Doug Velting
Discrepancy, Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1: the quality or state of disagreeing or being at variance
2: an instance of disagreeing or being at variance
Skeptics love to criticize the Gospels’ account of history because they claim that discrepancies found in the writings from one Gospel to another prove these historical accounts incorrect.
They assert that the history found in the first four books of the New Testament is not trustworthy and therefore should not be taken seriously. For example:
- The four Gospels tell us that Mary was the first person to see Jesus after His resurrection, but 1 Corinthians 15:5 tells us that Peter was the first witness.
- In Mark 26:4-5, the women went to the tomb and “saw a young man clothed in a white robe sitting on the right side”. However, in Matthew 28:3, an angel was there with a garment “as white as snow”. Luke 24:4 states, “Two men suddenly appeared to them, clothed in dazzling robes.”
Do these apparent discrepancies destroy the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels?
No, and here’s why.
Yes, there are puzzling things in the historical accounts found in the four Gospels, but skeptics should not assume that these difficulties undermine the trustworthiness of what was written.
It is generally accepted that the makeup of the Gospels is ancient Greco-Roman biography. This style of writing allows numerous authors some measure of flexibility in writing about events that have happened in the past. In other words, different writers don’t meet for coffee to make sure their written articles match word for word. Different writers have their own way of presenting the facts.
Take Luke as an example: he uses a technique called “telescoping,” in which time is compressed to simplify the reporting of what he investigated. Specifically, he compresses the time of the resurrection, the people who saw Jesus and his ascension in a way that could be interpreted that these events all happened on Easter Sunday.
But John chooses a different style of reporting what happened and writes that they occurred over a longer period. Is this a discrepancy? No, Luke’s compression was an accepted stylistic way of writing in the Greco-Roman biographies.
People who are familiar with historical and journalist writings have concluded that the apparent discrepancies encourage the trustworthiness of the Gospels and support their reliability. One of the Gospel writers may focus on a certain area, guided by the Holy Spirit, whereas another writer may dig a little deeper in another direction, again guided by the Holy Spirit.
Historians, when studying numerous writings of any past events will look for items that are in agreement, the common links in all of the writings. However, skeptics focus on supposed discrepancies. The core events in all of the gospels match perfectly even if some of the minor details differ. This doesn’t discredit the reliability at all, but knowing historical and journalistic writings affirms it.
For more information on why the variation among the Gospels matters, see J. Warner Wallace’s article: How Detectives Read the Gospels.
