100 Reasons to Believe New Testament History
23. Discrepancies of the Correct Type
The four Gospels all report on the life and teachings of Jesus, and in many cases they describe the same events. But between the different authors, however, are many differences, and even when they describe the same events, there are often apparent disagreements concerning the details. Critics have been quick to point to such “contradictions” as evidence that the Bible is an unreliable witness to the historic Jesus. On the contrary, far from proving the New Testament unreliable, these differences among the Gospels in matters of detail are a mark of their essential trustworthiness.
If the Gospels reported on the same events using the exact same words, with no differences at all, then one could rightly suspect that there was really only one account, which was later parroted by the other biblical writers. Divergence in details among witnesses of the same event is precisely the mark of truthfulness that judges and attorneys look for in court witnesses A.
As it stands however, the Gospels differ among themselves in just the right places and extent to show they are independent works B. Furthermore, there is enough unanimity among these accounts to accept them as factual, eyewitness reports. The contradictions, therefore, under closer inspection, are really contrasting reports, which can and have been easily and reasonably be shown to harmonize with each other in a logically consistent way.
23. Discrepancies of the Correct Type - Notes and References
A. “…if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance, and that would have cast doubt on them.” Lee Strobel, “The Case for Christ”, Zondervan, 1998, p. 45
B. “There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction.” Simon Greenleaf, “The Testimony of the Four Evangelists”, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1984, vii, cited in Strobel, pp. 45-46
My own conviction is, once you allow for the elements I’ve talked about earlier – of paraphrase, of abridgment, of explanatory additions, of selection, of omission – the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it’s fair to judge them…If the gospels were too consistent, that in itself would invalidate them as independent witnesses. People would then say we only have really have only one testimony that everybody else is just parroting.” Craig L. Blomberg PH.D., interview with Lee Strobel, “The Case for Christ”, Zondervan, 1998, p. 45
“The frank and artless narratives of the Bible are so obviously indifferent to the appearance of consistency, and show so clearly that irregularity which is the sure mark of honest handwork in the Oriental rug and of spontaneity in human testimony, that they have often lured opponents into attempts at destructive cross-examination which have only brought the Bible’s truth and consistency into clearer light.” Irwin Linton, “A Lawyer Examines the Bible”, W.A. Wilde Company, 1943, p. 89
“Now, in historical researches, a reconciled inconsistency becomes a positive argument. First, because an imposter generally guards against the appearance of inconsistency; and secondly, because when apparent inconsistencies are found, it is seldom that anything but truth renders them capable of reconciliation. The existence of the difficulty proves the absence of that caution which usually accompanies the consciousness of fraud; and the solution proves that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preserved every circumstance in its place.” William Paley, “Horae Paulinae”, cited in Dave Hunt, “In Defense of the Faith”, Harvest House Publishers, 1996, p. 89