Understanding the practices that ancient authors—including the authors of the Gospels—used when writing can clear away a great deal of confusion.
Taken from my book A Daily Defense:
Day 248: Truth versus Precision
Challenge: The Bible contains many passages that say something close to the truth but not quite accurate.
Defense: This confuses truth with precision.
Perhaps you’ve seen the Star Trek episode “Errand of Mercy,” where the following exchange occurs:
Kirk: What would you say the odds are on our getting out of here?
Spock: Difficult to be precise, Captain. I should say, approximately 7,824.7 to 1.
Kirk: Difficult to be precise? 7,824 to 1?
Spock: 7,824.7 to 1.
Kirk: That’s a pretty close approximation.
Spock: I endeavor to be accurate.
This illustrates the different levels of precision expected by humans and vulcans.
Something similar occurs when modern audiences read ancient texts. We live in an age in which things are rigorously measured and recorded. But the ancient world was very different. There were few and imprecise measuring tools, no audio or video recorders, and most people could not read or write.
Consequently, the ancients expected a lesser degree of precision than we do. They would have rolled their eyes at us the way we roll our eyes at Mr. Spock and his absurd overprecision.
This has implications for how we read the Bible. We can’t hold its authors to a higher level of precision than they were using. They expressed truths, but according to the level of precision expected in their day, not ours.
Statements of truth regularly involve approximation. When we say the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second or that pi is 3.14, we are expressing truths, but in an approximate manner. Approximation is so common scientists even speak of different “orders of approximation” they use in their work. At some point, it becomes foolish to try to be more precise, and this judgment must be made based on the situation in which we find ourselves.
We must thus respect the circumstances in which the biblical authors wrote and not expect more precision of them than their situation allowed. If we want to charge them with error then we need to show that they weren’t using the degree of precision expected in the ancient world.
Tip: For examples of how precision works in the Bible, see Day 258.
Day 258: Approximation in the Bible
Challenge: Why do you claim the biblical authors used a different level of precision than we do?
Defense: Approximations were more common because of the inability in the ancient world to accurately measure and record things (see Day 248).
We can show Scripture uses many forms of approximation, including:
(1) Numerical approximations: For example, a basin in Solomon’s temple is said to have a diameter of ten cubits and a circumference of thirty cubits (1 Kings 7:23; 2 Chron. 4:2), indicating the approximate value of π (pi) as 3 (see Day 197). Numerical approximations are also involved when we encounter stock numbers in Scripture (40, 120, and 1,000).
(2) Verbal approximations: Because the ancient world had no recording devices and few stenographers, ancient audiences didn’t expect written dialogue to be a verbatim transcript but an approximation of what was said. Reconstruction and paraphrase were normal. We see examples when Scripture presents parallel accounts of the same events and the biblical authors give dialogue in somewhat different form (e.g., in the Gospels).
(3) Descriptive approximations: Every time we describe an event, we must decide which details to include and omit. There is an inescapable element of approximation in every event description, and this applied to the biblical authors also. Consequently, one evangelist may mention that Jesus healed two men on an occasion, while another may streamline the account by mentioning only one (see Day 37). Similarly, one author may give a more detailed account by mentioning both the principals in an encounter and the agents they employed, while another may mention only the principals (see Day 124).
(4) Chronological approximations: Usually, the ancients did not keep detailed chronological records, and they had the liberty to record events either chronologically or nonchronologically, within the same general time frame (e.g., within the ministry of Christ; see Day 89).
(5) Literary approximations: We often convey truth using literary devices not meant to be taken literally (“We should roll out the red carpet for this visitor”), and so did the ancients (see Day 31). Symbolism and figures of speech like hyperbole are common in Scripture.
Approximations are intrinsic to human speech; we can’t avoid using them, and we use the same kinds as the ancients. We just use them differently.
Day 89: Chronology in the Gospels
Challenge: The Gospels sometimes record the events of Jesus’ ministry in different order and thus contradict each other.
Defense: These are not contradictions. Ancient authors had the liberty to record events chronologically or nonchronologically.
Even in our modern, time-obsessed world, biographers have liberty to arrange material in nonchronological ways. A biography of Abraham Lincoln might devote a chapter to his thoughts on slavery and race relations rather than breaking this material up and covering it repeatedly throughout a chronological account of his career. Similarly, Jesus’ ethical or prophetic teachings might be put together in single sections of a Gospel, as with the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25).
In the ancient world, people usually did not have day-by-day records of a person’s life. The memory of what a great man did persisted, but not precisely when he did things. Recording material in a nonchronological order was thus expected. This was true even of the most famous men in the world. See Suetonius’s The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, which records the words and deeds of the Caesars without a detailed chronology.
Ultimately, what a great man said and did was considered important, not precisely when the events happened. That’s why the former were remembered and the latter was not.
Jesus gave his teachings on many occasions, but without having a detailed chronology available, the evangelists sequenced them according to topical and literary considerations. The same was true of many individual deeds Jesus performed (e.g., healings).
This is not to say that the evangelists give us no chronological information. Some events obviously occurred before or after others. Thus his baptism (with which he inaugurated his ministry) is toward the beginning of the Gospels and the Crucifixion is at the end.
Sometimes chronological details were remembered, such as the fact Jesus performed a particular healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), that John the Baptist’s ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1-3), or that certain events in Jesus’ life took place on major Jewish feasts (John 2:13, 6:4, 7:2, 10:22, 11:5). It is thus possible to glean chronological information from the Gospels.
Day 124: Who Did What in the Gospels?
Challenge: The Gospels contain error since they describe different people performing the same action. Matthew says a centurion approached Jesus about healing his servant, but Luke says Jewish elders did this for the centurion (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10). Similarly, Mark says James and John made a request, but Matthew says their mother made it (Mark 10:35-45; Matt. 20:20-28).
Defense: The biblical authors had liberty to describe events in terms of the principals or their agents.
More than one person can be involved in an action. The person on whose behalf the action is performed is known as the principal, while the person who actually does the action is known as the agent. Both today and in the ancient world, actions can be described as if the principal or the agent performed them.
During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, newspapers might have reported, “American president Kennedy told Soviet premier Khrushchev to take his missiles out of Cuba.” In reality, Kennedy and Khrushchev (the principals) never spoke. Their exchanges were carried on through diplomatic intermediaries (their agents). Because the principals were the main actors, newspapers could speak as if the two directly engaged each other. The diplomatic intermediaries were secondary.
In Scripture, we read that Moses built the tabernacle (2 Chron. 1:3) and Solomon built the temple (1 Kings 6:1-38). In reality, both were leaders too lofty to do the labor themselves. They used workmen who acted on their behalf (Exod. 38:22-23; 1 Kings 7:13-45). Because Moses and Solomon were the principals, they are sometimes mentioned, while the workmen who were their agents may not be mentioned.
The evangelists had the same freedom choosing how to describe an incident. They could describe it in terms of the agents acting (as with Luke’s mention of the Jewish elders and Matthew’s mention of the apostles’ mother) or the principals acting (as with Matthew’s mention of the centurion and Mark’s mention of James and John).
When the evangelists chose the latter, the action of the agents may be said to be “telescoped” into the principals on whose behalf they acted. This literary technique is used in the Bible in more situations than we use it today, but it is not an error. It is a known literary device.
Day 37: One or Two in the Gospels?
Challenge: How can you trust the Gospels when they can’t even agree on details like whether Jesus exorcized one demoniac or two, healed one blind man or two, rode one animal or two, or had his Resurrection announced by one angel or two?
Defense: These incidents are not contradictions but reports mentioning different details.
It is true the Gospels sometimes report an incident and mention only a single demoniac (Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27), blind man (Mark 8:22-23, 10:46; Luke 18:35), animal (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30; John 12:14), or angel (Matt. 28:2; Mark 16:5), while other reports mention two demoniacs (Matt. 8:28), blind men (Matt. 9:27, 20:30), animals (Matt. 21:2), or angels (Luke 24:4; John 20:12).
These are not contradictions, because in none of these cases does an evangelist say there was only one of the thing in question present. The evangelist may mention only one, but that leaves open the possibility—confirmed by one or more of the other evangelists—that there was more than one present.
It has often been noted that if several people witness a car accident, they will each observe and report different details when they recount it later. This phenomenon may be partly responsible for cases mentioned above. For example, if Matthew was an eyewitness to a particular event he may have remembered seeing two demoniacs, blind men, and so on, while noneyewitnesses like Mark and Luke were dependent on sources who may have mentioned only one.
There also may be another phenomenon at work: dramatic simplification. Because books then were fantastically expensive (a copy of the Gospel of Matthew could have cost the ancient equivalent of over $1,500), ancient authors worked under pressure to keep their books short. This could result in them presenting only an incident’s essentials, which could have the added benefit of making the story more focused and compelling.
If on a single occasion two people asked Jesus for a particular favor, like healing, or if two angels showed up to deliver a single message, the essence of the event could be communicated to the audience if only one was mentioned. After all, Jesus did grant a person’s request for healing, and an angel did show up to deliver a message. The mention of a similar companion in both cases was not essential.
