Q:   Why does some of the information in the gospels differ from each other regarding the same occasions?

A:   Another feature which attests to the authenticity of Scripture is its unity. Even though the same events are often recorded by different writers at different times and from different perspectives, the texts are never in irresolvable conflict and can always be harmonized. This diversity is to be expected if the documents are authentic; the unity is expected if they are inspired.

To illustrate, if three different people with different perspectives go to the same basketball game, they may all come away telling stories that are quite different from one another, though all true. For example, one person may go to the game having a particular interest in the facilities. When asked about his experience, he may say the parking was handy, the restrooms were clean, the food was a good value, and the arena was well designed. A second person attending the game may have a particular interest in the people. In his explanation of the event, he may say a diverse crowd of both young and old were in attendance, they were well behaved, and there were many security guards on duty. A third person attending the game may have actually been interested in the game. He might report which players had the best statistics, who was the game winner, and what was the final score. A fourth person also in attendance after hearing the reports of the other three attendees might report also his observations of the event, filling in some gaps left by the others. We would not jump to the conclusion that these reports are in conflict. To understand the truth about what happened at the basketball game, we simply need to harmonize the reports.

This is exactly how the gospels came to be written. It seems apparent that each of the writers had a special purpose and method to their writing. Some have suggested that Matthew may have written particularly from the perspective of fulfilled prophecy. Often after recording an event, Matthew writes to the effect, "...this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophets...." It seems that Mark wrote his gospel from the perspective of the Gentiles. He frequently takes the space to explain Jewish words and customs and makes few references to Old Testament prophecy. John seems to write his gospel more from a spiritual perspective than the physical. In his account, the divine attributes of Christ are deeply developed. Many miracles are reported in detail, attesting to the divine character of Christ. However, Luke is like that fourth man attending the basketball game filling in the gaps with his report. Luke explains that "as many have undertaken to compile an account,... it seemed fitting for me as well." Luke's intention was not to simply write that which the others had already written but rather that we "might know the exact truth..." (Luke 1:1-4).

These were real men who were a real part of real history. Therefore, we would expect that their stories would bear this natural diversity. However, as they claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, we should also see unification of their message within their diversity. Thus, just as we would be comfortable to combine and harmonize the reports of attendees at a basketball game, so would we do for the gospel writers.

The number of differences in the accounts are too numerous to address individually. Many are brought out by skeptics who would be quick to assume that a contradiction exists in order to discredit the inspiration of the Scriptures. However, if there is a possible and reasonable explanation for an apparent discrepancy, the person of faith is ready to accept it. The fact is, even the most difficult discrepancies have very plausible explanations, and it is not a great stretch to harmonize the texts.

One of the favorite alleged discrepancies among the skeptics is that Matthew and Mark say that the thieves who were crucified with Jesus also cast insult upon Him, but Luke states that one was penitent and rebuked the other for mocking. This apparent contradiction is easily explained. It seems clear that the penitent thief knew about Christ's teachings and believed in Him. Even so, it is not unreasonable to think that, in the heat of the moment, this thief lashed out but later felt remorse as he suffered himself and observed Christ's humility through the ordeal. Peter was in this same condition: a faithful believer denying Christ in one moment and quickly repenting thereafter (Matthew 26:75). The thief could have done the same. The crucified victims hung upon their crosses for several hours, and it is very likely that at the earliest part of that time, both thieves railed at Christ, but at a later hour, only one. Because two of the writers omit from their records that one thief later had a change of heart does not mean that they affirm it did not happen. Likewise, because Luke omits that the penitent thief earlier also railed at Christ does not mean that Luke affirms it did not happen. Therefore, the three accounts can be harmonized; all are true, and there is no contradiction. This is one of the most glaring apparent discrepancies between the accounts, but a plausible explanation is easily reasoned.

Only when we combine the entire inspired writings of scripture in a harmonious way do we "know the exact truth," as Luke expressed it.

Such apparent discrepancies are fairly common in Scripture. We see this happening not only in the gospel accounts but also regarding events recorded in the books of the Kings and Chronicles and the Prophets. Moreover, some of Paul's reports made in his epistles are to be harmonized with Luke's account of the same events in the book of Acts. Again, these things have an answer for harmony and unity, and they also have a way of signifying the authenticity of the documents. These were real historians giving real reports of what really happened from their viewpoints, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for your questions.