Gospel Accounts Apparent Divergences And Reliability

Author:

A study of apparent divergences in the Gospel accounts—with special focus on the angels at the tomb and Jesus’ “last words.” I use ESV as the English base and give key Greek terms in transliteration (NA28/UBS5). The aim is to show how differences ≠ contradictions, once we honor ancient literary conventions, authorial intent, and rigorous exegesis.

I) Exegesis

A. “How many angels at the tomb?”

Texts

  • Matthew 28:2–7: angelos (“an angel”) descends, rolls the stone, speaks to the women.

  • Mark 16:5–7: a neaniskos (“young man”) in a white robe inside the tomb speaks to the women. (Angelic figure in human form; cf. white garment.)

  • Luke 24:4–7: andres duo (“two men”) in dazzling apparel appear and speak.

  • John 20:11–13: Mary later sees two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had lain.

Language & syntax observations

  • “Two” vs “one”: “Two angels” (duo angeloi/andres duo) logically includes the reality that at least one angel was present. Matthew/Mark never say “only one”; there is no monos (“only”) or exclusive particle.

  • Mark’s neaniskos: descriptive of form/appearance, not species; context and whiteness align with an angelophany (cf. Luke’s “dazzling,” astraptousa).

  • Scene dynamics: The pericope spans multiple moments and arrivals (different women; Mary’s comings and goings; Peter/John’s visit). The evangelists select and spotlight different instants and speakers.

Plausible harmonized sequence (compressed):

  1. Pre-dawn: stone already rolled (Matt emphasizes the angelic act and guard reaction).

  2. Women approach; some enter (Mark foregrounds the principal speaker they encounter inside).

  3. Luke notes two angelic figures present at some point during the women’s encounter(s).

  4. Mary Magdalene, having separated and returned, later sees two angels (John 20:11–13).
    Selection/spotlighting explains why one writer mentions the speaker while another notes both present.

B. “What were Jesus’ ‘last words’?”

Texts (traditional “seven sayings,” combined across Gospels; order likely):

  1. “Father, forgive them…” (Luke 23:34) [text-critical bracket in some MSS, but widely received in conservative exegesis].

  2. “Today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43)

  3. “Woman, behold your son… Behold, your mother.” (John 19:26–27)

  4. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34)

  5. “I thirst.” (John 19:28)

  6. “It is finished.” (tetelestai, John 19:30)

  7. “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46)

Language & syntax observations

  • John 19:30 tetelestai (τετέλεσται): perfect indicative—“it has been brought to completion,” signaling accomplished mission.

  • Luke 23:46 cites LXX Ps 31:5 (“into your hands…”), fitting a final prayer of entrustment.

  • No evangelist states “the only last words were X.” Each selects climactic sayings in line with theological focus (e.g., John → completion; Luke → filial trust & forgiveness).

Coherence: “It is finished” and “Father, into your hands…” can be spoken seconds apart; one evangelist may highlight the consummation cry, another the final prayer. Different selection, not contradiction.

II) Theological Analysis

A. What counts as a contradiction?

A contradiction requires A and not-A asserted about the same event, in the same respect, at the same time.

  • “Two angels were present” vs “an angel spoke” are not contraries.

  • Reporting different sayings from the cross ≠ asserting that no other sayings occurred.

B. Inerrancy and authorial intent

Conservative inerrancy evaluates truthfulness relative to the authors’ communicative intent and accepted literary conventions (compression, paraphrase, selective detail, thematic ordering). The Gospels are trustworthy ancient bioi, not stenographic transcripts. Faithful paraphrase (ipsissima vox) and responsible selection are not errors; they are normal features of truthful ancient narration.

C. Arminian/Provisionist & Dispensational synthesis (with Reformed contrast)

  • Common ground: All conservative streams affirm inspiration and the factuality of the events.

  • Provisionist/Dispensational emphasis: The Spirit superintended diverse witnesses for complementary theological emphases within one coherent historical tapestry.

  • Reformed articulation: Often stresses authorial intention and genre; robust agreement that selection/arrangement does not impugn truth.
    Result: the differences serve theology (Christology, discipleship, fulfillment) without falsifying history.

III) Historical Context

A. Ancient biographical practice (Greco-Roman bios)

Ancient bioi typically:

  • Select representative episodes;

  • Compress or “telescopically” narrate;

  • Attribute speech to a principal speaker;

  • Paraphrase faithfully.
    The evangelists write as theological historians within these norms—guided by the Spirit (Luke 1:1–4; John 20:30–31).

B. Jewish forensic/eyewitness realism

Multiple eyewitnesses naturally highlight different salient details. “Undesigned coincidences” (accidental interlocking details) across the Gospels often explain one another (e.g., John’s note that it was still dark helps explain the women’s uncertainties; Luke’s “two” clarifies Mark’s single speaker).

IV) Focused Case Studies

1) Tomb angels: consistency checks

  • Mutual fit: Matthew’s outside/entrance emphasis and guard context; Mark’s inside focus on the speaker; Luke’s two establish minimum personnel; John’s two seen by Mary later inside.

  • No exclusivity claim: None says “only one angel was there.” If two were present, any author can truthfully report the one who spoke.

2) Cross sayings: consistency checks

  • Temporal proximity: “It is finished” (mission completion) followed by “Father, into your hands…” (final entrustment) harmonizes naturally.

  • Theological spotlight:

    • Matthew/Mark emphasize the scriptural cry of dereliction (Ps 22:1) → messianic fulfillment amid suffering.

    • Luke stresses forgiveness and filial trust.

    • John highlights fulfillment (“I thirst,” Ps 69:21) and completion (tetelestai).

V) Scholarly Insight (representative, conservative; no verbatim quotations)

  • Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007).

  • D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC Rev.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010); The Gospel according to John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).

  • Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

  • R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).

  • Darrell L. Bock, Luke (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).

  • John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

  • Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard, 2017).

  • Michael R. Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) — use discerningly; helpful on compositional devices without conceding error.

(For textual notes: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994], on Matt 24:36; Luke 23:34.)

VI) Practical Application

  1. Interpretive charity: Read each evangelist on his own terms—genre, audience, emphasis—before forcing harmonization.

  2. Harmonize responsibly: Prefer solutions that honor all the data (time-staging, selection, spotlighting).

  3. Apologetics: Differences are precisely the kind of undesigned variation that marks independent, truthful witnesses rather than collusion.

  4. Pastoral instruction: Teach believers to distinguish difference from discrepancy; model confidence in Scripture’s trustworthiness.

Summary Thesis

The Gospel differences in details (e.g., angels at the tomb, sayings from the cross) reflect normal, truthful ancient biographical practice—selection, compression, and spotlighting—not contradictions. When we respect authorial intent, literary convention, and the full set of texts, the accounts interlock rather than collide, and Scripture’s historical reliability and inerrancy stand intact.

If you’d like, I can produce a one-page harmonized Passion–Resurrection timeline (TSV or printable A4) with columns: Event | References | Greek term | Notes on selection/compression | Harmonization.

Categories: Difficult Passages