Did Gospel writers change Jesus' words?
It may come as a surprise to learn that writers of New Testament books adapted Jesus' sayings and stories to new situations. They did so in a number of cases.
One example is found in Jesus' story of the wise and foolish builders (compare Matthew 7:24-27 with Luke 6:47-49). Matthew's version spoke of building a house on rock versus sand. Perhaps writing for the Christian community in Palestine, Matthew most likely preserved Jesus' own words. Matthew's was what we might call a literal telling of the story.
Luke's version of the wise and foolish builders was drafted for a new audience. He compared building a house on a deep foundation or without one. Luke used a thought-for-thought equivalent for Jesus' original way of telling the story. He, in effect, interpreted what Jesus meant for a new audience.
New Testament critical scholar Marcus Borg says Matthew's version described construction methods in Palestine. In this area, he points out, "Building upon sand meant building in the middle of a dry and sandy stream bed (a wadi), which in the rainy season became a raging stream." On the other hand, Luke described building with or without a foundation. He reflected building techniques used outside of Palestine.
Matthew's version was clear in a Palestinian environment. Luke had to adapt the story for a broader Mediterranean audience.
Such examples show that the Gospel writers had divine license to adjust Jesus Christ's original wording. This allowed readers to understand the narratives more clearly.
The Gospel writers were "inspired interpreters of Jesus' teachings, and were not simply stenographers," says biblical scholar Robert Stein. Neither were they trying to transcribe word for word a tape-recorded message of what Jesus said. The Gospel writers were trying to capture meaning, not literal details. They were free to paraphrase Jesus' speeches, modify terms and add comments to help their readers understand his teachings.
Jesus gave his disciples wide latitude to expound his teachings (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18; 28:19-20). They could teach dynamically—even paraphrase and interpret—in Jesus' name because they were guided by the Holy Spirit to speak and write the truth (John 14:26; 16:13).
That's why we shouldn't insist on harmonizing every detail in the Gospels. That is the literalists' dilemma. Neither should we see differences in the accounts as hopeless contradictions. That's the bane of those who view the Bible only as a human-devised book.
As the word of a living God, the Bible is a dynamic book. It was written by human beings for human beings—clay jars for clay jars (2 Corinthians 4:7). God inspired humans to write, and when those words are read by people who are also enlightened by the Holy Spirit, the Bible's spiritual meaning is clear.