by Peter Kozushko
Bart Ehrman is indeed correct in pointing out discrepancies in the Gospels. The differences in the way they recount the life and teachings of Jesus are significant, and some of these variations can be difficult to reconcile. However, the existence of discrepancies in the Gospels, while acknowledged, does not necessarily undermine the reliability or divine inspiration of the biblical texts.
Let us examine some of the key examples Ehrman highlights.
First, consider the baptism of Jesus. In all three Synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—we read that after Jesus emerges from the water, the heavens open, the Spirit descends upon him like a dove, and a voice speaks from heaven. Yet, the words spoken by this voice differ. In Mark (1:11) and Luke (3:22), the voice says, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased,” as if addressing Jesus directly. In Matthew (3:17), however, the voice proclaims, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” as though addressing the surrounding crowd. Furthermore, in some earlier manuscripts of Luke, the voice appears to quote Psalm 2:7: “You are my beloved Son; today I have begotten you.”
Next, consider the story of Jairus’ daughter. In Mark (5:21-43) and Luke (8:40-56), Jairus implores Jesus to heal his daughter, who is on the verge of death. While Jesus is on his way to Jairus’ house, messengers arrive to report that the girl has died. Jesus then proceeds to the house and raises her from the dead. In Matthew’s account (9:18-26), however, the narrative shifts. Here, Jairus approaches Jesus not to heal his daughter but to resurrect her, as she is already dead. Was Jesus asked to heal or resurrect?
The number of witnesses at the empty tomb presents another point of divergence. Luke (24:10) records that at least five women came to the tomb, while Mark (16:1) mentions three, Matthew (28:1) two, and John (20:1) only one. Likewise, the time of the women’s arrival differs. According to John (20:1), the women arrived while it was still dark. Matthew (28:1) and Luke (24:1) say it was at dawn, whereas Mark (16:2) reports that the sun had already risen. These differences are further compounded by the nature of the messengers at the tomb—whether they were men, angels, or both, and whether they were seen inside or outside the tomb.
Given these significant discrepancies, how can we maintain that the Gospels are historically reliable? How can we accept them as inspired and inerrant when they seem to diverge on such fundamental details? For over a century, scholars like Ehrman have argued that these differences are clear evidence that the Gospels cannot be viewed as reliable historical sources about Jesus and that they most certainly cannot be considered the inspired Word of God.
But is this conclusion warranted?
There are several important points to consider when addressing this issue.
First, most of the discrepancies that Ehrman highlights are not as problematic as he presents them to be. While a few are indeed challenging to reconcile, many have plausible explanations that Ehrman chooses to ignore or downplay. In presenting only one side of the argument and emphasizing the inconsistencies, Ehrman commits the logical fallacy of stacking the deck. His rapid-fire listing of discrepancies is rhetorically powerful but ultimately less persuasive once the full range of scholarly responses is considered. For instance, harmonizing accounts such as the time the women arrived at the tomb may seem difficult at first, but understanding the flexible narrative conventions of the time can offer credible solutions.
Second, the awareness of these discrepancies is not a recent development, nor is Ehrman uncovering a hidden truth. The early Church Fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, were fully aware of these textual variations and addressed them in their writings. Augustine’s The Harmony of the Gospels remains a significant work on this topic. Far from being a stumbling block to their faith, these scholars remained staunch defenders of biblical inspiration and reliability. Even during the Reformation, prominent theologians like John Calvin addressed these issues in their commentaries, yet they upheld the authority of Scripture. This awareness continued into modern scholarship, where figures like B. B. Warfield, who played a key role in formulating the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, acknowledged that these discrepancies did not undermine the overall trustworthiness of the biblical text.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, Ehrman’s critique is not so much an attack on the Bible itself as it is a critique of a particular view of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. Ehrman operates under the assumption that inerrancy means absolute precision in every detail, particularly in matters of history and science. He further assumes that this is the view held by all Bible-believing Christians. However, this is not necessarily the case. As articulated in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the Bible is affirmed to be entirely truthful and reliable in all that it asserts, but this does not mean that it conforms to modern standards of accuracy or precision, especially in areas like historical detail. In fact, the Chicago Statement explicitly denies that discrepancies, when understood within their cultural and literary context, negate the truth claims of Scripture.
To conclude, while the discrepancies in the Gospels are real and merit attention, they do not pose an insurmountable challenge to the reliability or inspiration of Scripture. Scholars, both ancient and modern, have recognized and addressed these issues without abandoning their confidence in the Gospels as trustworthy accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. As I will point out in an upcoming essay, when understood within the conventions of ancient historiography and the nature of oral tradition, these variations make sense and do not detract from the core message of the Gospels. Rather than undermining faith, a deeper understanding of these issues should strengthen our confidence in the enduring truth of Scripture.
Key Sources in order of importance:
---------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.
Sproul, R.C. Explaining Inerrancy. Orlando: Ligonier Ministries, 1996.
Nicole, Roger R. and Michaels, J. Ramsey, eds. Inerrancy and Common Sense. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. See esp. Roger Nicole’s essay, The Nature of Inerrancy, pp. 71-95.
Warfield, Benjamin. B. “The Real Problem of Inspiration.” In The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, edited by Samuel G. Craig. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1951, p. 219-220.
________. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948.
Packer, J.I. Fundamentalism and the Word of God. Leicester: The Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1958.
Harrison, Everette F. “Criteria of Biblical Inerrancy,” in Readings in Christian Theology. ed. Millard J. Erickson, vol. 1, 3 vols. The Living God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.
Origin. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Books 1-10. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Volume 80 of The Fathers of the Church. Washington DC: The Catholic University of American Press, 1989.
Augustine. The Harmony of the Gospels. In Saint Augustin: Sermon on the Mount, Harmony of the Gospels, Homilies on the Gospels, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by S.D. F. Salmond. Vol. 6 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. First Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888.
Peter Kozushko (DMIN Acadia University) is Senior Associate Pastor of Countryside Community Church, Sherwood OR.
-----
Related Resources
Plausible Solutions to Gospel Discrepancies by Peter Kozushko
Mind the gap: the role of eyewitness testimony, orality, and memory in the development of the Gospel tradition – Introduction. Kozushko's doctoral dissertation: