A Closer Look at Apparent Discrepancies Among the Gospels (Part 3)

The Anointing at Bethany 

A few days after Jesus arrived in Bethany, not long before his arrest and crucifixion, he was in the home of Simon the leper (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3). Lazarus and his sisters were also present, and Mary is identified as the one who anointed the Lord with very costly spikenard oil (John 12:1-8). According to Matthew and Mark, she anointed Jesus’ head (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:4), whereas John reports that she anointed his feet (John 12:3). 

Rather than an “either-or” discrepancy, the combined accounts provide a “both-and” narrative. As a sign of honor and/or blessing, the customary practice was to anoint the head (Psa. 23:5; 133:2; Luke 7:46; cf. Ex. 29:7; Lev. 8:12; 21:10), which Mary did as reported by Matthew and Mark. John, however, focuses on the extended act of humility and reverence in the anointing of the Lord’s feet (perhaps a prelude to 13:1-17), although the other writers also include a reference to his anointed “body” (Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8). Instead of merely reiterating the twice-documented, customary head-anointing in the earlier Gospels, John fills in the detail of the less conventional feet-anointing elsewhere unreported.¹

A similar account is found in Luke 7:36-50, but this appears to have involved a different woman on a different occasion in another place. In Luke’s record the host is Simon the Pharisee, not Simon the leper, living in Galilee instead of Judea, and the incident occurred about a year into Christ’s public ministry rather than at the end. In contrast to the subsequent event, Luke describes “a woman in the city who was a sinner,” shedding tears, kissing the Lord’s feet, and receiving forgiveness. Luke also reports the disgust of the homeowner, whereas the other occasion involved the indignation of the disciples (Judas in particular). 

Words Spoken from Heaven?

In Matthew’s record of Jesus’ baptism, the voice from heaven is quoted as saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). Mark and Luke, however, record the statement as follows: “You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Was the voice speaking in the third person about Jesus, as Matthew reports, or in the second person to Jesus, as Mark and Luke report? 

Matthew’s account highlights the onlookers’ perspective, as they hear words of recognition and affirmation that Matthew’s Jewish readership needed to understand as well. The other accounts take notice of Christ’s vantage point, as he receives a message of support and reassurance. As Greek translations of what was probably spoken in Aramaic, the respective renderings capture the essence of what was said.

Order of the Lord’s Supper?

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, Matthew and Mark note that he first broke bread, followed by offering the cup of the fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25). Luke, however, says Jesus took the cup first, then broke bread, followed by offering the cup again (Luke 22:14-20). 

Rather than being confused about how to observe the Lord’s Supper, we just need to consider the context. Jesus and his disciples lived under the Mosaic Law and faithfully observed its rituals and regulations. It was in the context of the Passover feast that Jesus instituted the sacred memorial of his impending death. According to the Mishnah (an ancient record of Jewish traditions), during the Passover meal celebrants were to drink four times from the cup (Pesahim 10.1). Whatever relevance this might have to the earthly life of Jesus,² it helps us realize that Luke simply provides additional information about the observance of a Jewish convention, whereas Matthew and Mark limit their focus to the Lord’s Supper itself.

In 1 Cor. 11:23-26, long after Jewish feasts were rendered obsolete under Christ’s new covenant (cf. Gal. 4:9-11), Paul delivers to his Christian readers what he had received from the Lord concerning the bread and cup, eliminating potential confusion.³  

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See The Triumphal Entry. 

     ² “This literature must be read with discernment since it does not always reflect perspectives contemporary with NT times; nonetheless, it provides a wealth of material useful in interpreting various NT texts” (J. B. Green and L. M. McDonald, The NT World 4).

     ³ See The Frequency of the Lord's Supper.

Related Posts: Apparent Discrepancies Part 1, Part 2, Synoptic Confusion

Image credit: https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonsensechristianity/2014/11/questioning-convention-its-part-of-growth.html

A Closer Look at Apparent Discrepancies Among the Gospels (Part 1)

Rabbi, Master, or Lord?

In recounting the story of Christ’s transfiguration, the synoptic writers employ different words in their respective versions of Peter’s statement. Mark records the title Rabbí (Mark 9:5), whereas Matthew uses Kúrios  [“Lord”] (Matt. 17:4) and Luke Epistátēs [“Master”] (Luke 9:33).¹ Which of these words was originally spoken by Peter? Do these differences amount to a contradiction? Does this legitimately call into question the integrity of the biblical record? Studying these passages contextually resolves the issue. 

The original conversation was almost certainly in the Aramaic language, and the synoptic writers provide independent translations for their respective audiences. Contrary to the popular literary-dependence theories of redaction critics, these differences demonstrate independence and serve as separate witnesses to the life of Christ. The word “rabbi” is of Hebrew origin, essentially meaning “master” and used as an honorary title for “teacher.” Luke, writing from a Greek perspective, never employs the Hebraic term “rabbi.” John, a Jewish author writing to a non-Jewish audience, uses the Jewish term “rabbi” and then translates it into Greek as didáskalos (“teacher”) for his Gentile readers (John 1:38). This informs John’s audience of the functional role of the person wearing the title but does not explicitly convey the deep respect inherent in the term. The other Gospels do. 

In the parallel accounts of Christ’s transfiguration, Mark records the original Hebraic title Rabbí (Mark 9:5), while Matthew employs the comparable expression “Lord” [Kúrios] (Matt. 17:4) and Luke “Master” [Epistátēs] (Luke 9:33). These different renderings not only recount in Greek translation (or transliteration in Mark’s case) what was said, but also convey the title’s reverential intent.²

The Crucifixion Inscription

The inscription affixed to Jesus’ cross is variously reported by the Gospel writers: (a) “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37); (b) “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26); (c) “This [is] the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38); (d) “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19). The wording of the inscription is only partially given by each Gospel writer. The full inscription would read: “This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” Verbatim transcription was unnecessary to convey the essence of the charge. All four accounts collectively provide the full account. This is evidence of four independent witnesses (cf. Deut. 19:15). The inscription, having been written in three languages (Luke 23:38; John 19:20), would have been intelligible to the local Jews (Aramaic-speakers) and Romans (Latin-speakers), as well as all foreign visitors (Greek-speakers).

Abiathar the High Priest? 

In recording Jesus’ response to the Pharisees (Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5), Mark is the only synoptic writer to mention “Abiathar” in the account (2:26), and there are variations among manuscripts: “in the days [time] of Abiathar the high priest” (ESV, NASB, NKJV) vs. “when Abiathar was high priest” (ASV, N/RSV). While the circumstances involving David eating showbread did occur in the days of Abiathar, it was actually his father Ahimelech who was high priest at the time. Ahimelech was killed soon afterward, and his son Abiathar was then appointed high priest (1 Sam. 22:17-21). As a prolepsis Mark simply describes Abiathar as he was known at the time of writing. 

What to Take and Not Take?

In Matthew’s account of Jesus sending out the twelve, the Lord instructs them not to take “two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs” (Matt. 10:10). In Mark’s account, the Lord instructs them to take nothing “except a staff … but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics” (Mark 6:8-9). In both narratives Jesus assures provision of their necessities, so extra supplies were not needed. Lodging would be available, thus no reason to have an extra tunic for a bedroll or covering for outdoors. They would obviously be wearing sandals (as Mark reports) but no need to “take” another pair (as Matthew reports). Each would have a staff (as Mark reports) but no need for multiple staffs (as Matthew reports).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “The Education of Jesus the Rabbi,” <Link>.

Related Posts: Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Matthew's 'Two' vs Mark and Luke's 'One', What Did the Centurion Say?, Apparent Discrepancies Part 2, Part 3 

Image credit: https://ruthclemence.com/2015/04/27/the-nano-bible-and-the-metaphorical-magnifying-glass/

What Did the Centurion Say?

Matthew reports that a centurion and those with him, having witnessed the extraordinary events surrounding the Lord’s crucifixion, were fearful and said, “Truly this was theoû huiòs” (Matt. 27:54).¹ Mark informs his readers that the centurion, having observed the manner of Jesus’ passing, exclaimed, “Truly this man was huiòs theoû” (Mark 15:39). If these words were originally spoken in Latin (the language of the Romans), Matthew and Mark have provided Greek translations that have been preserved in the Greek New Testament. The challenge for English readers is determining the sense of the predicate nominative and its modifier (left untranslated above) in the respective accounts. 

Most translators have opted for the insertion of the definite article and capitalization to make a theological statement: “the Son of God.” But was this the original intent (and understanding) of this pagan officer and his colleagues? The phrase as recorded by Matthew and Mark could legitimately be interpreted and rendered, “a son of God” or “a son of a god.” Unless one is inordinately devoted to the translational decisions of uninspired linguists, one should consider all options and let the biblical text itself in light of the circumstances and the overall context of scripture be the determinative factor. 

Luke reports this incident as well, observing that the centurion, moved by what he saw, glorified “God” [tòn theòn] and called Jesus a “righteous” [díkaios] man (Luke 23:47). Luke’s account seems to suggest that the pagan soldier was aware of “the God,” whether in the henotheistic sense of a supreme deity above the lesser ones, or in the biblical sense of the one true God exclusively (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4-7). Either way, the description of Jesus as a “righteous” [díkaios] man helps clarify the intent of the centurion’s words as recounted in the other Gospels.

The adjectival díkaios in the New Testament conveys the sense of “righteous,” or “upright,” or “just” (in God’s sight), i.e., “innocent” or “faultless.” This was the mutual consensus of Pontius Pilate, Pilate’s wife, and Herod Antipas in their assessment of Jesus (Matt. 27:4, 18-24; Luke 23:4, 14-22; John 18:38; 19:4-6). The centurion and those with him at the cross apparently shared the same sentiment. It is surely within the realm of possibility that Luke had personally met and interviewed this man (cf. Luke 1:1-4) and was therefore able to capture the true intent of what he said. Matthew and Mark simply recorded the words in Greek without further clarification or explanation.² The expression huiòs theoû may simply have been an idiomatic way of describing a “godly” person.³ 

Irrespective of English translation, the centurion’s statement as reported in the respective Gospel accounts unlikely reflects the same understanding and faith developed in others who had much greater observational and learning opportunities (Matt. 14:33; 16:16; John 20:31; etc.). The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God is well attested by numerous witnesses throughout the New Testament,⁴ and is not dependent on this isolated case.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.
     ² D. E. Aune affirms that ancient historians observed the adage, “without adding or deleting anything,” although repeating words verbatim was not deemed necessary (NT Literary Environment 82).
     ³ In the ancient Mediterranean world, the word “son” was often used to describe one’s character, disposition, nature, or conduct. For example, “sons of Belial” (Judg. 19:22; 1 Sam. 2:12); “sons of might” (Psa. 29:1; 89:6); “son of wickedness” (Psa. 89:22); “sons of the sorceress” (Isa. 57:3); “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17); “sons of this world” (Luke 16:8); “sons of light” (John 12:36; Eph. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:5); “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36); “son of destruction” (John 17:12; 2 Thess. 2:3).

     ³ See K. L. Moore, “Jesus Christ: the Son of God,” Moore Perspective (18 Jan. 2017), <Link>.

Related Posts: Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Synoptic Confusion

Image credit: https://polination.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/centurion-at-cross.jpg

Synoptic Confusion: Matthew’s “Two” vs. Mark and Luke’s “One”?

The Problem Stated

In the synoptic accounts of Jesus casting a legion of demons into a herd of swine, both Mark and Luke mention just one demon-possessed man (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39), yet Matthew says there were two (8:28-34). Mark and Luke report the Lord’s healing of a blind man near Jericho (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43), whereas Matthew says there were two blind men (20:29-34). In the story of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the respective accounts of Mark and Luke make reference to a single donkey (Mark 11:2-7; Luke 19:30-35; also John 12:14-15), while Matthew’s version has two (21:2-7). 

Searching for a Reasonable Explanation

Critical scholars are quick to accuse Matthew of having altered these accounts with an apparent inclination to “double.”¹  However, Matthew shares a number of miracle stories with the other Gospels wherein this alleged doubling does not occur.² Matthew also reports a separate occasion when Jesus healed two blind men (9:27-31), unparalleled elsewhere.³  Matthew and Mark speak of a single angelic figure at Christ’s empty tomb (Matt. 28:2-7; Mark 16:5-7), while Luke mentions two (24:4-5). Matthew and Luke record the Lord’s prediction of the crowing of a rooster (Matt. 26:34; Luke 22:34; also John 13:38), while Mark alludes to the rooster crowing “twice” (14:30, 72). Obviously there is no consistent pattern of doubling in any of the Gospels. It is more likely that each author, according to his immediate purpose, has at times focused on certain details ignored by others, or has omitted particular elements highlighted by others.   

Neither Mark nor Luke uses the word “only” when speaking of the demoniac, blind man, or donkey, nor do Matthew and Mark use the word “only” when speaking of the angelic figure. If I were to say that my daughter fell off the trampoline and broke her arm, some might conclude that I have only one daughter. But if my wife adds that both our daughters were jumping on the trampoline when the accident occurred, surely no one would accuse us of contradicting each another.

Putting it in Perspective

When comparing synoptic accounts, it is helpful to remember that Matthew reports as an independent eyewitness. He mentions “two” because that is what he saw. He also writes as a former tax collector (Matt. 10:3). Not only do we find several financial transactions referenced in Matthew’s Gospel,⁴ we also see an affinity for numbering. In passages where Matthew employs cardinal numbers, the parallel Gospel accounts do not. Matthew alone reports that Jesus specifically called “two” brothers and “two” other brothers (Matt. 4:18, 21), disciples will sit on “twelve” thrones (Matt. 19:28), Zebedee’s “two” sons (Matt. 20:21; 26:37), “two” false witnesses (Matt. 26:60), and one of “two” prisoners (Matt. 27:21).

Only Matthew recounts a pair of demoniacs (8:28), while the particular one who responded to Jesus, sat at his feet, and subsequently became the Lord’s emissary is the singular focus of the parallel accounts (Mark 5:18-20; Luke 8:35, 38). There was no practical reason for Mark and Luke to have taken notice of the other man while giving attention to the character most relevant to the story. Matthew’s record is broader and more general, while Mark and Luke are singularly focused.

Only Matthew documents a couple of blind men near Jericho (20:30), yet again Mark and Luke offer a more targeted narrative. In fact, Mark provides a name (Bartimaeus), indicative of a prominent figure familiar to the local community and/or to Mark’s readers. If the identity of the other blind man was unknown at the time of writing or simply not pertinent to the story as presented by Mark and Luke, making reference to him would serve no useful purpose.

In Matthew’s version of the triumphal entry there are two animals: a young donkey and its mother (21:2-7); just one is alluded to by Mark and Luke (and John), again with precision of focus. Seeing that the colt had never been ridden (Mark 11:2), it would make sense for its mother to be brought along. That Jesus sat “on them” (Matt. 21:7) could refer to both animals alternatively but more likely to the “garments” [himátia] upon which he sat. 

Authorial Selectivity

Matthew develops the theme of Christ’s authority (cf. 7:29; 9:6-8; 21:23; etc.) and incorporates information supportive of this objective. Matthew’s tendency is to use quantity of elements to teach about Jesus, conveying the stories with brevity, while the other Gospels tend to highlight details. When Matthew reports the Lord healing many people inflicted with a variety of ailments (15:30-31), Mark focuses on just one of them (7:31-32). Mark and Luke record words spoken by a centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47), while Matthew includes “those with him” (Matt. 27:54).⁵

Brevity, omission, abridgment, emphasis, and focused precision are among the plethoric narrative options for any given author. The parallel accounts where Mark and Luke report “one” and Matthew “two” demonstrate authorial selectivity, with Mark and Luke having reduced the number rather than Matthew having doubled it. A sympathetic and fair appraisal of the passages in question confirms each as an independent witness, while supporting their collective integrity and deepening our appreciation for biblical variety, harmony, and accuracy.⁶

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition 316; C. S. Keener, Commentary on Matthew 282.

     2 For example, Matt. 8:1-4 (cp. Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16); Matt. 8:5-13 (cp. Luke 7:1-10); Matt. 9:1-8 (cp. Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26); et al.

     3 A lone blind man is healed in the respective accounts of Mark (8:22-26) and John (9:1-11) without further mention in the other Gospels.

     4 Matt. 17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15.

     ⁵ See What Did the Centurion Say? For similar distinctions between Matthew’s broader and Mark’s more focused descriptions (comparable also in Luke), compare Matt. 8:28/Mark 5:2; Matt. 21:2/Mark 11:2; Matt. 20:30/Mark 10:46; Matt. 21:34/Mark 12:2; Matt. 22:34/Mark 12:28; Matt. 26:40/Mark 14:37.

     ⁶ See Glenn Miller, “Did Matthew simply Double the people in his miracle stories?” Christian Think Tank (2010), <Link>.

Related Posts: Authorship of the Gospels, Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Matthew's Opened Graves and Resurrected Saints, What Did the Centurion Say?

Related articles: Eric Lyons, How Many at the Tomb?

Image credit: http://www.ajpinfo.com/6min/on-not-knowing/

Harmonizing Luke and Paul (Part 2 of 2)

     Luke makes a clear distinction between the brothers of Jesus and the apostles of Jesus (Acts 1:13-14). Who, then, was the James whom Paul seems to include among the apostles and identifies as the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:19)? Before this question can be answered, at least three more questions need to be considered: (1) Is adelphos (“brother”) used here in its literal sense, or is a more general usage intended? (2) What is meant by the term apostoloi (“apostles”) in this context? (3) Does ei mê (“except”) necessarily include James among the apostles?

     1.  If adelphos is used here in a more general sense, it is possible that the Lord’s “cousin” is intended and thus Paul may be referring to the apostle James, son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The word adelphos, according to H. K. Moulton, may be used in the broader sense of “near kinsman or relative” (Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised 6). There was a Mary (not Jesus’ mother) who was the wife of Cleopas and mother of James and Jose[s/ph] (Matt. 27:56; John 19:25). If “Cleopas” is the Graecized form of the name “Alphaeus,” as some suggest, it is possible that James, son of Mary and Cleopas, is the same as the apostle James, son of Alphaeus. Furthermore, the wording of John 19:25 may suggest that Mary, the wife of Cleopas, was the sister of Jesus’ mother, which would then make Jesus and the apostle James first cousins.

     This view, however, is considerably weakened by the number of unprovable suppositions upon which it is based, plus other information that argues strongly against it. First of all, there is no evidence in the New Testament that the word adelphos (“brother”) is used in a broad sense to include near relations. Paul was familiar with the word “cousin” (anepsios), as we see in Col. 4:10, and could have used that word in Gal. 1:19 if that is what he intended. While the Hebrew ach (“brother”) is used loosely in isolated cases to designate male relatives of various degrees (cf. Gen. 13:8; 14:14; etc.) and is translated into Greek as adelphos, the New Testament usage does not appear to be as general (cf. BAGD 16). Even in the Old Testament, the context makes it clear whenever the word “brother” is used in any but its normal sense, which we do not find in Gal. 1:19. The word adelphos simply means “a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother)” (J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon 10).    

     Furthermore, the idea that James was the cousin of Jesus depends on the assumption that three rather than four women are mentioned in John 19:25. If it is concluded that Mary is the sister of the Lord’s mother, the problem is the unlikelihood that two sisters would have the same name! Since Salome was also present on this occasion (Mark 15:40), could she not be the sister of Jesus’ mother (making the sons of Zebedee [James and John] the Lord’s cousins)? Another difficulty is the uncertainty that the names Cleopas and Alphaeus are identical, and even if these appellations are derived from the same source, there is no evidence that they belonged to the same person. Finally, if James and his brothers were merely the Lord’s cousins, it is hard to account for the fact that they were regularly in the company of Jesus’ mother (Matt. 12:46-47; 13:55; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12) rather than their own mother, who was still living at the time (Mark 15:40-41). When Paul speaks of the Lord’s “brother,” he is apparently referring to James, the literal half-brother of Jesus.

     2. The next question is how the word apostolos (“apostle”) is used by Paul in Gal. 1:19. If it is used in a generic sense, then it is possible for James to be called an “apostle” without being included among the twelve. In the New Testament the word apostolos generally refers to one who is sent and thus can be used in the sense of a delegate, envoy, or messenger (BAGD 99). Epaphroditus, having been sent by the Philippi church, was their apostolos or “messenger” (Phil. 2:25). Brethren who were sent to distribute relief aid were called apostoloi (“messengers”) of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23). Barnabas and Saul are called apostoloi (“apostles”) after being sent out by the church at Antioch (Acts 13:3; 14:4, 14). Jesus Christ, having been sent by the Father (John 17:3), is described as the apostolos (“apostle”) and high priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1).

     While it is plausible that James is referred to as an apostolos in the broad sense, it is not likely. For one thing, James does not appear to have been sent out anywhere, but remained in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12), although it seems he did “take along” a believing wife (1 Cor. 9:5) and may have gone out to the areas surrounding Jerusalem (cf. Acts 8:14, 25; 9:28). But Paul appears to be consistent with his use of the word apostolos in his epistle to the Galatians (1:1, 17, 19; 2:8), the most obvious sense of which is not generic. Therefore apostolos in this passage evidently means “apostle” in its official, customarily understood sense.

     3. The final consideration is the meaning of ei mê in Galatians 1:19. The combination of ei (if) and mê (not) is used in a negative statement to mean “except” or “but.” In Galatians 1:19 the footnote of the ASV suggests “but only” as an alternate translation, and Hugo McCord renders this verse: “I saw no other apostle, but I did see James (the Lord’s brother).” If this is what Paul had in mind, then James is not included among the apostles and the problem is solved.

     Bear in mind that the easy answers are not always the right answers, but the integrity of scripture is not impugned when alleged discrepancies are more carefully investigated. It is reasonably clear that when the accounts of Paul and Luke are interwoven, the harmony of events may be summarized as follows. Paul went to Jerusalem about three years after his conversion. He was briefly introduced to the apostles, but spent most of his time with Peter and preached to unbelievers in Judea. He did not get to know the other apostles during this visit, but he did become acquainted with James, the Lord’s brother. Luke and Paul highlight different aspects of the same historical events, but they complement rather than contradict each other.

--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Harmonizing Luke & Paul Part 1, The Epistle of Jacob, James of Alphaeus

Related articles: Barry Newton's Did Paul Agree with Luke?

Image credit: Franz Mayer’s St. Luke and St. Paul, <http://www.oakbrookesser.com/images/restoration/trinity/th_lukeandpaul.jpg>.

Harmonizing Luke and Paul (Part 1 of 2)

     The activities of Paul after his conversion at Damascus are briefly detailed in Galatians 1:15-24. The problem is, Paul’s version of events is different from the historical information provided by Luke, and the two accounts are difficult to harmonize. Apparent discrepancies include the following:

First, Luke gives the impression that Paul went to Jerusalem shortly after his conversion (Acts 9:26), but Paul says there was at least a three-year interval (Gal. 1:18).

Second, Luke reports that Paul “was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out” (Acts 9:28)¹ and preached “in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea” (Acts 26:20), whereas Paul claims that he “was unknown by face to the churches of Judea ...” (Gal. 1:22).

Third, Luke mentions that Paul met “the apostles,” implying that he met all of them (Acts 9:27), yet Paul affirms that he saw only Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19).

Finally, Paul seems to include James “the Lord’s brother” among the apostles (Gal. 1:19), while Luke does not (Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).

     The first two difficulties are reasonably simple to resolve. Luke’s purpose in writing the book of Acts was not to give an intricately detailed description of the early church’s activities. In fact, he covers approximately 32 years of history in only 28 chapters. His brief historical overview is easily filled in with information recorded elsewhere in the New Testament. The statement, “And when Saul had come to Jerusalem …” (Acts 9:26), does not indicate whether this was immediately after his initial stay in Damascus or after a few years. No time period is specified, therefore no discrepancy exists between the respective accounts of Luke and Paul.

     Next, how could Paul have preached “in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea” (Acts 26:20) and yet be “unknown by face to the churches of Judea” (Gal. 1:22)? First of all, Jerusalem is often distinguished from the rest of Judea (Luke 5:17; 6:17; Acts 1:8; 2:14; 8:1; 26:20). Secondly, Paul was preaching to non-Christians in Judea, not to the churches (Acts 9:29; 22:18; 26:17-23). Again, Luke’s version of events is easily harmonized with Paul’s.

     A more challenging dilemma is Luke’s intimation that Paul met all the apostles (Acts 9:27), while Paul claims that he saw only Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-19). The word translated “to see” (NKJV) in verse 18 is historeô, which actually means to visit for the purpose of getting to know someone (BAGD 383). The NASB renders this word, “to become acquainted with.” Paul did more than just casually observe Peter. He spent time with and got to know him.

     When Paul writes that he did not “see” the other apostles (Gal. 1:19), the word he uses here is eidon. Like historeô, the term eidon has a broader range of meanings than simply to view with one’s eyes. It can also carry the idea of experiencing something or visiting with someone (cf. Luke 8:20; 17:22; 1 Thess. 2:17; 3:10). For Paul, “seeing” (eidon) the brethren in Corinth meant spending time with them (1 Cor. 16:3-7). It is also used in the sense of getting to know someone (cf. Luke 9:9; 23:8; John 12:21; Acts 28:20). Paul wanted to “see” (eidon) the saints in Rome, which involved much more than just looking at them (Rom. 1:10-15). Paul seems to be saying in Gal. 1:18-19, considering that eidon is so closely connected with historeô, that he simply did not get acquainted with the other apostles. Apparently he was briefly introduced to them (Acts 9:27), but he only spent considerable time with and got to know Peter and James.  Thus, the accounts of Paul and Luke are not inconsistent.

     The final and more difficult challenge is determining which James is referred to in this passage and whether or not he was actually included among the apostles. There is more than one person identified as “James” in the New Testament. One is John’s brother, the son of Zebedee and Salome (Matt. 4:21; 27:56; cf. Mark 15:40), killed by Herod Agrippa I in the year 44 (Acts 12:2). But it is highly unlikely that he is the one considered by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Another of the twelve apostles was also called James, namely the son of Alphaeus and Mary (Matt. 27:56; 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). He is probably the one also known as “James the Less” (Mark 15:40). Could this have been the James identified by Paul in Galatians 1:19 as the Lord’s brother?

     Jesus was not an only child, and he did have a brother named James. Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until she had given birth to Jesus, her firstborn son (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7). If Jesus had been her only child, he would have been described as her huion monogenê (“only son”) rather than her huion prôtotokon (“firstborn son”). There is a strong implication here that Mary had other children after Jesus was born. Moreover, the Gospels reveal that Jesus had at least four half-brothers and at least two or more half-sisters, and the brothers were named James, Jose[s/ph], Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55-56; Mark 6:3).

     It is interesting that among the apostles were those who also wore the names James, Simon, and Judas (Luke 6:15-16), and attempts have been made to identify them as the Lord’s brothers. One argument against this conclusion is the distinction made between the apostles and the brothers of Jesus (Acts 1:13-14). But this objection is not conclusive since the same apparent distinction is also made regarding the apostle Peter (1 Cor. 9:5; cf. Mark 16:7). However, that the half-brothers of Jesus were not counted among the original apostles is evident from the fact that even after the twelve had been chosen (John 6:67), the Lord’s brothers did not believe in him as the Christ (John 7:5).² The next article will consider this further.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.
     ² Neither is there sufficient data to support the hypothesis that Joseph and Alphaeus were brothers and James was the product of a Levirate marriage between Joseph and Alphaeus' widow. 

Related Posts: Harmonizing Luke & Paul Part 2, James and the Law of Moses, The Epistle of Jacob, What did Paul do in Arabia?

Image credit: Rembrandt’s “Two Old Men Disputing,” <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Rembrandt_van_Rijn_185.jpg>.