Why Are Parts of the Gospels So Similar and Others So Different?

2 hours ago 2

The Synoptic Problem

Truly, the biblical Gospels exhibit unity in diversity, neither of which should be jettisoned. In conjunction with a discussion of central themes of the Gospels in the four-Gospel canon of the New Testament, it will be helpful to consider the relationship among the first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke—the so-called Synoptic problem—and the relationship between John and the Synoptics.¹ With regard to the Synoptic problem, regardless of which Evangelist wrote first, there is manifestly some kind of literary dependence among the three Synoptic Gospels that cannot be adequately accounted for by coverage of common material in an independent fashion (even under inspiration).²

The fact that the New Testament order puts Matthew first does not necessarily imply that he was the first to write his Gospel (though this is often assumed). Rather, there were likely other considerations that led the church to make Matthew the first Gospel, such as his opening genealogy that connects the four-Gospel canon with the Old Testament and serves as a fitting introduction to the New Testament accounts of Jesus. Canonical considerations aside, with regard to chronology of composition, the evidence is not entirely conclusive—which should caution against dogmatism—though, for the most part, it seems to line up with the supposition that Mark’s Gospel was written first (Markan [chronological] priority). If so, Mark likely served as one of Matthew’s and Luke’s sources (see esp. Luke 1:1: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us”).

New Testament Theology

Andreas J. Köstenberger

New Testament Theology provides a comprehensive examination of the major themes, ethical teachings, and places within the overarching storyline of Scripture for each of the 27 books in the New Testament.

More important than the order of writing is the fact that there was an inextricable link established with eyewitnesses to Jesus’s ministry (see esp. Luke 1:2: “just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses [autoptai, lit., “those who saw for themselves”] and ministers of the word have delivered them to us”).³ Thus, as reflected in the titles of the Gospels, eyewitness was borne in each Gospel “according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: Matthew and John are identified in the apostolic lists as members of the twelve (Matt. 10:2–3; Mark 3:17–18; Luke 6:14–15; Acts 1:13)—John even as one of three in Jesus’s inner circle—while Mark is traditionally considered to have been “the interpreter of Peter.”⁴ That leaves only Luke, who acknowledges at the outset of his Gospel that he himself was not an eyewitness but that “it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3–4).

In this way, each of the four Gospels included in the New Testament canon stakes a claim to being based on apostolic eyewitness testimony.⁵ Historically, this grounding of all four Gospel accounts in eyewitness testimony ensures the historical accuracy of their respective contents.⁶ In addition, there is a literary relationship—regardless of chronological order of writing—in the case of the Synoptics so that the two later Gospels likely used the one that was written first (and the third Gospel written may have used the second one).⁷ In addition, there may have been various oral traditions that were incorporated into the Gospels:

personal reminiscences, such as from Mary the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:26–56; 2:1–52) or from Cleopas, one of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–35);
apostolic preaching in the period between Jesus’s ascension and the writing of the first three Gospels, roughly the period between AD 33 (the probable date of Jesus’s crucifixion⁸ and the mid-to late-50s or early 60s when the first and subsequent Gospels were likely written.

Within this overall framework, each Gospel was shaped by an Evangelist’s personal perspective and distinctive theology. This has traditionally been the concern of redaction criticism.⁹ While I do not myself practice redaction criticism as such, I will further highlight these distinctive contributions below. At the same time, the New Testament Gospels, and here particularly the three Synoptics, exhibit a considerable degree of unity amid a certain amount of diversity. This diversity, however, hardly rises to the level of contradiction but instead reflects an Evangelist’s particular interests and outlook. In addition, the diversity may, at least in part, be the result of targeting a particular Gospel to a given audience.¹⁰ In the end, therefore, any apparent or alleged contradiction must be examined in view of an Evangelist’s authorial intent as it can be ascertained by reading a given Gospel empathetically and charitably rather than suspiciously and skeptically.¹¹

Relationship Between John and the Synoptics

A second important dimension in a discussion of central themes in the Gospels is the question of the relationship between John and the Synoptics.¹² Until World War II, the prevalent view was that John wrote to supplement the earlier Gospels.¹³ A pivotal moment was reached, however, with the publication of Percival Gardner-Smith’s 1938 monograph Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, who proposed a radical Johannine independence view, according to which John’s Gospel is based on material that antedates the so-called Synoptic tradition.¹⁴In a rather dichotomous manner, such scholars have affirmed that there were essentially two streams of tradition underlying John and the Synoptics—the Johannine one and the Synoptic one—which are not only independent but often contradictory.¹⁵ In addition, it has typically been affirmed that the Synoptic tradition is of superior historical value while the Johannine tradition reflects theological concerns and is, therefore, less reliable historically (if not notoriously unreliable).

More recently, in Gardner-Smith’s vein, some scholars have taken a more positive approach toward the possible value of Johannine tradition (the socalled new look promoted by John A. T. Robinson), though a dichotomous way of thinking has largely continued to prevail.¹⁶ According to this view, in a given instance either the Synoptic or the Johannine tradition may be reliable—and consequently, the other tradition unreliable—but not both.¹⁷ Later still, redaction critics and others identified the Gospel of John as a sectarian document, often positing a Johannine school, circle, or community.¹⁸ However, construals such as these illegitimately reject the Gospel’s grounding in eyewitness testimony.¹⁹ On a theological level, the unduly dichotomous way of casting the relationship between John and the Synoptics can be surmounted by affirming John’s likely knowledge of one or several of the earlier Gospels, and possibly even Acts.²⁰ Rather than positing John’s close dependence on the earlier Gospels, the nature of the relationship may be better understood in terms of John’s creative theological transposition of Synoptic material. In such a scenario, John would not only have drawn on eyewitness recollection (assuming apostolic authorship) but also would have taken a given Synoptic theme and explored and expounded its deeper theological purpose.

A theological transposition model would thus account for John knowing one or several of the earlier Gospels while not making extensive use of them, similar to Luke’s use of preceding accounts.²¹ On a macro-level, we see that John, similarly to Luke—who wrote a two-volume work narrating Jesus’s earthly and exalted mission (cf. Acts 1:1: “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach”)—divided his Gospel into two acts (John 1–12 and John 13–21) told from the dual perspective of Jesus’s earthly and exalted mission. On a thematic level, in keeping with his theological method, John likely transposed several Synoptic themes into his own distinctive “key,” whether recasting the Synoptic miracles as Johannine signs or including a temple clearing at the beginning rather than the end of his account of Jesus’s ministry.²² This kind of transposition method is capable of surmounting a rigid Johannine independence view, allowing for more common ground with the Synoptics while accounting for the unquestionable diversity characterizing the John-Synoptic relationship.²³

Notes:

On the Synoptic problem, see Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 175–90; Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (T&T Clark, 2001); and Wright and Bird, New Testament in Its World, 686–99. On the relation between John and the Synoptics, see Köstenberger, “John’s Transposition Theology”; James D. Dvorak, “The Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels,” JETS 41, no. 2 (1998): 201–13; Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”; and Paul N. Anderson, “Incidents Dispersed in the Synoptics and Cohering in John: Dodd, Brown, and Johannine History,” in Engaging with C. H. Dodd on the Gospel of John: Sixty Years of Tradition and Interpretation, ed. Tom Thatcher and Catrin H. Williams (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 96–106.
Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology, 593, notes that the only Markan passages not included in Matthew are Jesus’s family’s concern (Mark 3:20–21), the parable of the growing seed (4:26–29), the apostles’ return from their mission (6:30–31), the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida (8:22–26), and a few single verses (e.g., 2:27; 9:29, 48; 14:51; 15:44). On Matthew’s expansion of Mark (on the assumption of Markan priority), see Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology, 593–96.
See Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, passim.
I.e., having used Peter’s eyewitness testimony as the major source underlying his account. Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.14–17 (c. AD 260–340), citing Papias (c. AD 60–130). For a treatment of Mark’s Gospel as Petrine testimony, see Gene L. Green, Vox Petri: A Theology of Peter (Cascade, 2020). For a discussion of the titles or superscriptions of the Gospels, see Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology, 561–62. Given the identical form of the titles (“The Gospel According to . . .”), the titles were likely added when the four were brought together as a collection. See Richard Bauckham, “The Gospel of Mark: Origins and Eyewitnesses,” in Bird and Maston, Earliest Christian History, 146–48.
Matthew and John directly, Mark and Luke via bona fide eyewitnesses, such as Peter and others.
See Keener, Christobiography, passim.
E.g., Martin Hengel believed that Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke both used Mark, and Matthew also used Luke. Hengel, Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, 208. Cf. Armin D. Baum, “Die vier Evangelien und das eine Evangelium von Jesus Christus. Martin Hengels Gesamtsynthese zu den kanonischen Evangelien,” Theologische Beiträge 40 (2009): 352–54. Hays, Reading Backwards, xiv, likewise holds to Markan priority, but rather than posit the existence of a second joint source for Matthew and Luke (Q), thinks it more likely that Luke knew Matthew.
Andreas J. Köstenberger, “April 3, A.D. 33: Why We Believe We Can Know the Exact Date Jesus Died,” First Things (April 3, 2014); Andreas J. Köstenberger and Justin Taylor, The Final Days of Jesus: The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived(Crossway, 2014).
See briefly Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 190–91 and the literature cited there.
Though, in the final analysis, I would affirm that all Gospels were written for a universal readership that transcends their original local or regional audience. See Bauckham, Gospels for All Christians, followed by Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology, 568–69; Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Crossway, 2018), 123–28.
See the discussion in Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, 130–40; the critique of feminist hermeneutics by Margaret Elizabeth Köstenberger, Jesus and the Feminists: Who Do They Say That He Is? (Crossway, 2008), esp. chap. 8; the critique of skeptical arguments in Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Joshua Chatraw, Truth Matters: Confident Faith in a Confusing World (B&H, 2014); and, engaging these matters in more detail, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Joshua Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible (B&H Academic, 2014).
For the history of research, see Köstenberger, “John’s Transposition Theology,” 193–97; Adelbert Denaux, ed., John and the Synoptics, BETL 101 (Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1992); Leon Morris, “The Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics,” in Studies in the Fourth GospelJohn Among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research (Fortress, 1992); Hans Windisch, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Wollte der vierte Evangelist die älteren Evangelien ergänzen oder ersetzen? (J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1926).
Dvorak, “Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels,” 201.
Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge University Press, 1938), 96, who detected in John’s Gospel “the type of first century Christianity which owed nothing to synoptic developments.”
This constitutes an instance of the disjunctive fallacy. See, e.g., D. Moody Smith, The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions: Judaism and Jesus, the Gospels and Scripture (University of South Carolina Press, 2008).
John A. T. Robinson, “The New Look on the Fourth Gospel,” in Studia Evangelica, ed. Kurt Aland et al., Texte und Untersuchungen 73 (Akademie, 1959), 338–50; repr. in John A. T. Robinson, Twelve New Testament Studies, SBT 1, no. 34 (SCM, 1962), 94–106.
Note, however, that while the “new look” set out to rehabilitate the value of the Johannine tradition, it did not return to the traditional view of apostolic authorship.
Brown, Community of the Beloved Disciple; Raymond E. Brown, “‘Other Sheep Not of This Fold’: The Johannine Perspective on Christian Diversity in the Late First Century,” JBL 97, no. 1 (1978): 5–22; Oscar Cullmann, The Johannine Circle (Westminster, 1976). R. Alan Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools, SBLDS 26 (Scholars Press, 1975); Oscar Cullmann, Der johanneische Kreis: Sein Platz im Spätjudentum, in der Jüngerschaft Jesu und im Urchristentum: Zum Ursprung des Johannesevangeliums (Mohr Siebeck, 1975); Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel; and Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.”
Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) has lodged a compelling critique of an unduly rigid source- or form-critical approach to the interpretation of the prehistory of the Gospels and has affirmed their character as eyewitness testimony in keeping with first-century historiographic conventions. Similarly, Keener (Christobiography) has affirmed the historical reliability of both John and the Synoptics on a macro-level, while Williams (Can We Trust the Gospels?) has investigated the relationships between the Gospels on a micro-level. On the role of memory, see Martin Hengel, “Eyewitness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels,” in The Written Gospel, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 70–97; and Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study, Studies in Theological Interpretation (Baker, 2006), esp. chap. 6. On the historical value of John’s Gospel, see Martin Hengel, “Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle fur die Geschichte des antiken Judentums,” in Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II, WUNT 1/109 (Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 293–334.
Köstenberger, “John’s Transposition Theology,” 197–201. See also Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark,” 147–71; and the collected essays in Eve-Marie Becker et al., eds., John’s Transformation of Mark (T&T Clark, 2021), esp. Harold W. Attridge, “John and Mark in the History of Research,” 9–22.
Though Luke, likewise, did not usually take over previous accounts without modification.
John 2:13–22; cf. Matt. 21:12–17; Mark 11:15–19; Luke 19:45–48. Köstenberger, “John’s Transposition Theology,” 201–19, discusses sixteen possible Johannine transpositions of Mark and several possible additional transpositions of Luke-Acts.
In the following discussion, I will therefore identify central themes in the Gospels by highlighting themes in the Synoptics and noting their Johannine equivalent (or vice versa). See also the discussion of undesigned coincidences in Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017); McGrew, Mirror or the Mask; McGrew, Eye of the Beholder.

This article is adapted from New Testament Theology: A Canonical, Thematic, and Ethical Approach by Andreas J. Köstenberger.

Andreas J. Köstenberger

Andreas J. Köstenberger (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is the theologian in residence and director of the equipping center at Fellowship Raleigh, a cofounder of Biblical Foundations, and a host at Oak Tree Cottage, a hospitality and coaching ministry to Christian leaders. He is the author, editor, or translator of over sixty books, including A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters; God, Marriage, and Family; and Invitation to Biblical Interpretation.

I’ve Heard It Said the Gospels Are Full of Contradictions

Peter J. Williams

May 05, 2024

What I like to do with this question is to take it out of the culture war it can be used in and to slow down and really think about what’s going on.

Setting the Stage for the Four Gospels

Andreas J. Köstenberger, Justin Taylor

February 22, 2026

The four Gospels contain eyewitness accounts (and first-hand reports) of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Podcast: Distinguishing Christmas Tradition from Truth (Andreas Köstenberger)

December 23, 2019

Andreas Köstenberger explores how to distinguish fact from fiction when it comes to the Christmas story, discussing the real date of Jesus's birth, the wise men and the star, and key Old Testament prophecies and allusions surrounding the incarnation.

How Should We Think About Apparent Contradictions in the Gospels?

Michael J. Kruger

April 07, 2026

One of the most common objections to the Gospels—and one of the most common objections to the Bible as a whole—is that it contradicts itself, and in particular, the Gospels contradict themselves.

Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing gospel-centered, Bible-centered content. Learn more or donate today at crossway.org/about.

Read Entire Article