Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

With the story of Jesus being arrested after the last supper, the four gospels differ quite a bit.

Matthew 26:47-57 and Mark 14:43-53 simply have Judas arriving with a crowd having swords and clubs, Judas kissing Jesus, Jesus being arrested and a bystander drawing his sword and cutting off a servant’s ear. Then they lead Jesus away.

Luke 22:47-54 shows almost what Matthew and Mark do, yet his is the only gospel having Jesus touching the servant’s ear and healing him.

John 18:3-11 is much different from the other 3. While it shows some additional, very interesting detail, it doesn't show some things the other 3 do.

John’s gospel doesn’t show Judas kissing Jesus or even the two talking with each other. Here Jesus asks the group a question they answer such that Jesus says “I AM”; with that the group actually turns away and falls to the ground. They then repeat their dialogue.

Regarding the sword, John has specifically the right ear of a Malchus being cut off, with Simon Peter being the one who did it. Having Peter put his sword away Jesus says “the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”

John 18:3-11 (KJV)

Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath

Q: For this story why might the gospels differ so much and in such odd ways?

share|improve this question
    
I think your second question should be its own question on this site, rather than wrapped up into this question. Both are valid, but the answer to the second is not directly related to the answer of the first question. –  ScottS Apr 15 at 14:54
    
@ScottS Thanks for the good suggestion, well taken; I've edited what is above and posted a separate question. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/8892/2873 –  John Martin Apr 15 at 16:49
    
The gospels were written by people with different perspectives for probably different audiences (Jew vs Greeks vs Romans vs gentiles, etc), with some things different from the others, but while different, the story remains intact and there is just additional information, but not contradicting information. –  Dwight Apr 15 at 19:56
    
John is so widely different because he labors under the need to make Jesus into God, and God can't just be arrested--he's got to do something impressive like making his captors fall over backwards twice. –  david brainerd Apr 16 at 5:10

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In the story you point out it makes sense to think about their sources. It seems that Matthew and Mark had almost the exact same source material--probably either well known oral tradition or an actual document that is lost to us. Luke seems to have had the same source as Matthew and Mark, but also some extra information that he decided to include. John, purportedly wrote his Gospel much later. It is clear from his style that John put much more emphasis on the power of Jesus and the wonder he evoked. Throughout his Gospel John leaves out prominent events recorded in the other (Synoptic) Gospels in favor of more colorful stories centered on the spiritual power of Jesus(for example turning the water into wine).

We can't know for sure, but perhaps John had read the other Gospel accounts and wanted to make one specifically for use in his ministry as an evangelist. As an apostle and an eye witness he clearly felt freedom to deviate from other accounts and key in on his own memories informed by his later experiences. Whether John saw his account as corrective or simply amplified isn't clear from the text. Of course, maybe John didn't have the other Gospels available when he was writing. That would account for the lack of explanations about why he wrote things differently.

One thing to remember, the question you pose is surely not a new one. When the early church was forming the canon of scripture they could not have missed these apparent differences. As the Gospels were being written and disseminated they decided to keep all four Gospels in spite of these problems. There were other Gospels they rejected. So the tension between Gospel accounts isn't a new or unhealthy thing.

In this specific case I think the varied accounts helps us see the high drama of the situation. The different witnesses don't directly contradict each other, but they do show the confusion and panicked feeling of Jesus' followers. This is heightened surrounding the death, burial and resurrection accounts. His followers are fearful, scattered and disorganized from this moment on. As a result the witness reports reflect the same thing.

share|improve this answer

There are depths within this question. If we consider the nature of the writers of the four accounts it may help put things into perspective.

Matthew (Matthias Levi - described as the son of Alphaeus, although there are problems with this) may have been the author of ‘Matthew’s’ gospel, but more probably ‘Matthew’ is a dedication. Even so the author may still have been relating what Matthias himself had reported.

Mark may well have been the young man who fled from the scene leaving his clothing in the clutches of the arresting group, and may have been the young man in a white robe later at the tomb (Mark 14:51-52 & 16: 5-7). This would fit, as a white robe was not the acceptable garb of a young man, and may point to its being borrowed. This would make him a strong eyewitness inasmuch as the drama of the events, the lateness of the hour and the evident tiredness of the disciples would permit. He was also Peter’s interpreter in Rome and had ample opportunity to compare his account with Peter (Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130 AD) quoted by Eusebius about a century later). Set against this is the textual evidence that he shared some source material with Matthew and Luke. There is also the fact that he was writing in Rome for people who had accepted the resurrection but needed an account of the earlier events leading up to it. Hence his opening title ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God’ (Mark 1:1). His evidence is less concerned than the others with the arrest, crucifixion and resurrection.

Luke was the only one certainly not present. He says in his introduction that he has put together a collection of eye witness accounts.

John is the only one of the four who was definitely present as an eyewitness. As the younger brother of James (always recorded after him in lists, and both of them listed after Simon and Andrew in the fishing partnership and as being rather hot-headed) he was probably one of the younger disciples. Although he should be an impeccable source his account bears strong signs of having been put together from his collected writings after his death at a great age, possibly at the beginning of the second century. Even the order of certain chapters is questionable (5,6 & 7). That is not to say the arrest could have been not have been recorded when he was younger. There is nothing in his account to suggest that the stumbling back of the arrest party was any thing other than natural fear because of Jesus' reputation.

While these may all point to reasons for differences in their accounts we must not fall into the trap of assuming that if an event is not mentioned that it did not happen, or even that the witness is saying it did not. He may not have noticed it, or chose to concentrate on other things.

share|improve this answer
    
I have just noticed that this is on the Biblical Hermeneutics Site and not the Christianity site. My apologies - you will be expecting more references than I have given. I will have to come back later for this. If that is a problem please delete. –  Tony Apr 21 at 19:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.