Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Do Differences in the Gospel Narratives Undermine Belief in Jesus' Resurrection?

I read the Gospel According to Matthew, the Gospel According to Mark, and the Gospel According to John when I was still an atheist. (I didn't read the Gospel According to Luke until after I became a Christian.) Obviously, I didn't believe in the divine inspiration of the texts. But something in the gospels made me start examining them more closely.

When I was an atheist, I was convinced that Jesus' followers invented the story of his resurrection in order to make sure that his message would continue to spread after his death. I believed that the four gospels were thus part of a conspiracy on the part of the disciples. As I read the gospels, however, I noticed a number of differences in various stories, including the resurrection accounts.

Many atheists today point to these differences as some kind of evidence that the resurrection never happened. But I took the differences as evidence that I was dealing with independent historical sources, all of which affirmed Jesus' resurrection. Since I could no longer believe that the disciples sat down and conspired to produce the gospels, I had to start wondering if they might be more reliable than I once thought.


  1. No, the differences like modern day eyewitnesses to an accident or crime show that each witness saw the event from a different perspective and it affected each in a different way. Had they all been the same it would have shown collusion. However all agree the accident or crime took place. And all the Biblical witnesses show the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real event.

  2. what an eye opener, thanks for this I quite agree with you bro David.