Disharmony of the Gospels

Disharmony of the Gospels

By Doyle E. Duke

Smashwords Edition

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission. Please do not participate in or encourage piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of the author’s rights. Purchase only authorized editions.

Discover these other titles by Doyle E. Duke at Smashwords and other retailers:

The Amazing Deception: a Critical Analysis of Christianity

Extended Vacation

Adult Bible Studies

In Search of Camelot

Line of Ascent

Disharmony of the Gospels

Prologue

For centuries Christians have struggled to fit the jig saw like pieces of the gospels into one harmonious story of Jesus Christ and his ministry. Hundreds of thousands of books and articles have been published endeavoring to present a complete, harmonious picture. Most good Bibles even include a ‘Harmony of the Gospels’ section in the appendix. Almost all churches have Bible studies that concentrate upon stubborn passages, and ministers devote entire sermons to hammering at odd shaped pieces. What is the end result? Ask any Christian and he’ll open his Bible and assume a defensive crouch as he assures you that the gospels do, indeed, harmonize—there are just some pieces that are ‘hard to understand.' Others will claim there only appear to be contradictions because the authors have reported the story from different points of view. And a few might even admit to small, insignificant, translation errors.

One obstacle, the Gospel of John, is not so much a gaping hole as a stack of extra pieces, for while the other three gospels appear to present a similar picture, John is nothing more than Church propaganda. Although it does refer to tales included in the other gospels the writer’s main intent was to establish the deity of Jesus. It wasn’t written until at least 100 AD and wasn’t accepted by the Church until the third century. For this reason the theological world has separated Matthew, Mark, and Luke into what they refer to as the synoptic gospels. Some scholars will even admit that John doesn’t harmonize.

Despite Christians’ assertions that the gospels present the same story it simply isn’t true. The only way one harmonious picture can be completed is by tossing the extra pieces aside and filling in the holes with faith. In others words, to paint the picture the Church presents of Jesus one must turn a blind eye and deaf ear to reason and logic.

Mark was the first gospel written, followed by Matthew, Luke, and much later, John. None were written by the author for whom they were named. How can we be sure? There are a number of reasons, for instance: (1) they were written late, at least thirty years after Jesus’s death; (2) all are translated from the Septuagint, the Greek version of scripture used by the Hellenistic Jews, rather than the Aramaic used by nationalistic Jews; (3) all were written for a Gentile readership. One reason we know this is because Mark fails to mention a number of not only important but crucial events concerning Jesus; such as his miraculous birth, his genealogy, childhood, and even the tale of his resurrection is an acknowledged late addition. This not only establishes it as the earliest gospel but also identifies all the added tales as just that—tales. For who would write a biography of George Washington and fail to mention he was President of the United States? Or, by the same token, exclude the information that the Son of God was born of a virgin? And how could a writer conclude such a story without including the miraculous resurrection at the ending?

Of the four gospels, Matthew and Luke were copied extensively from Mark. Matthew covers ninety percent of Mark; they have two hundred and fifty verses in common with many containing the same words and phrases. Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, but as mentioned, quotes from the Septuagint. It doesn’t explain Jewish customs and words as Mark does, and in this sense seems to appeal to a more Jewish readership. The book wasn’t completed until around 100 AD.

But for our study, let’s start with Luke’s story since it has the earliest chronological beginning.

Luke, Chapter 1 & 2

The writer of Luke, addressing a Theophilus, affirms there were many who recorded the stories of the Christian beliefs—two were surely Mark and Matthew. He also tells his readers he had perfect understanding of all things from the very first then, immediately launches into a series of fantastic tales: the miraculous conception of Jesus and John the Baptist, a prophecy of Jesus as the Son of God, the story of the census and a trip to Bethlehem, an expanded nativity narrative with the appearance of angels, the confirmation of Jesus as the Christ by Simeon and Anna, and finally, the child Jesus astounding the doctors. All these wonderful and fascinating stories of Jesus’s early life, never before recorded, suddenly revealed by Luke—decades after their alleged occurrences. Stories, which Mark or Matthew apparently didn’t think important enough to mention—or had never heard. But are they true? Of course not. We know they’re spurious because the concept of Jesus as the Son of God was not accepted until after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The idea of Jesus as the Son of God was a Hellenistic concept the Apostles and true followers of Jesus never accepted. For proof see Acts 21:20-26 where thousands of believing Jews were still keeping the Law and worshipping in the temple. If they had proclaimed Jesus the Son of God the orthodox Jews would have stoned them as they did Stephen. For this fact alone, any references inferring the Apostles viewed Jesus as the Son of God can only be a figure of speech such as many Christians use today when they refer to one another as a child of God or son of God. Otherwise such passages have to be late interpolations (See Matthew 14:33 & 16:16).

And there is an even simpler reason that marks them false. Popular myths tend to grow, not shrink. Unimportant events might be dropped or omitted from tales, but never the exciting, sensational, and more informative parts. Had the writers of Mark and Matthew known of the events Luke recorded they most certainly would have been included in their works. Also the author of Luke practically told us his intention when he stated that eyewitnesses had already told the stories, but he was going to give Theophilus something that would make it more certain. What? What was different about his gospel? New stories. Where did they come from? Had Luke been secretly harboring unknown tales of Jesus? Or did he just invent some? Today falsification of stories or events is considered lying and in most cases is illegal, but such was not the case when the New Testament books were being written. Students often viewed their ideas and deductions as extensions of their master and believed that what they spoke (or wrote) were actually the values of their teacher. Adding to another writer’s works or even signing a prominent author’s name to one’s own writings was a common practice.

The events depicting the life of Jesus in the gospels are fabricated history, written years after Christianity came upon the scene. Written expressly to fortify and strengthen a doctrinal position or fulfill a fancied prophecy. As we have seen, the birth story of Luke is a prime example; in it we find a passage written to establish the preeminence of Jesus’s ministry over that of John,