Q&A 0469 – A gospel contradiction?

I was scanning the different gospel accounts, trying to decide which one to use. An apparent "contradiction" appeared to me, involving the sequence of events (Jesus going to Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate, etc). So I dusted off an old book, A Harmony of the Gospels, by A.T. Robertson, and it seemed to help solve the dilemma. But as I continued reading through, I inadvertently discovered another one, this one giving me much more difficulty. In the NIV gospel accounts of Peter denying Jesus (Mark 14:54, 66-72; Matt 26:58, 69-75; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27) we see a servant girl confronting Peter first, and that is consistent with Matt, Mark, Luke, and John. The second denial is where I'm having some real trouble. In Mark 14:69, it seems to indicate that the same girl asked Peter again. In Matt. 26:71, it says "another girl," separate and distinct from the first. I looked at the Greek and the word "another" is there in the Matt account. So what's the deal? I guess what really makes me struggle is that this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. Is it a problem of Greek to English translation (and if so, what is the particular problem here?), or is it that the gospels really have contradicting accounts of the same events? I can understand different witnesses of the same events may notice different details about the events, but the inspired word of God clearly must not contain error, should it? I imagine I am not the first to struggle with this, so is there anyone that has figured this out yet, or a book on resolving such apparent contradictions? -- Michael Konomos

No, there is no translational issue here. Most English versions faithfully translate the Greek originals. This sort of discrepancy does not bother most readers, though for some it becomes highly problematic. We must ask, is this an error in doctrine? No, it is not. Is the error irresoluble? One can always posit that an error crept in early in the transmission history of the text. (After all, Christians do not believe our modern versions of the N.T. are perfect, or even the Greek copies, but only the originals, which are now lost.) I would actually go so far as to suggest that such discrepancies are exactly what one would expect if this is the word of God. Let me explain.

Rather than "smooth out" all inconsistencies, or apparent inconsistencies, the early Christians let all the difficult passages stand. They trusted God to take care of his word. (Unlike the Muslims, for example, they did not gather up all divergent texts and destroy them.) If you interviewed four eyewitnesses to, say, a car crash, what would you conclude if all four said exactly the same thing? If there were no minor differences? Would you not conclude that there had been collusion? In the same way, such small discrepancies, in my view, are the mark of authenticity. As in the case of signatures, where we find two that match identically, at least one is a forgery! Please think about that.

You were wise in the first instance to consult a gospel harmony, and I would like to refer you to some further reading, since you are obviously someone who appreciates books:

* Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible For all its Worth
* Gleason Archer, An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
* Norman Geisler, When Critics Ask

Also, you might take a look at Appendix C of my Compelling Evidence, on how to handle Bible "contradictions."

This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2004. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.