Can We Trust These Accounts?
“This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.”
— Acts 2:32
Over the course of this five-part series, we’ve examined the differences in the Gospel resurrection narratives—who went to the tomb, what they saw, to whom Jesus appeared, and how people responded. Now, we arrive at the central question:
Do these differences undermine the Gospel accounts—or are they exactly what we should expect from credible, independent, eyewitness testimony?
Skeptics claim the inconsistencies prove unreliability. But the closer we examine them, the clearer it becomes: the Gospels don’t collapse under scrutiny—they stand under it.
Do Differences Mean Contradictions?
Critics often present a false dilemma: if the Gospels aren’t identical, they must be unreliable. But this ignores how ancient biography worked.
As Craig S. Keener explains:
“Ancient biographers often arranged material thematically rather than chronologically, paraphrased freely, and tailored scenes for rhetorical emphasis. These were accepted conventions of truthful storytelling—not distortions.”¹
If the Gospel authors were inventing a story, they would have carefully synchronized details. Instead, we get diverse, independent voices—each highlighting different angles of the same extraordinary truth.
How Do Historians Evaluate Truth Claims?
Modern historians don’t demand airtight uniformity. They ask whether the reports meet criteria of historical authenticity—such as:
- Multiple attestation: Is the event recorded in more than one source?
- Embarrassment: Does the account include awkward or unlikely details?
- Enemy attestation: Do opponents of the movement acknowledge it?
- Transformation: Did belief in the event radically change the lives of those who claimed it?
The resurrection narratives meet all these criteria.
As Gary Habermas observes:
“Even if you bracket inspiration or inerrancy, the resurrection accounts surpass the threshold of what professional historians look for in authentic tradition.”²
What Kind of Differences Do We See?
- Women at the tomb – Names and numbers vary, but all agree women were the first witnesses.
- Angels or men – Descriptions differ, but the core message is consistent: “He is not here, He has risen.” (In Scripture, angels often appear as humans in both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament.)
- Locations of appearances – Some in Jerusalem, some in Galilee—fitting the known travel patterns of Jesus’ disciples.
- Emotional responses – Fear, joy, doubt, and awe—all realistic and psychologically plausible.
Rather than undermining the message, these variations show we are reading testimony, not propaganda. These are the marks of authentic memory—natural divergences in detail that arise when multiple people recall and report a shared experience from different angles. In fact, the differences themselves are some of the strongest signs that the Gospel writers were not collaborating to manufacture a neat religious narrative.
Contrary to popular opinion, the evangelists clearly did not copy from one another like students cheating off a test. If they had, we’d expect a rigid, synchronized presentation—a carbon-copy storyline with identical characters, timelines, and dialogue. But that’s not what we find. Instead, we get varied yet converging accounts—each with unique emphases, details, and sequencing. Exactly what one would expect from first century eyewitnesses.
The skeptic cannot have it both ways. You can’t accuse the Gospel writers of fabrication and collusion while simultaneously criticizing them for inconsistencies or differences. If they were colluding, the inconsistencies wouldn’t exist. If they were inventing the story, they did a remarkably poor job sanitizing their work—and that, paradoxically, is exactly what gives it the ring of truth.
As J. Warner Wallace, a former cold-case homicide detective, observes:
“Eyewitnesses never agree on every detail. In fact, when they do, it’s a red flag. Real testimony always contains differences. That’s not evidence of deception. It’s evidence that you’re dealing with genuine, uncoached witnesses.”³
What we find in the resurrection accounts is not the sterile symmetry of invention—it’s the rough edges of reality. And when those edges align without being forced, we should lean in and listen more closely.
Richard Bauckham explains:
“The Gospels are not detached histories but remembered histories—rooted in eyewitness experience, passed through real memory, and shaped by real people.”⁴
Too Embarrassing to Be Fiction
The Gospel writers didn’t clean up their accounts. They left in all the awkward elements:
- Women as the first witnesses—in a society where their testimony wasn’t legally admissible
- Doubting disciples, including Thomas
- No early appearances to Jesus’ enemies, even though that would have made for a stronger apologetic
As Paul Rhodes Eddy notes:
“Forgeries are usually tidy. Truth, especially truth told by multiple people, is textured and occasionally messy.”⁵
What the Gospels All Agree On
Despite these differences, every Gospel proclaims five unshakable truths:
- Jesus died and was buried in a known tomb.
- The tomb was found empty by His followers.
- Multiple individuals and groups saw Him alive.
- The disciples were transformed from fear to boldness.
- This message began in Jerusalem, within weeks of His death.
These facts form the bedrock of the Resurrection claim. And they are not disputed even by skeptical scholars.
Gerd Lüdemann, a critic of Christian doctrine, nevertheless affirms:
“It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”⁶
The Early Creed Confirms It
Before any Gospel was written, 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 preserved a creed that scholars date to within 3–5 years of Jesus’ crucifixion. It reads:
“Christ died for our sins… he was buried… he was raised on the third day… and he appeared…”
This creed anchors the Gospel narratives in early eyewitness tradition, not legendary development. It is not only early—it is public. Paul writes to the Corinthians as if they could verify it for themselves.
And in fact, they could.
Corinth was a bustling port city, with regular movement between Judea and the Greco-Roman world (see: online Encylopaedia Britannica here.) It was entirely feasible that some of the over 500 eyewitnesses mentioned in the creed had traveled there—or that the Corinthians had met others who could confirm the claims.
Even more significantly, Paul names individuals whom the Corinthians would recognize and respect:
- Cephas (Peter) – known across the early churches and a key figure in the Jerusalem church
- James – the brother of Jesus and a prominent leader
- John – one of the original Twelve and referred to as a “pillar” in Galatians 2:9
These men were still alive in the years immediately following the resurrection and were available to verify or falsify Paul’s claims.
Moreover, we also know of several named individuals outside the Twelve who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus:
- Cleopas, one of the two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:18)
- Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas precisely because he had been with Jesus from the beginning and had witnessed the resurrection (Acts 1:21–22)
- The women at the tomb—Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and others (Luke 24:10)—who were the first to see the risen Christ and carried the message to the apostles
These names are not legendary. They’re historical markers that root the resurrection claims in the living memory of the earliest Christian community.
And this creed wasn’t just preserved in Paul’s letters. It shows up in the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament, including those of the Apostolic Fathers:
- Clement of Rome (c. AD 95) wrote that the apostles were “fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ” and sent forth by Him (1 Clement 42:3).
- Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 110) affirmed Jesus “truly rose from the dead” and appeared bodily to His disciples, including Peter (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2).
- Polycarp of Smyrna (c. AD 110–140) declared, “God raised Him up, having loosed the pangs of Hades” (Letter to the Philippians 2:1).
- Justin Martyr (c. AD 150) stated plainly that “He was crucified, died, and rose again… according to the Scriptures” (First Apology 13:4).
These figures didn’t receive their faith secondhand from distant rumors. They learned it directly from the apostles or their immediate companions. Their testimony, then, is not only consistent with Paul’s early creed—it is the living echo of eyewitness tradition passed on through trusted hands.
As N.T. Wright writes:
“This tradition is early, solid, and free from embellishment. It was not invented to make the Resurrection credible. It arose because the Resurrection had already changed everything.”⁷
Do the Gospels Contradict? Or Converge?
If the Gospels were identical in every detail, critics would accuse the authors of collusion. The very differences they object to are what make the testimonies credible.
- The core message is the same.
- The emotional range is authentic.
- The transformation of the disciples is undeniable.
As Raymond Brown observes:
“The Resurrection narratives are not easy to harmonize, but neither are they mutually contradictory. Together, they reflect the sincere effort of early Christians to describe an event that shattered their expectations and transformed their world.”⁸
The Resurrection Rings True
You don’t need flawless harmony to recognize truth. You need convergence, consistency, and credibility. The Gospel accounts offer all three.
Their differences are not errors. They are evidence that what we’re reading is eyewitness testimony, refracted through human memory, shaped by divine encounter.
So can we trust these accounts?
Yes. Because they don’t read like propaganda. They read like truth.
Truth remembered. Truth proclaimed. Truth that turned the world upside down.
If Jesus really rose from the dead, the Resurrection is not just an ancient claim—it is a personal summons.
The question is not whether these witnesses were flawed. The question is:
Will you believe them?
“What is remarkable is not that the Gospels differ on secondary points, but that they agree on the central facts: the burial, the empty tomb, the appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief.”⁹
Footnotes:
¹ Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019).
² Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
³ J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013).
⁴ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017).
⁵ Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).
⁶ Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
⁷ N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).
⁸ Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997).
⁹ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment