Harmony of the Gospels: Principles from Lincoln Biographies
The Bible preserves multiple instances of two sets of accounts about the same set of historical events. The books of Chronicles, matched with the rest of the OT, is the first set, and the four Gospels provide the second set.

On the one hand this is quite beneficial, but it has also proved a gold mine for critics looking to destroy the claim of Biblical inerrancy or reliabilitt, for there are many who hold that the differences in reporting the same events in the Gospels should be classed as contradictions, and further, even apart from inerrancy issues, that these render the accounts unreliable and point to ahistoricity.

Robin Lane Fox, in his book The Unauthorized Version, has written:

Harmony is a misguided method: if we want the truth, we have to choose one of the three or none.

However, nothing could be more incorrect. Harmony is an essential part of any attempt to find the truth where we have conflicting yet similar accounts. Skeptics, of course, view harmony as something illicit when applied to the Gospels or the OT. Jim Meritt, for example, describes harmonization procedures thusly:

"There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b". But it doesn't say there was "a+b+litle green martians". This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they (sic) don't mind adding to verses.

In the same vein, Dan Barker writes:

Some apologists assert that since the writer of John does not say that there were not more women who visited the tomb with Mary, then it is wrong to accuse him of contradicting the other evangelists who say it was a group of women. But this is a non-argument. With this kind of thinking, I could claim that the people who accompanied Mary to the tomb included Mother Teresa, Elvis Presley, and Paul Bunyan. Since the writer of John does not specifically clude these people, then there is no way to prove that this is not true--if such fragile logic is valid.

Obviously, we cannot get overly creative when resolving seemingly contradictory accounts. When invoking speculative factors - which indeed, ultimately and by nature, are arguments from silence - only reasonable speculations that fit in with the characters, setting, the known facts of the situation, and human nature, can be used. "Litle (sic) green martians" or "Mother Teresa" etc. would indeed by ludicrous - but people who might have truly been there would not be unreasonable.

Glenn Miller has answered these objections succinctly in his own unique way:

For some reason, these arguments don't ever seem to be satisfied. If we have N witnesses to an event, they want "N+1"...And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event in EXACT detail, they are accused of "collusion" and "conspiracy". And if EVERY SINGLE WRITER talks about the event, but uses different vocab, style, levels of precison, of selection of details, THEN the antagonists complain about 'contradictions' and 'disagreements'! What's a mother to do?!!!! (I am always amused at these 'argument from silence' literary positions and the ability to spoof it... ("Since Jesus never spoke his own name in the Gospels, he must not have known it!").

The purpose of this series of essays is to give the reader insight into various factors that come into play when arguing for harmonization. To begin, the reader should consult there more detailed analyses of the "whys" behind differences in the Gospels.

At the conclusion of this series, we will provide a harmony of the resurrection accounts -- one of the major Skeptical targets for derision -- using the principles learned in this series.

Critical Presuppositions

While we are discussing harmonization, there are also a number of other, unrelated presuppositions we can discuss having to do with the way certain critics approach the Gospels as history. These presuppositions are the sort offered by the Jesus Seminar in their "reconstructions" of the Historical Jesus, and may be found utilized in their work date, The Fifth Gospel.

Below is a listing of some of the principles used by skeptics generally, along with suppositions used by the Seminar.

For the moment we will set aside these seven suppositions, and return purely to the principle of harmony. It is best proved by application; and to that end, we present two examples.

Harmony #1: News Event

To better illustrate how harmony can be helpful - and is indeed legitimate - let's consider a set of articles from two leading and trusted news magazines, Time and Newsweek. Below are excerpts from three stories from each magazine of the date September 30, 1996. The topics are:

  1. The investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800;
  2. Possible poison gas effects on Gulf War veterans; and,
  3. The discovery of a North Korean sub off of a South Korean beach.

I am aware that I will be accused of misquoting, quoting out of context, etc. to prove my point. To those who say so: Find my sources and check them yourself. Then challenge me to debate the issue on TheologyWeb, my forum for debate.

Story #1:


"On Thursday investigators learned that on June 10 St. Louis airport police had used the plane as a testing facility for a bomb-sniffing dog, and that the tiny amount of chemicals used to test the dog could be the source of the residue found on the plane parts."


"...senior officials at the Department of Justice admitted last week that the plane known as TWA Flight 800 had been used to train bomb-sniffing dogs only five weeks before its mysterious destruction July on July 17. That suggests an innocent explanation for the presence of RDX and PETN...in the wreckage of the doomed plane."

So let's become a critic and pick these apart.

Was there just one dog (Time) or more than one (Newsweek)?

Was it "investigators who learned" or "officials who admitted"?

How could the date of the test been June 10 when five weeks before July 17 was June 12?

Why are no chemicals named in Time where they are named in Newsweek?

Why isn't St. Louis mentioned in Newsweek?

It this seems pedantic, know that these are just like "errors" that Bible critics like to point to - such as the "women at the tomb" issue and the story of the healing of the blind men outside Jericho. As Matthew says "two blind men" where Luke and Mark say "a blind man," it is not said in the latter that there was ONLY one. Likewise, Time's story COULD be read to indicate just one dog, but not necessarily.

Story #2:


"For five long years, the Pentagon steadfastly insisted there was no evidence that U.S. soldiers were exposed to poison gas during the Gulf War..."

"(Symptoms) includes chronic fatigue, joint ailments, rashes and memory loss."


"Is Gulf War syndrome a single illness? If so, what causes it, and how many veterans are afflicted? Government agencies have spent five years and $80 million pursuing those questions."

"(Symptoms) include joint pain, tremors, fatigue, memory loss, and intermittent diarrhea..."

Here's one for the government conspiracy theorists:

Was the government denying the problem, or pursuing a solution? Obviously, it was doing both simultaneously, as we know. But a historian digging up copies of these magazines 2000 years from now might think that there was an error in the texts.

And then there's the lists of symptoms - contradictory or complimentary? The latter, definitely; but in each case, the writers of the article just put down what they thought was most important - just as the Gospel writers sometimes did.

Story #3:


"..one night last week, a South Korean taxi driver spotted something like a whale wallowing in the surf."


"Just after midnight last Wednesday, a taxi chugging along the Kangnung highway on the east coast of South Korea threw its headlights briefly on a group of young men sitting by the roadside..."

"(After dropping off a passenger and returning to the site, the driver said he saw) 'something that looked like a dolphin or a submarine' and called police."

Note how quickly Time deals with this matter, whereas Newsweek delves into some intricate details - just as Mark gives short shrift to some stories that Matthew and Luke expand upon greatly.

Note, too, this difference: Was what the driver saw like a whale, or like a dolphin, or like a submarine? Could the persons translating what the Korean taxi driver said have misunderstood or given their own interpretation to their respective reporters?

If Skeptics accord these magazines the same treatment as they do the Bible, then to be consistent they must also say that these magazines are untrustworthy. But isn't it more charitable to assume that we have misunderstood something, and look for the solutions to the alleged problems?

Thus a simple example of how these principles may be discovered. But for a much larger illustration, we now turn to:


For this comparison, four biographies of Abraham Lincoln were chosen at random from the shelves of the public library, the only criteria being that they were:

Through this comparison, we will:

  1. Demonstrate that the alleged discrepancies and differences in the Gospels are no more problematic than the differences that may be found in any comparison of biographies; and,
  2. Use the seven presuppositions mentioned above to deduce what the "Historical Abraham Lincoln" was "really like." Thus, we will demonstrate the truly arbitrary nature of the presuppositions.

Our comparison will take place in a fictional world of the future, where a historian of centuries hence will compare these Linvoln biographies as the only recorded remains of the life of Lincoln. This is a long presentation -- because we found so many examples for illustration that "overkill" seemed like a good idea.

On to Part 2, the Lincoln biographies comparison

Go to Part 3, a summary of the findings