The Alleged Discrepancies in Gospel Accounts
A typical objection caused by superficial reading of Gospels
One objection against the validity of Christian claim that Jesus resurrected from the death is that Gospels give different accounts on Jesus' resurrection. It is even said that they are contradictory reports. Those who say this are reading Gospels quite superficially. I have compared these accounts and I do not see any contradictions in them. What we have to be clear on one thing is that these accounts are divergent and mutually complementary, but not contradictory. This fact more points to their reliability, since we should expect that different eyewitness (or sources), who report simply what they have experienced, wrote them. Such an objection is actually the thing that made me to take reports of Resurrection quite seriously. The difficulty of harmonizing all the details in the four gospels accounts attests rather to the writers calling it as they (or their sources) saw it. If these reports were fabricated lies then we would instead have not such divergences in their accounts.
Before I answer the question about the alleged discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, I would ask you to note an important and interesting thing. If it is true that gospel writers had fabricated the story, well why is there no window dressing, which one would normally expect to accompany an event of this magnitude. As the Jewish scholar, Pinchas Lapide, writing from a Jewish perspective, states:
Nowhere is the event designated as a "miracle," as an event of salvation, or as a deed of God, a fact which tends to support the plausibility of the report for the disinterested reader. We do not read in the first testimonies of an apocalyptic spectacle, exorbitant sensations, or of the transforming impact of a cosmic event.
According to all New Testament reports, no human eye saw the resurrection itself, no human being was present, and none of the disciples asserted to have apprehended, let alone understood, its manner and nature. How easy it would have been for them or their immediate successors to supplement this scandalous hole in the concatenation of events by fanciful embellishments! But precisely because none of the evangelists dared to "improve upon" or embellish this unseen resurrection, the total picture of the gospels also gains in trustworthiness.
This is a remarkable statement by one who has no Christian axe to grind.
What legend-monger would ascribe the first interview with the risen Christ to Mary Magdalene, a woman of no great standing in the Christian church? Would he not have ascribed such an honor to Peter, the leading apostle; or to John, the "disciple whom Jesus loved"; And who can read the story of the appearance to Mary Magdalene, or to the incident in which the risen Christ appeared to two disciples on Easter Day on an afternoon walk to Emmaus, or to the episode in which Peter and John raced each other to the tomb, and seriously conclude that these are legends? They are far too dignified and restrained; far too true to life and psychology. The difference between them and the sort of stories recorded in the Gnostic gospels of a century or two later is both striking and significant. Think also about the honesty regarding disciples' failures.
What is the significance that NT is written in the 1st century? The NT accounts of Jesus began to be circulated within the lifetimes of those alive at the times of his life. These people could certainly confirm or deny the accuracy of the accounts. In advocating their case for the gospel, the apostles had appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning Jesus. They not only said, "Look, we saw this"; or, "We heard that"; but in addition they turned the tables around and right in front of adverse critics said, "You also know about these things ... You saw them, you yourselves know about it." One had better be careful when he says to his opposition, "You know this also," because if he isn't right in the details, it will be shoved right back down his throat.
"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as yourselves know." (Acts 2:22)
The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strongest points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, "We are witnesses of these things"; but also, "As you yourselves know." Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.
Eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged.
At the time the synoptic gospels were written or may be supposed to have been written, there were eyewitnesses and their testimony was not completely disregarded. This means that the gospels must be regarded as largely reliable witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed - the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confession of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. More importantly, these simple facts refute the idea about the mythical character of Gospels, since such element of honesty is alien in myths. Neither myths nor fabricated lies depict something which could discredit them.
I wish that you read my another article on the historical reliability of Gospel accounts by following below link.
The external evidences and considerations for the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts .
Owing to the condensed and somewhat fragmentary nature of these several narratives, and their neglect of strict chronological sequence, they present some difficulties and apparent discrepancies. There is, however, not the least doubt that, if we knew all the circumstances of the case, those which we now know would be seen to fit perfectly into their appropriate places in the narrative. Moreover, it is to be remarked that no one of the Gospel writers gives, or intended to give, all the circumstances. Each selects those particulars which seemed to him most important, passing by intermediate incidents. (See how apparent discrepancies can occur by observing the Ebrard's case ).
The following summary of the case is given by Robinson (see Bibliotheca Sacra for Feb. 1845, pp. 187, 188)
At early dawn on the first day of the week, the women who had attended on Jesus, viz. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and others (there were two distinct parties of women; this fact relieves several difficulties) went out with spices to the sepulchre, in order further to embalm the Lord's body. They inquire among themselves, who should remove for them the stone which closed the sepulchre. On their arrival they find the stone already taken away; for there had been an earthquake, and an angel had descended and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it, so that keepers became as dead men for terror. The Lord had risen. The women knowing nothing of all this, are amazed; they enter the tomb, and find not the body of the Lord, and are greatly perplexed. At this time, Mary Magdalene impressed with the idea that the body had been stolen away, leaves the sepulchre and the other women, and runs to the city to tell Peter and John. (Peter and John appears to have lodged that night in a place separate from the other apostles. Grieschbach thinks that the apostles at this time were scattered throughout the city among those who were friendly to their cause). The rest remain in the tomb, and immediately two angels appear, who announce unto them that Jesus was risen from the dead, and give them a charge in his name for the apostles. They go out quickly from the sepulchre, and proceed in haste to the city to make this known to the disciples. On the way, Jesus meets them, permits them to embrace his feet, and renews the same charge to the apostles. The women relate these things to the disciples; but their words seem to them as idle tales; and they believed them not.
Meantime, Peter and John had run to the sepulchre; and entering in had found it empty; but the orderly arrangement of the grave-clothes and of the napkin convinced John that the body had not been removed by violence or by friends; and the germ of a belief arises in his mind that the Lord had risen. The two returned to the city. Mary Magdalene, who had again followed them to the sepulchre, remained standing and weeping before it; and looking in she saw two angels sitting. Turning around, she sees Jesus, who gives to her also a solemn charge for his disciples.
It will be seen that this summary comprises nearly every incident mentioned by the four evangelists.
Now, let us see more in detail how many visitors were at the sepulchre. Observe (1) that no one of the evangelists denies that more women were present than those he mentions by name. John does not assert that Mary Magdalene only was present; in fact, he intimates the contrary, for he represents her as saying, in vs. 2, " We know not where they have laid him." Each writer seems, while not denying the presence of other persons, to single out one or more whom, for some reason, he mentions with particularity. This explanation of the case is perfectly reasonable, as the following illustration will evince. In the year 1824 Lafayette visited the United States, and was everywhere welcomed with honors and pageants. Historians will describe these as a noble incident in his life. Other writers will relate the same visit as made, and the same honors as enjoyed, by two persons, Lafayette and his son. Yet there will be no contradiction between these two classes of writers. No more is there between the evangelists relative to the number of women who visited the sepulchre.
Or (2) we may take the Gospel writers as referring to different points of time , each specifying the number present at the time to which he refers. There were two distinct parties of women (see Robinson's English Harmony, p. 181) - the Marys and their friends, and the Galilean women - who followed Jesus. Probably the women, having lodged among their friends in different parts of the city, and to avoid suspicion on the part of the Jews, would come by different paths to the sepulchre, and would not arrive at the same moment. We may, therefore, suppose that Mary Magdalene arrived first (so John); soon the other Mary arrives (so Matthew); then Salome comes (so Mark); finally, the "other women" make their appearance (so Luke). As we shall see hereafter, a hypothesis of this kind removes the difficulty as to the time of the visit to the tomb.
Ebrard thinks that Mary Magdalene - the only woman specified by John - came first and alone to the sepulchre. If so, she may have come "early, when it was yet dark"; while the other women did not arrive till "the rising of the sun." Or, of the two parties of women, Mary Magdalene with her friends may have come at the earlier, the others at the later time.
Otherwise in the loose popular sense, the expression "rising of the sun" may denote the early dawn , when the rays of the coming sun just begin to redden the east. Compare Judge 9:32,33.
"Now therefore up by night, thou and the people that is with thee, and lie in wait in the field: And it shall be, that in the morning, as soon as the sun is up, thou shalt rise early, and set upon the city."
Upon any of the above hypotheses, there is no discrepancy in the case.
|
