Are the Gospel Differences Contradictions? A Catholic Response

One of the most frequent objections raised against the reliability of the Gospels is this: how can we trust these documents if they contradict one another on basic historical details? Detractors point to variations in resurrection narratives—who went to the tomb, when they arrived, how many angels were present, and where Jesus appeared—as evidence that the Gospels are historically unreliable and, therefore, that Christianity's foundation crumbles under scrutiny.

I understand this concern. If these were contradictions in the truest sense—statements that directly oppose one another—then yes, we should be alarmed. But the objection often misunderstands both the nature of eyewitness testimony and the purpose of the Gospels. Let us walk through this critique, and then respond to it—honestly, rigorously, and with the humility that comes from seeing Scripture not merely as literature, but as divine self-revelation.

The Objection: Four Gospels, Four Stories

Let’s present the objection as clearly as possible. The critic says:

• Women at the Tomb: Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb (Mark 16:1–2); Matthew lists only “the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1); Luke adds Joanna and others (Luke 24:10); John mentions only Mary Magdalene (John 20:1).
• Heavenly Visitors: Was there one angel or two? Mark describes a young man in white (Mark 16:5), Matthew a descending angel (Matthew 28:2), Luke two men in dazzling clothes (Luke 24:4), and John two angels inside the tomb (John 20:12).
• Resurrection Appearances: Jesus appears to Mary alone in John, to a group in Matthew, to two disciples on the road in Luke, and in various forms in Mark 16:9–14.
• Instructions to the Disciples: Matthew says go to Galilee (Matthew 28:10), Luke and Acts say stay in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4), and John includes appearances in both places.
• Time of Crucifixion: Mark 15:25 says Jesus was crucified at the third hour, while John 19:14–16 places the events after the sixth hour.
• Discordant Genealogies: Matthew 1 versus Luke 3

The critic concludes: these aren’t just harmless inconsistencies—they are contradictions. Would we make such allowances for any other historical documents? Is harmonization just intellectual gymnastics performed only because we start with the assumption that Scripture must be true?

The Catholic Response: Testimony and Truth

1. Perspective ≠ Contradiction

Consider the resurrection accounts. Yes, they highlight different people at different times—but none of the Gospels state that only the people mentioned were present. All four accounts agree on core elements: the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week; they encountered a divine messenger; and Jesus had risen. The variations are not contradictions but perspectives.

The Empty Tomb

“Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.”

— Matthew 28:1 (NIV)

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.

— Mark 16:1 (NIV)

It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

— Luke 24:10 (NIV)

Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed.

— John 20:1 (NIV)

None of these passages state exclusivity. John does not say Mary went alone. Mark does not say only those three women went. These are not contradictions but focal points. If there are two people in a room, and I report seeing one of them, I have not denied the presence of the other. I have simply described my experience.

The Heavenly Visitors

His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

— Matthew 28:3-4 (NIV)

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

— Mark 16:5 (NIV)

While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

— Luke 24:4 (NIV)

As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

— John 20:11-12 (NIV)

Again, I think we can apply similar reasoning here as we did with the accounts of the women at the tomb. Each Gospel mentions an “angel” or “man,” which already provides a strong thread of coherence. It seems entirely reasonable to interpret “a young man dressed in white… and they were alarmed” (Mark) as consistent with “an angel… came down… his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook…” (Matthew). These aren’t contradictory but reflective of different styles—Mark offering a more literal, restrained tone, and Matthew leaning into vivid, dramatic imagery. Similarly, Luke’s “two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning” and John’s “two angels in white” clearly describe the same kind of encounter, differing only in wording, not content. Yes, Mark and Matthew mention one figure, and Luke and John mention two—but does that mean contradiction? Not necessarily. If two radiant beings appear before you and me, and I report seeing one angel while you report seeing two, are our accounts fundamentally at odds? Or are they simply two perspectives of the same supernatural event?

Imagine you go to the doctor’s office. You enter a room and say, “There’s a man in white.” Your friend later enters and says, “There’s a doctor in a white coat and a nurse in blue.” Both are true. Neither of you lied. You reported what struck you. The Gospels, written by different authors reflecting different details, operate in this same mode—not contradiction, but human perception relaying divine encounter.

Resurrection Appearances

Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

— Matthew 28:9–10 (NIV)

At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

— John 20:14–17 (NIV)

As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

— Luke 24:15–16 (NIV)

When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons ... Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. ... Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

— Mark 16:9, 12, 14 (NIV)

These passages depict different resurrection appearances of Jesus, not contradictory versions of a single event. Each account simply highlights a different moment in time, with a different group of people, and a different emphasis suited to the evangelist’s theological intent and audience.

Matthew shows Jesus appearing to the women as they leave the tomb. John records a deeply personal encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the garden. Luke describes Jesus walking with two disciples on the road to Emmaus, initially unrecognized—a theme reinforcing how the risen Christ reveals Himself gradually. Mark summarizes multiple appearances, noting Mary Magdalene, then two disciples in the country (likely the Emmaus encounter), and finally the Eleven.

The apparent tension lies in the order of appearances and the recognition of Jesus—but these are only problematic if the texts claimed exclusivity, which they do not. None of the Gospel writers say, "This was the only person He appeared to first," or "This was the only time He appeared." They report different aspects of the post-resurrection appearances.

Instructions to the Disciples

Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” ...

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

— Matthew 28:10,16–17 (NIV)

I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.

— Luke 24:49 (NIV)

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

— Acts 1:4 (NIV)

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” ... Later Jesus appeared again to his disciples by the Sea of Galilee.

— John 20:19; 21:1 (NIV)

There is no contradiction between Jesus telling the disciples to go to Galilee and also commanding them to stay in Jerusalem. These instructions were given at different points in time.

One can easily imagine a sequence of events as follows based on chronological flow within the gospels themselves:

1. The Resurrection occurs in Jerusalem.
2. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, then to various disciples in Jerusalem (John 20:19–29; Luke 24:36–49)
3. The disciples travel to Galilee at Jesus’ direction, where He appears again, commissions them, and reassures them (Matthew 28:16–20; John 21:1–14).
4. They return to Jerusalem, where Jesus appears again and leads them to the Mount of Olives.
5. The Ascension takes place from Bethany, near Jerusalem (Luke 24:50–51; Acts 1:9–12).

Jerusalem and Galilee are not competing destinations—they are stages on the path from doubt to faith, from encounter to mission. The Gospel writers emphasize different waypoints along the journey, but they all converge on the same truth: Christ is risen, truly risen, and He sends us forth from the upper room to the ends of the earth.

If we expect ancient biographical writings to reflect modern forensic transcripts, we are imposing anachronistic expectations on ancient texts.

2. The Gospels as Theological Testimonies

St. Augustine, in his Harmony of the Gospels, addressed precisely these kinds of objections. He taught that apparent discrepancies are often the result of narrative compression, thematic emphasis, or differing vantage points—not contradiction. He proposed that we must interpret Scripture in a spirit of harmony, always assuming consistency unless explicitly refuted by the text.

He explains that while Matthew emphasizes Christ's royal lineage and focuses his narrative on Galilee, Luke presents Jesus as the high priest, centering his Gospel on Jerusalem. This is no mistake—it is sacred design. The Gospels were not written in a vacuum, nor did they aim to produce a clinical biography of Jesus. Rather, each writer, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected details suited to their audience and theological purpose. The variations between them—such as Jesus appearing in Jerusalem in Luke and John, but commissioning the disciples in Galilee in Matthew—are best understood not as inconsistencies, but as different vantage points from which to view the same risen Christ.

3. Chronology and Cultural Context

The time-of-crucifixion objection is often resolved by understanding ancient Jewish and Roman timekeeping. John likely uses Roman time (starting at midnight), while Mark uses Jewish time (starting at sunrise). Thus, John’s “sixth hour” and Mark’s “third hour” are not necessarily contradictory but reflect different systems.

“It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon. 'Here is your king,' Pilate said to the Jews.”

— John 19:14 (NIV)

“It was nine in the morning when they crucified him.”

— Mark 15:25 (NIV)

What about the Genealogies?

One common objection raised against the reliability of the Gospels is the apparent discrepancy between the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage from Abraham to Joseph through David’s son Solomon, while Luke begins with Jesus and ascends through David’s son Nathan, ultimately reaching Adam and God Himself. To the modern reader, these differences may seem irreconcilable—an error in the very foundation of Christ’s human origin. But to the early Church, and particularly to St. Augustine, these two genealogies are not contradictions but complementary theological portraits of Christ’s mission.

Augustine, in his Harmony of the Gospels (Book II, Chapter 4), explains that each evangelist is writing with a different emphasis and intent. Matthew seeks to show Christ as the fulfillment of Israel’s royal expectation—the Son of David, the King. Thus, his genealogy is structured in a descending order and divided into three sets of fourteen generations, reflecting covenantal structure and symbolic completeness. Notably, he includes forty names (excluding Christ), symbolizing the period of earthly trial and discipline—“the painful discipline whereby God scourges every son whom He receives” (Hebrews 12:6). Forty is the number of Israel’s testing in the wilderness, Moses’ and Elijah’s fasting, and Christ’s temptation. Christ stands at the head of this forty—a divine King entering into the fullness of humanity’s trials.

Luke, on the other hand, is writing to a Gentile audience and portrays Jesus as the priestly Son of Man, the one who reconciles humanity to God. His genealogy ascends—from Jesus through David’s lesser-known son Nathan, through Abraham, and all the way to Adam and God. This theological movement reflects not just ancestry, but redemption.

In the genealogy of Matthew it is the taking of our sins upon Himself by the Lord Christ that is signified, while in the genealogy of Luke it is the abolition of our sins by the Lord Christ that is expressed.

— St. Augustine, Harmony of the GospelsI, II.4

The difference in structure is itself a message: Matthew descends with Christ into the human condition; Luke ascends with Christ back to the Father. Matthew speaks to Israel’s longing for a Messiah; Luke speaks to the world’s hope for salvation. And far from contradicting one another, these genealogies mirror the dual movement of the Incarnation—God descending into flesh, and humanity being lifted up into divine sonship.

Ultimately, the two genealogies do not represent a discrepancy to be erased, but a depth to be contemplated. They reflect the dual nature of Christ’s mission—both to fulfill the law and the royal expectations of Israel, and to reconcile all nations, tracing our collective humanity not only to Abraham, but all the way back to Adam, “the son of God” (Luke 3:38). In this way, the Gospels do not just give us Jesus’ history—they give us our own.

Conclusion: Variance as a Sign of Veracity

I understand the desire for perfect uniformity. But perfect uniformity is not the standard of truth; coherence is. And the Gospels are coherent in what matters most: the tomb was empty, Jesus was seen alive, and countless witnesses gave their lives for this truth.

As Catholics, we affirm that Scripture is divinely inspired, but not flatly dictated. It bears the fingerprints of its human authors—and that is its beauty. The resurrection is not a sterile event cataloged in a spreadsheet; it is the moment that shattered death, interpreted through the trembling hands of those who saw the unseeable.

In the end, the question is not whether the Gospels are too different to believe, but whether their central message is too powerful to ignore. As St. Paul wrote:

"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile... But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead."

— 1 Corinthians 15:17,20 (NIV)

Different perspectives, yes. Different details, certainly. But one Gospel. One Lord. One resurrection. And for those willing to seek, not a contradiction, but a revelation.