Original: Throughout the four gospels, there are major discrepancies and plot holes that have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John seeming to directly contradict one another. There are sometimes different accounts of the same story. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, when Jesus sends out his disciples to teach, the disciples are permitted to take a staff but in the Gospel of Luke the disciples are not permitted to take a staff (Mark 6:8-9, Luke 9:3, Matt. 10:9-10). There are many instances as small as these where a single detail is contradicted by another version, even those that may not have much to do with the narrative in a significant way. These smaller discrepancies within the text seem to be fodder for theologians and scholars to pore over and disagree about. Bigger variations within the texts seem to be the more pressing factors to take issue with. For example, in both Matthew and Luke genealogies are provided, yet oftentimes the names and numbers differ. In Luke’s genealogy, there is no mention whatsoever of Mary, calling into question the point of Mary’s presence in the story at all (2005; 2006, 46). Do these bigger conflicts harbor more points of divergence than the smaller, seemingly insignificant ones? Are the smaller details harbingers of deception, or are they, as I believe, proof that these narratives are all genuine, as people are inclined to both experience and reflect from their own unique perspective? Do any of these discrepancies change the overarching takeaway of The Word?
Revised: Origen was a renowned third-century scholar who was one of the most influential men in early Christian theology. In the beginning of his theology he believed that there was harmony between the Gospels while relying on historical aspects of The Bible. His initial take on the Gospels was widely accepted and supported. But as he continued his comparison of the Gospels more and more inaccuracies became prevalent to him. The more he saw, the less he could ignore them. This was the catalyst of his shift of how to interpret the Gospels. He soon began using a spiritual lens to find a deeper truth rather than focus on logic. Origen’s shift in interpretation sheds light on the fact that no interpretation of The Bible is wrong. Everyone interprets their religious texts in a way that is tailored to their experiences. If one of the most revered theologians can change the way he reads his text, can’t we? And if both Origens (the younger and the older) thought that their exegeses were correct, aren’t ours? That is the thing about interpretations of the Gospels: perception. Your perception will define how you perceive the Gospels for you personally. Our perceptions are what we can and cannot see and explain how Origen’s shift, authors of the Gospel, and each’s perception effect the way each interpret it and what effect that has on modern Christianity.
I’m completely restructuring my paper so the two are quite different. But hopefully the revised version is somewhat compelling and easier to sludge through… This is for sure not the final draft.