The Gospel Writers and Their Quotations from Jesus

This is a good question, but the alleged problem is not of serious import. Let us consider the following factors.

General Principles

First, it has long been recognized that when referring to another’s audible use of language or written words, it is not necessary to quote verbatim to accurately represent his thoughts. This principle has been recognized from the very earliest times of human communication, in connection with both the spoken word and the written message.

For example, a witness testifying in court may be asked to repeat the substance of a conversation they overheard. It is expected that they will provide an accurate account of what was said, but it is not required that every “and,” “the,” and “a” be recited precisely. Ordinarily, reciting a conversation word-for-word that one overheard at some point in the past would likely suggest a lack of spontaneity and might indicate a prepared response that could be perceived as suspect.

Let me illustrate. During his speech on Mars Hill in Athens, Paul declared,

“‘in him we live, and move, and have our being’ as certain even of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring’” (Acts 17:28).

Note the plural “poets.” The apostle has cited two Greek authors. The first citation is from Epimenides (c. 600 B.C.), and the second is from Aratus (315-240 B.C.). Neither of these poets is quoted verbatim, but the sense is true to the original authors’ thoughts (Bruce, 339). It is significant that Paul was not accused of misrepresenting the earlier writers.

Use of the Old Testament

The citations from the Old Testament, as employed by the writers of the New Testament, constitute another example of linguistic variety without sacrificing truth. A conservative estimate suggests that there are approximately 295 Old Testament references in the New Testament. If one includes allusions, the estimates increase from slightly over 600 to somewhat over 4,000 (depending on the scholar). About 10% of the New Testament, in some form, is taken from the Old Testament (Roger, 137-138).

But the quotations vary considerably in form. Some are from the Hebrew Old Testament, while others (the majority) are from the Greek translation (the Septuagint). Some are pretty complete; others are abbreviated. Some represent a whole text; others only a phrase or so. In some passages, a single writer is quoted; in others, multiple citations from different sources are combined. In some of the quotations, the verbiage is fairly precise; in others, the wording has been paraphrased or deliberately changed. These facts are indisputable.

In view of the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the New Testament writers in the manner in which they referenced the Old Testament, it should be easy to conclude that the principle of providing accurate substance, instead of slavish word-for-word rendition, has divine authorization. Such should surely nullify any criticism of the Gospel writers regarding how they represented the sayings of Jesus. In summation, let us focus on several points.

Some Conclusions

Minor alterations do not sacrifice substance. A paraphrase or emendation by an original author or speaker does not impair the sense of the primary source if the citation is accurately conveyed. In fact, as one relatively modern journalistic authority put it, “A careful paraphrase that does complete justice to the source is preferable to a long quotation” (Campbell, 15).

All Bible writers were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is therefore possible that a writer, under the guidance of the Spirit (cf. Acts 1:16; 28:25), could deliberately alter an earlier writer’s or speaker’s language to supplement the former by providing valuable additional information. Such supplementation might well be necessary in a later historical context.

Isaiah foretold that a Redeemer (the Messiah would come “to Zion” bringing manifold blessings (Isaiah 59:20). When Paul quoted the passage in his letter to the Romans, he declared that this Deliverer would come “out of Zion” (11:26), thus identifying the Messiah’s ancestry (i.e., he would be of Jewish extraction). The change from “to” to “out of” is deliberate and expansive. Jesus himself modified the text of the Old Testament at times when he quoted from it (cf. Isaiah 6:9-10 with Matthew 13:15).

It should be kept in mind that the writers of the New Testament knew they were producing their documents under the guidance of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:10, 13). Therefore, the manner in which they presented their narratives was pursued conscientiously. Differences in descriptions (not contradictions) were of divine design — not the result of haphazard carelessness.

No Contradictions

When the Gospel writers recorded Jesus’ sayings with slight variations, there may have been additions (for specific reasons), but there are no contradictions. This is a crucial point to remember. For instance, in his parable of “the Sower,” Christ spoke of a “thorny soil” that choked out the kingdom seed’s productivity. The thorns represented distractions to godly living.

Matthew identifies the thorns as “the cares of the world” and “the deceitfulness of riches” (13:22). Mark mentions the “lust of things” that hinder (4:19), while Luke rounds it out with “the pleasures of this life” (8:14). Each adds his unique, supplementary record without conflicting with the others.

No Collusion

The variations in citations are not compromises of the integrity of the narratives. In fact, quite to the contrary, they demonstrate the independence of each writer. These different, though complementary, accounts are powerful arguments against the relatively modern, pseudo-scientific theories of “form criticism,” which assume that some of the Gospel writers merely copied from other documents.

A popular theory holds that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Luke copied from him. Thus, from Mark’s Gospel and other sources, Matthew and Luke produced their works.

If Matthew and Luke (both of whom were meticulous craftsmen — the one a tax collector adept at keeping records, the other a physician and first-rate historian) were mere copyists, they were certainly shoddy in their work, for the differences are clearly manifest. But the variations were not accidental — whether we understand their particular designs or not.

When all factors are considered, the fact that the Gospel writers recorded the words of Christ in slightly variant forms is of no negative consequence.