There are definitely differences in the three accounts of Jairus’s daughter being raised from the dead, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. But do these differences blind us to the central truth of the story?
Let’s see if we can explain the differences reasonably. We may not satisfy the hostile critic who shouts “contradiction!” at every turn or the brittle reader whose faith easily snaps in two at the differences, but maybe we can explain things to honest seekers or semi-friendly and even friendly readers of the Gospels.
The overarching explanation is very simple.
The translations are mine. If you don’t read Greek, scroll past the bottom of the tables. For more translations, go to biblegateway.com.
This post is long because I quote the three accounts and include the Greek. So please be patient. I also quote respectful commentators who see the versions as complementary. The differences are merely literary for theological purposes. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.
Now let’s begin.
| Jesus Raises Up Jairus’s Daughter | ||
| Matthew 9:18-19, 23-26 | Mark 5:21-24a, 35-43 | Luke 8:40-42a, 49-56 |
| 18 While he was saying these things, look! One of the rulers came and fell before him and said, “My daughter just now died. However, when you come and place your hand on her, she will also live!” 19 So Jesus got up and followed him, and his disciples did too.
[…] 23 Jesus came up to the ruler’s house, and when he saw the flute-players and the crowd making a racket, 24 he began to say, “Go away! For the girl has not died, but she is sleeping!” Then they ridiculed him. 25 But when the crowd was shooed out, he entered and took her hand, and the girl got up. 26 Then this report went out into that entire land. |
21 After he crossed back to the other side in a boat, a huge crowd gathered to him, and he was alongside the lake. 22 One of the synagogue rulers, by the name of Jairus, came and saw him and fell at his feet. 23 He pleaded with him earnestly, saying, “My little daughter is at her end. Come and place your hands on her, so that she may be healed and live. 24 He departed with him.
[…] 35 While he was still speaking, they came from the synagogue ruler’s household, saying, “Your daughter has died. Why bother the teacher anymore?” 36 But Jesus, ignoring the spoken message, said to the synagogue ruler, “Don’t fear, only believe!” 37 He did not allow anyone to accompany him except Peter, James, and John (James’s brother). 38 They went into the synagogue ruler’s home and observed a big commotion and weeping and loud wailing. 39 Going in, he said to them, “Why are you distraught and weeping? The child has not died but is sleeping.” 40 They laughed him to scorn. But he shooed everyone outside and took the child’s father and mother and those with him and entered where the child was. 41 Taking the child’s hand, he said to her, “Talitha koum!” (This is interpreted as “Little girl,” I say to you, “arise!”) 42 Instantly the little girl stood up and walked around (for she was twelve years old). They were really, really stunned. 43 He gave them strict orders that no one should know this. Then he said to give her something to eat. |
40 While Jesus was returning, the crowd welcomed him, for all of them were waiting for him. 41 And look! a man whose name was Jairus came, and he was a synagogue ruler! He fell before the feet of Jesus and began to beg him to come into his house, 42a because his only daughter, about twelve years old, was dying.
[…] 49 While he was speaking, someone from the synagogue ruler’s household came said, “Your daughter has died. Don’t bother the teacher anymore.” 50 When Jesus heard, he responded to Jairus, “Don’t fear! Only believe, and she shall be saved! 51 After he got to the house, he did not permit anyone to go in with him, except Peter, John, and James and the child’s father and mother. 52 Everyone was weeping and mourning for her. But he said, “Don’t cry, for she has not died, but she is sleeping!” 53 Knowing she was dead, they began to laugh at him. 54 But he took her hand and called out, saying, “Child, get up!” 55 And her spirit returned and she instantly got up. He ordered something be given her to eat. 56 And her parents were stunned. But he ordered them to tell no one what had happened. ” |
| 18 Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς, ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλ’ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται.19 καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.
[…] 23 Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς αὐλητὰς καὶ τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον 24 ἔλεγεν· ἀναχωρεῖτε, οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν τὸ κοράσιον ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. 25 ὅτε δὲ ἐξεβλήθη ὁ ὄχλος εἰσελθὼν ἐκράτησεν τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, καὶ ἠγέρθη τὸ κοράσιον. 26 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ φήμη αὕτη εἰς ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην. |
21 Καὶ διαπεράσαντος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ [ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ] πάλιν εἰς τὸ πέραν συνήχθη ὄχλος πολὺς ἐπ’ αὐτόν, καὶ ἦν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν. 22 Καὶ ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων, ὀνόματι Ἰάϊρος, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ 23 καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ. 24 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ.
[…] 35 Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον; 36 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς παρακούσας τὸν λόγον λαλούμενον λέγει τῷ ἀρχισυναγώγῳ· μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε. 37 καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν οὐδένα μετ’ αὐτοῦ συνακολουθῆσαι εἰ μὴ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰακώβου. 38 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου, καὶ θεωρεῖ θόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας πολλά, 39 καὶ εἰσελθὼν λέγει αὐτοῖς· τί θορυβεῖσθε καὶ κλαίετε; τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. 40 καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλὼν πάντας παραλαμβάνει τὸν πατέρα τοῦ παιδίου καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ τοὺς μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰσπορεύεται ὅπου ἦν τὸ παιδίον. 41 καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ· ταλιθα κουμ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον· τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε. 42 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέστη τὸ κοράσιον καὶ περιεπάτει· ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἐξέστησαν [εὐθὺς] ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ. 43 καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἵνα μηδεὶς γνοῖ τοῦτο, καὶ εἶπεν δοθῆναι αὐτῇ φαγεῖν. |
40 Ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑποστρέφειν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπεδέξατο αὐτὸν ὁ ὄχλος· ἦσαν γὰρ πάντες προσδοκῶντες αὐτόν. 41 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν, καὶ πεσὼν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας [τοῦ] Ἰησοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, 42a ὅτι θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέθνῃσκεν.
[…] 49 Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχεταί τις παρὰ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγων ὅτι τέθνηκεν ἡ θυγάτηρ σου· μηκέτι σκύλλε τὸν διδάσκαλον. 50 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀκούσας ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ· μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευσον, καὶ σωθήσεται. 51 ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν οὐκ ἀφῆκεν εἰσελθεῖν τινα σὺν αὐτῷ εἰ μὴ Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάννην καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ τὸν πατέρα τῆς παιδὸς καὶ τὴν μητέρα. 52 ἔκλαιον δὲ πάντες καὶ ἐκόπτοντο αὐτήν. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· μὴ κλαίετε, οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. 53 καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπέθανεν. 54 αὐτὸς δὲ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς ἐφώνησεν λέγων· ἡ παῖς, ἔγειρε. 55 καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῆς καὶ ἀνέστη παραχρῆμα καὶ διέταξεν αὐτῇ δοθῆναι φαγεῖν. 56 καὶ ἐξέστησαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτῆς· ὁ δὲ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν τὸ γεγονός. |
Comments
The first thing to note is the obvious. Matthew’s version is much, much shorter than those of Mark and Luke. This abbreviation will go a long way to explain the differences between his account and theirs. His editorial choice is literary, not historical. That is, the sequence of events is how Mark and Luke present them, while Matthew trims them. He even edits out Jairus’s name and the fact that the girl was only twelve years old! And he omits the messenger from Jairus’s household. It is hard to believe that his literary, editorial choices should be slammed as a formal (or even an informal) contradiction.
Jairus’ Daughter in Three Gospels: Do the Differences DESTROY the Truth of the Story?
In my own translation and commentary on Matthew, I came to nickname him “the Trimmer,” for he trims out many details or tightens them up. He condenses the story elements. If Matthew did not hesitate to do this, why should I fret about it? I’m not an inerrantly inspired interpreter, but Matthew was an inerrantly inspired writer. I follow his lead.
In his commentary on Matthew, Craig Blomberg answers the criticism that there is a contradiction between Matthew and Mark and Luke:
As consistently throughout his Gospel (and esp. with miracle stories), Matthew abbreviates Mark, this time to such an extent that he seems to contradict the parallel accounts (Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56). Instead of coming to plead with Jesus while his daughter is still alive, Jairus apparently arrives only after her death. Yet to call this a contradiction is anachronistically to impose on an ancient text modern standards of precision in story telling. What is more, in a world without modern medical monitors to establish the precise moment of expiry, there is not nearly so much difference between Matthew’s arti eteleutēsen in v. 18 (which could fairly be translated “just came to the point of death”; cf. Heb 11:22) and eschatos echei in Mark 5:23 (which could also be rendered “is dying”). What is important is not the precise moment of death but Jairus’s astonishing faith. On any interpretation, this influential religious leader believes that Jesus can miraculously reclaim his daughter’s life. (Comment on 9:18-19)
So the verb tense and meaning is significant. “To the point of death” as opposed to “is dying.” Precision as to the timing is not the point here. Blomberg is right to teach us what the main lesson from the passage (what we can call the central or main truth) is. It is Jairus’s faith, even when confronted with his dying daughter. (For me, it is also Jesus’s Sonship and Messiahship.) We must not miss the forest (bigger picture) because of the trees (micro-analysis).
In his commentary on Luke, Darrel L. Bock, who teaches at theologically conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, also replies to the accusation that there is a sequential, historical contradiction. He writes:
Some argue that Matt. 9:18 disagrees with Mark 5:23, which speaks of the daughter being “at the end,” and also disagrees with Luke in that Matthew has Jairus announce his daughter’s death at the beginning of the account, a death that has just occurred (ἄρτι, arti) […]. But this is more of a literary issue than a real problem […]. Matthew, as he has before, telescopes the account and does not narrate any report by the envoys. Because he lacks this detail, he does not report the death in two stages. Such telescoping occurs often in Matthew throughout this section (Matt. 8:5-13, 28-34). Mark 5:23 agrees with Luke in rendering the sequence of events, though Mark uses a slang expression to point out that she is near death [“has reached the end” or “she has an end”] The difference between Matthew and the other accounts is a matter of literary choice, since most recognize either that Matthew knew a version like Mark’s or that Mark would have known Matthew. (vol. 1, pp.792-93)
Translation: For literary reasons and his own style, Matthew edits out and condenses the story elements. This is what Prof. Bock means by “telescoping.” It is more of a literary choice than an historical or sequential problem.
In his commentary on Luke, Leon Morris agrees with Prof. Bock, though Morris is much more succinct. He says:
Luke does not mention any request [for healing] but a plea is clearly implicit in Jairus’s words. Mark says that he asked Jesus to lay hands on her for healing. But the real problem lies with Matthew, who gives Jairus’s words as “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hands on her, and she will live.” This is probably to be explained, not as contradicting Mark and Luke, but as arising from the very abbreviated character of Matthew’s account. The other two speak first of Jairus coming to Jesus and telling him that his daughter was at the point of death. Later there came a messenger with word that the girl had died. Matthew shortens the story by running both into one. (p.177).
Thus, the best explanation for the differences is that this is the story teller’s prerogative, the dramatist’s art. He edits his story to fit his style and purposes. Ancient Greek and Roman biographers did the same things, and so did the OT authors.
Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels
Now where were the crowds when Jesus enters the house and says, “Do not weep”? Who is wailing? Who is laughing if only five are in the house?
Joel Green writes in his commentary on Luke:
This confusion is resolved when it is realized that the narrator has again reorganized his account for dramatic effect, ordering the events outside of chronological time so as to focus separately on two distinct discourses. One is concerned with Jesus’ response to the crowd gathered to mourn the passing of the daughter of Jairus and his wife. [the laughter is not joy over salvation, but mockery. To counter this, Jesus replies that the girl is merely sleeping]
[…] The other discourse is centered on the girl and her parents, with the three disciples invited only as witnesses. First, Jesus crosses the boundary between life and death, between purity and impurity, by taking the girl’s hand and commanding her to rise. The effect is immediate. [then the crowd responded with astonishment] (pp. 350-51)
What Dr. Green says about this account is that Luke wants the crowd and the girls’ parents to learn about Jesus’s proclamation of the gospel and healing. The literary point is that the Gospel writers gave themselves permission to reorder the data to fit their literary and theological purposes. They did not follow strict chronology with exactitude. Let’s not turn these deliberate literary and theological differences into contradictions in reality. That’s a very uninformed and clunky interpretation–and I say a hostile one.
One last point about the details: Luke alone inserts the element that the girl was an only child. But does this mean she was not the only child, and Luke invented a fiction? No. It means that Luke adds this true detail to add poignancy to the story, though it is often difficult to surmise why other Gospel writers omit such things.
Here is one probable reason for Luke to include this data point. Recall that Luke arrived in Jerusalem as part of Paul’s team in Acts 21:17 (“When we arrived at Jerusalem” …). No doubt he had access to another tradent or traditioner who filled him in about the girl’s story. For all we know, he may have interviewed Jairus or his wife or someone who knew the family or the resurrected girl herself, all grown up! It is a sure thing that he interviewed numerous people or read some earliest documents.
So what is the central truth of the three stories? Mark and Luke allude to it when Jesus orders them not to tell anyone. It is the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus.
One sign of the Messianic Age was the healing of diseases and broken bodies. Isaiah 35 describes this age. After God comes with a vengeance to rescue his people, these things will happen:
“Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy” (Is. 35:5-6).
Isaiah 26:19 says of the Messianic Age: “But your dead will live, LORD, their bodies will rise—let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout with joy” (Is. 26:19, NIV, emphasis added).
The phrase “in that day” refers to the age that the Messiah ushers in: “In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll and out of gloom and darkness the eyes will see” (Is. 29:18, NIV).
The Lord’s Chosen Servant will do many great things. Here are some: “I am the LORD: I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for my people, a light for the nations, to open they eyes that are blind, to bring the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness” (Is. 42:6-7, ESV). Isaiah 42:18 connects hearing and seeing with walking in God’s ways, and deafness and blindness with national judgment. As for leprosy, Jesus referred to the time when Elijah the prophet healed Namaan the Syrian of his skin disease, and the return of Elijah was a sign that the Messiah was here (Mal. 4:5-6; Luke 9:28-36).
The Messiah, the Son of God, has come. His mission was to put things right. He ushered in a new era.
For other possible reasons why Jesus issued the command not to tell anyone, please see this link at this website and scroll down to v. 43:
Conclusion and Recommendation
The differences in the three versions are literary and theological. It is obvious how much Matthew trims out and condenses and streamlines, when the three accounts are placed side-by-side. It is ham-fisted to accuse him of contradictions. He did not see things that way. Call it the dramatist’s or story teller’s narrative art.
This would be a contradiction:
1.. Jesus raised the girl from the dead.
2.. He did not raise her from the dead.
But that’s not what’s happening here.
An account having information, while another account covering the same broad topic does not have the same information in the details do not add up to a contradiction. (Luke: she was an only child. Matthew and Mark: they omit this datum; Matthew omits the messenger, while Mark and Luke has this.) A difference, yes, but not a contradiction, particularly when the differences can be reconciled or reasonably explained.
Contradictions are not found in these simple equations:
Information in one account + Silence in another account ≠ Contradiction
Boiled down:
Information + Silence ≠ A Contradiction
But
Information + Silence = A Difference
Or
Information + An omission = A Difference
A Difference ≠ A Contradiction ≠ An Error
No words cannot contradict words.
Differences are guided by the purpose of the biblical authors. Or we may not know why an author omits or includes bits of information. Whatever the case, we should not get panicky about this or deny the truthfulness of the accounts. This mindset is too fussy and demanding, not recognizing the texts as they present themselves. We unwisely impose our modern concerns on them.
In this post, in those three accounts, however, the central truth of the three stories is that Jesus raised up a girl–the parents’ only daughter, says Luke alone, to add poignancy–from the dead and astonished the crowds and made her parents very happy. In working this miracle, he demonstrated that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, who has come to put things right.
You may add elements to that list, if you wish. To find the gist, place the three stories side-by-side and write out the common elements. If they appear in all three, then that’s the gist or essence of the story. Matthew’s omission of the messenger may or may not be included in your list because this element appears in two out of the three Gospels (Mark and Luke). In comparison, Matthew edited out messengers who are not disciples in the story about healing the centurion’s servant, while Luke includes two sets of messengers (see Matt. 8:5-13 // Luke 7:1-10).
Did the Centurion or His Emissaries Approach and Speak to Jesus?
Many postmodern critics read these ancient documents in bad faith, believing that the authors were liars and plagiarists (I have heard them on youtube and in various comment sections.) The critics employ no subtlety or finesse and look for ways to put these ancient texts down. It seems they belong to their own hyper-skeptical age and may not even know it. Sometimes I also detect a sneering attitude in them.
For you, the Christian, in contrast, you should not drink too deeply of the Postmodern Age. Be reasonable in your reading of the Gospels and the entire Bible. Your faith should not be so brittle that it snaps in two when you read the differences in those three versions. You can grasp the gist–the main truth–of the story about Jairus’s daughter, regardless of Matthew’s abbreviations and the other small differences between the three accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. God inerrantly inspired men, not androids.
They were following OT precedence:
Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels
Don’t turn little molehills into unclimbable mountains. And don’t allow hostile critics of the Gospels, who are the ones who build mountains out of nothing, to influence you. Either look for answers (at this website or elsewhere) or ignore the critics, if you are not ready for them.
I choose to be a reasonable, friendly reader. I choose to glean the central truth of each passage under examination. I don’t panic when differences emerge.
I’m glad the Gutenberg printing press was invented only in the mid-1400s, long after the NT documents were eventually written down. Now we can read the oral traditions behind the Gospels. They live and breathe and pulsate with the truth of the main storyline. Jesus’s interaction with all sorts of people and the Gospel writers’ narratives about this interaction feel authentic to me. I celebrate these stories and their differences and similarities.
Authentic. True. Inerrant.
Recommendations
My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy”:
‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?
Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:
15.. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion
See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective:
13.. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?
The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:
14.. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
Celebrate them, as well.
Did the Centurion or His Emissaries Approach and Speak to Jesus?
SOURCES
For the bibliographies, please click on these links and scroll down to the bottom:
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 