for unity: “As sons and daughters of the living God, let’s be determined not to argue among ourselves over nonessentials to a point of division…” (p. 235). Based on his statement on page 216 noted above, an essential is the resurrection of Christ, a non-essential may be the Bible itself. His entire book is about how evangelicals are divided over what the Bible says and how it says it. In his writing, there is a sense of urgency from him for unity among Christians. At the heart of that disunity is how to understand the Bible. This is an argument many make: Why divide over homosexuality and same sex marriage? Or transgenderism? Or divorce? Or church authority? We all believe that Christ rose from the dead, isn’t that enough? Why divide over these non-essentials? Why divide over how the bible was written?

This is why inerrancy matters: It is not always easy to figure out or navigate or resolve problems, but denying it is the slipperiest of slopes. Unfortunately, and I don’t want to believe this, I think Licona wants unity more than he wants all of God’s truth. And traditional inerrancy is in the way; perhaps the Bible is an impediment, too. And, unfortunately, he’s not alone in this rallying cry among evangelicals and it has often led to compromise of biblical truths.

[Kyle Greenwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Jesus, Contradicted, Michael Licona demonstrates how ancient Greek biographies provide a framework for reading the gospels on their own terms. Rather than attempting to harmonize contradicting details and historical incongruities in the gospels, Licona recognizes these features as expected elements of the genre. With a high view of Scripture, Licona details what readers should and should not expect from the gospel writers. Any informed doctrine on the inspiration and authority of Scripture must take into account Licona’s careful and critical treatment of the so-called synoptic problem. I can’t recommend Jesus, Contradicted enough!

[DM Bellis · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main portion of the book addresses genre considerations and conventions of ancient biography. These chapters are well-researched, and they offer much food for thought. I appreciate Licona's stated principle that our view of scripture should be based on what we actually find in scripture. This seems obvious, but often scripture is studied within the parameters imposed by specific views.

I found the final chapters, which address related issues, less rigorous, even though I largely agree with his conclusions. Still, I am glad to have to have found this resource, as his overall discussion is very helpful.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. This is one of the most important books I've read in a long time. I hope evangelicals will get this book and soak the information in on this book. Naive doctrines of inerrancy can cause major stumbling blocks in people's faith, which we should not contribute to.

I believe Licona convincingly demonstrates the use of compositional devices by the Gospel authors in this volume, which he subsequently follows up with a helpful discussion on the doctrine of inerrancy.

I highly recommend this book to all Christians who are struggling with differences in the Gospels or are interested in the doctrine of inerrancy.

[David Diaz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Inerrancy on Trial

Dr. Licona presents a broad argument that (1) there are many differences and even contradictions in the Gospels and (2) that these differences can be accounted for by the normal literary practices of the time. This book should be easy enough for laypersons to read and understand and will also present challenges to scholars who are already well-versed in this topic.

[Matt Friedman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate this book. I agree with many things that the author says and the arguments are clear and easy to follow. I think Dr. Licona is genuinely wanting to help the Church and to help those who may be questioning the validity of the historical record we find in the gospel accounts. I think scholarly works such as this help to get Christians out of our comfort zones to really take a hard look at why we believe the things we do. Books like this cannot help but elicit a response. Having said that, I would highly recommend reading the Mirror and the Mask by Lydia McGrew. Considering the reportage model is viral for anyone who has read Dr. Licona’s books.

It would seem that Dr. Licona (along with other scholars who holds to the compositional device theory) and Dr. McGrew are both have the same goal. They are attempting to ascertain authorial intent in the retelling of historical events. What were the intentions of the gospel writers when they documented the accounts we find in sacred scripture?

After reading Jesus Contradicted (and portions of Why are there differences in the Gospels) and reviewing the Mirror or the Mask by Lydia McGrew, Dr. Licona places an emphasis on extra-biblical writings and ancient biographies as a basis for his understanding of how the gospel writers are giving their accounts. He seems to use the compositional devices (compression, paraphrase, transversal, conflation, etc.) found in non-biblical writings and ancient biographies as his primary go-to explanation for apparent discrepancies in the gospels. It seems to be clear that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are certainly using literary devices because the gospel accounts are literary works, but to what extent? Were the biblical writers using these devices to conceal or knowingly alter the details of events?

It would seem more plausible to get to the authors intent of the gospel writer by looking at their actual works and logical portrayal of events rather than saying all of their words HAVE TO fit into the categories of how literary devices were used in the first century. Is there really never a time where harmonization is appropriate for understanding the story we see in the gospels?

The compositional device theory seems to ignore or reject the idea that, “The simplest explanation is usually the one closest to the truth”. And though the reportage model (harmonization) is more “simple” it is by no means simplistic or naïve. Using the literary device theory would seem to bend over backwards in an effort to reach something that is near at hand.

In the Mirror or the Mask, not only is Lydia McGrew’s argumentation more intellectual satisfying, but it also seems to provides a more faithful reading to the intentions of the biblical authors.

I agree with Dr. McGrew that when emphasizing the literary device model as a means of interpretation or simply understanding the intentions of the gospel writers, this ultimately brings an unwarranted level of skepticism to the scripture. Not because literary devices in and of themselves are inherently misleading but because the speculation and hypothesizing required to apply this model calls into question the very character of the gospel writers.

When reading the gospels, it would seem more likely that the writers are simply trying to relay the facts. Influential New Testament scholars, who are not Christians, have advanced the idea that harmonization or the basic reportage model is not a valid method of reasoning because it is “making up our own gospel”.

This hypercritical claim dismisses the evidence of a historically reliable way of understanding eyewitness testimony by using multiple accounts. Though we do find apparent discrepancies in the accounts, it seems counterintuitive to rely on unbelievers and those who reject the truth in the scriptures to provide for us a basis of how to wrestle with the apparent discrepancies. Instead of taking the historical facts and then logically explaining them in light of other historical facts, the literary device theory seems to start with an explanation (or theory) and then fit the facts into that explanation. The details of the accounts would appear to be more significant that this theory would allow.

A more biblical approach would be to base our hermeneutical inclinations on the way other biblical writers relay historical informaron FIRST before considering non-biblical writers whether they be ancient or not. Jesus seems, at least in some sense, to base his understanding of the authority of scripture on the very words of scripture and Paul seems to do the same in Gal 3:16 with the word “seed”. If Jesus could point to one word (Matthew 22:32) in the OT (Gen 28) that provided a basis for the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and the ultimate renewal of all creation, then what does that say about how his followers would have viewed the importance and weight their words would have had, as they were being sent out by the Christ, who is the image of the invisible God?

“God has given us a reliable and trustworthy account of how He has revealed Himself in history, preeminently in the sending of His Son, who lived a perfect life and to die for and redeem those who believe in His Name.” -Dr. Robert Plummer

[Danny Tice · Rating 5 out of 5]

help in understanding the gospels

Excellent book in navigating some of the seemingly contradictions in the gospel. Helpful in restoring faith in the text of the New Testament.

[Nurullah Doğan · Rating 3 out of 5]

*My rating and review might and will probably change as I have just finished and definitely need some more time to process or as Licona says regarding his journey, I need "lots of time to allow the data to marinate in my mind and wrestle with the subject."*

+ Some highlights:

"When we observe how the Gospels tell the same story, there are differences. But why are they there, and what do they mean for Bible readers? The purpose of this book is to answer these questions!"

"We should thank God that the Evangelists made such alterations. Otherwise, we might think that, according to Jesus, we should actually hate our closest family members and have no option of divorcing a spouse who is sexually unfaithful in marriage." (How to know or at least prove that all of the alterations -if they exist- are correct?)

"New Testament scholar Ben Witherington writes, “I tell my students all the time that a text without a context is just a pretext for what we want it to mean, and thus the New Testament text must be read in its historical, rhetorical, literary, social, and religious contexts.”"

"“The term ‘inspiration’ relates to that influence of the Holy Spirit by which human beings become organs to communicate the truth of God in words to others."

"This allows for occasions, such as prophecies and oracles, when the Holy Spirit placed certain concepts in the thoughts of the biblical authors to which they provided the words. Such an action on God’s part would not violate the will of the biblical authors if they desired to write what God wanted them to write. This would be similar to asking God to guide us when we share the gospel message with others. Freedom and guidance can both be present."

"we must acknowledge that the Scriptures are fairly silent on the how of inspiration. We can only speculate and attempt to have a coherent model of divine inspiration that takes seriously both the claims of Scripture about itself and the nature of Scripture."

"Craig himself admits, “The doctrine of Scripture is as yet one of the most underdeveloped topics of contemporary philosophical theology.”"

"Even with the imperfections and peculiarities that accompany the human element in Scripture, God still placed his approval on the final product, though this does not mean he regards every word and argument in Scripture as being ideal. What we observe is the product of the unspecified method(s) that God chose. Scripture is as God intended it to be. And God saw that it was good!" (How to determine which is ideal and which is not? Isn't this a dangerous path?)

"Some traditional inerrantists place an unjustified amount of importance on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Norman Geisler held it as being fundamental to the Christian faith.

By almost any count of fundamentals of the faith, the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is to be included, as it is the foundation of all other doctrines. Every other fundamental of the Christian faith is based on the Scripture—if it does not have divine authority, then we have no divine authority for any doctrine to which we adhere. As the basis of all other doctrines, the inerrancy of the Bible is a fundamental of the Fundamentals, and if a fundamental of the Fundamentals is not fundamental, then what is fundamental? The answer is: fundamentally nothing." (That's how a Muslim would and does approach)

"While the contexts for the international evangelical church are varied, in no place has it been necessary to construct a doctrine of inerrancy as a kind of fence around evangelical orthodoxy. In what I have observed, such doctrinal fences, far from preserving orthodoxy, tend to divide believers, inhibit Christian witness by assuming a default defensive stance, and risk making the Bible rather than Christ the central tenet of Christian faith." (In no place? Muslim countries?)

"F. F. Bruce: "My doctrine of Scripture is based on my study of Scripture, not vice versa."

"...the Bible was written for us but not to us."

"In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things charity.

—Rupertus Meldenius (early seventeenth century)"

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Addresses the discrepancies in gospel accounts drawing upon the conventions of ancient biography.

One of the challenges that comes with reading the gospels closely is that we notice discrepancies in the accounts. Not in the major facts but in the details. It is enough, though, that it raises questions about the reliability of the gospel accounts. And some of the efforts to “harmonize” the accounts just seem forced. In Jesus, Contradicted, Michael R. Licona, meets these objections head on without resorting to forced harmonization.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke raise a number of these questions. Most scholars believe Matthew and Luke used much of the material in Mark. Part of what is called “the Synoptic Problem” arises from the discrepancies between the very similar accounts. Some is grammatical, with Matthew and Luke improving on Mark’s rough grammar (does our doctrine of inspiration allow for that?). Licona goes into all of this, inviting us, first of all, to allow for the variations that often occur in eyewitness accounts.

More than this, Licona’s main argument is that we should not base our case for gospel reliability on modern historical accuracy. Rather, we should assess the gospels for what they are: first century biographies. Such biographies permitted the biographer greater freedom in reporting. While they did not invent events, they may not meet standards of exactitude required in a legal deposition. Wording may vary and minor details in an account may vary and yet the biography is accepted as true, especially if other accounts broadly confirm what is written.

Furthermore, biographers used various compositional devices that contribute to variation including paraphrasing and editing, compression displacement, transferal, conflation, simplification, and spotlighting. Licona discusses these various devices and where they may have been employed in gospel accounts.

But this may be troubling for some who hold to a commitment to the inerrancy of scripture. Licona observes that often, this view results in preconceptions of what scripture must be like that lead to the efforts in forced harmonization. Rather, he argues that “our view of scripture should be consistent with what we observe in scripture.” In other words, scripture rather than some standard external to it ought determine our understanding of its inspiration and trustworthiness. Licona takes several chapters ar the end of this work to elaborate this idea. He contrasts what he calls traditional inerrancy with flexible inerrancy. In his apologetic work, he reports that his approach has helped people return to faith who had turned away because traditional approaches to inerrancy had proven unsustainable.

I believe Licona makes an important contribution not only to our apologetic work around discrepancies in scripture. This will be helpful to many raising questions as they begin reading the gospels. And he offers a robust response to the “new atheist” who belittle the scriptures. But this is not all. He moves our discussion of inspiration and inerrancy beyond abstract terminology to the data of scripture itself. Instead of trying to conform scripture to the Procrustean bed of traditional inerrancy, he proposes a bed that follows the contours of the scriptures.

Furthermore, Licona presents this material in a highly readable form, reflecting experiences of presenting the material to the front office staff of a sports team and an adult Sunday School. This is a great text for teachers, apologists, and anyone who has not found satisfying responses to discrepancies in scripture.

_____________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Licona is a evangelical Christian and a professor of New Testament studies and based on how this book began, it's at least in part a result of a public debate he had with Bart Ehrman. (The book's title is an apparent callback to Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted."

But this isn't just some kneejerk defense of all that is in the Bible must be true. Licona takes a more nuanced approach and essentially argues that, yeah, you can find glitches and inaccurate details, but focusing on the details and the minitua misses the bottom. As I once heard former NFL football coach Dave Wannedstadt opine, "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." As long as the moral core truth of Christianity is right, people shouldn't worry so much about the details.

Licona begins by looking at how ancient historians worked, and specifically how they did biographies. He looks a lot at Plutrach and others and notes that modern conventions of factual accuracy weren't around then. (Not a single footnote in Plutrarch!) They had techniquest like spotlighting individuals, shifting things around to fit a narrative, displacements, transference, and various others. This was done openly and seen as appropriate. And if you apply these same techniques to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - you can make sense of the differences between the different gospels.

Licona notes how many Christians nowadays adopt a notion that you must defend every syllable or it all falls flat. He thinks that is self-defeating and counterproductive. Simply put, you can always find errors in the Bible and if you defend the Bible by saying if small errors exist, then the whole thing is out -- congrats, you're driving people away, not towards, the religion.

He makes a decent case, and frankly this isn't that far from a lot of secular comments I've seen on the New Testament. Differences include that he still believes the named authors wrote the testaments, he ponders if they were initially written in Aramiac, he says at one point Jesus probably knew some Greek. He says early on that "Ehrman has turned more churchgoers away from Christianity than perhaps anyone else in the Western world" (p.3) which is not fair and impressively hyperbolic. (You can agree with everything Ehrman has ever written and still be a Christian - just by taking the things Licona does here and moving a few steps forward). Also, Licona isn't that good of a writer, in my opinion anyway.

Still, it's a well-done and sincere effort to confront an issue the faithful can have with the gospels.

[Larry White · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, but Not Everyone Is Ready for It

One of the earliest things a Bible student learns is the importance of recognizing genre in Scripture and how it shapes the message. Poetic genre reveals differently than historic, which itself reveals differently than prophecy, and so on and so on. Furthermore, the genre itself should be read in context of the times and audience for which it first was composed. However, many Bible readers understand this at a somewhat superficial level. Often it is understood more in cautionary terms, rather than in deeper comprehension.

In his recent book, “Jesus, Contradicted”, New Testament scholar Michael Licona tackles the importance of understanding the nuances of Gospel genre, first century biography. The book insightfully explains why certain supposed contradictions in the events and quotes among the four Gospels are not contradictory at all, and instead are highly consistent with their genre. Licona draws on examples from various secular ancient works, particularly Plutarch’s several “Life of . . .” works, to demonstrate convincingly the importance of understanding how biographies, including the Gospels, were normally written. It was importantly unlike modern biography of recent centuries, and Licona develops an appreciation and understanding that will help many seekers.

“Jesus, Contradicted” is a more accessible and shorter approach to an academic treatment of the topic that Licona published in 2017. As such, it is highly welcomed for seriously engaged students who might not be seeking academic details.

However, it may not be for everyone who is on a journey of Biblical understanding and study. Licona’s arguments are not without critics, and there are other helpful interpretations of differences in the Gospel accounts of Christ’s life and ministry. This excellent book is best for the seeker who is more than a newcomer or novice to the study of Scripture. The reader should have some understanding of other explanations for so-called Gospel “contradictions” to appreciate this book most fully. Inerrancy and inspiration are not “Bible 101” topics though they are of fundamental importance. Licona holds a “high view” of Scripture as God’s inspired revelation, but he holds that view with the humility of accepting it as God, in His infinite wisdom, has revealed and preserved it rather than trying to conform it to his own expectations. That’s a good approach for all of us.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book that not only tries to explain "discrepancies" in the text (mostly Gospels), but also lists a large number of them that I never knew existed. This in itself was an education.

Does he "solve" the problems? I believe that he mostly does. Most of them are solvable or explainable by what he calls "compositional techniques" related to the genre. In other words, the apostolic author intended to simplify, amplify, or change the story in certain ways that are totally acceptable within the genre they are writing in.

I was disappointed in the end that he also allows memory failures and "editorial fatigue" on the part of the authors, resulting in unintentional errors and not just intentional changes. This he calls "flexible inerrancy." Then he rejects that he's on a slippery slope to progressive Christianity. I'm not so sure. There are other slippery slopes besides individual ones. It could apply to his students or to the institutions he teaches at. This is pretty obvious and common in the history of evangelicalism.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book for those who have a high view of the Bible Scriptures, but find it difficult to resolve the 'apparent' contradictions that appear in the gospel stories. Licona's main thesis is that the gospel writers wrote biographical history according to the standards of historical writing in the 1st Century and used various literary devices that would not necessarily conform to the standards of history and biography today. Nevertheless, Licona maintains that the gospels reflect a truthful and accurate portrait of Jesus and are inspired truth. Licona makes many good points. He will make the standard inerrantist uncomfortable, and even if you don't totally agree with him, he will provoke some hard thinking. At this stage, I am not wholly convinced by every point he makes. However, his argument that we cannot impose 21st-century expectations of historical and biographical writing on 1st-century writers is forceful.

[Scott Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

but just remember there's a difference between an author using compositional devices and making oopsies

[Brad Sarian · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you’ve ever been confused by the different details in the same stories in the Gospels, you need this book. If you haven’t been confused by them, you probably need it even more.

[David Strong · Rating 5 out of 5]

My rating: 5 stars.

[Gideon Yutzy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good. Helpful companion to Bart Ehrman's textbook which is required reading for the New Testament course I'm taking right now.

[Logan S · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, I found his book to be helpful and well reasoned and argued. The issue of how the Gospels relate to one another has always fascinated me and I do believe that we don’t need to let their differences destroy our faith. I have some quibbles here and there, especially with the Molinism that seems to be embraced here, as I find Molinism to be unsatisfying and not an adequate explanation of what the Scriptures teach. While I don’t embrace all of Licona’s proposals, and I think at times he overstates his case, I learned a lot and it was a helpful read. If this is your first introduction to this kind of all discussion, you may find yourself very uncomfortable and even reacting in anger. I’d encourage you to finish the book and evaluate what he’s saying. Overall, a worthwhile read.