People often point out some of the differences between the Gospels when they are looking at the same events. Who did Peter deny Jesus to? What did the sign on the cross actually say? This is then seen as evidence for lack of historical credibility for the Gospels. I have done some work on this in comparing to Josephus. When Josephus is writing on the same event in both War and Antiquities, there is often greater differences than what we find in the Gospels. And this by the same author!
Philosopher Tim McGrew, helpfully gives a number of other examples from ancient Roman histories. Listen carefully to what Tim says here:
Have a look at the death of Julius Caesar as recorded in the writings of Seneca (Epistle 87), Appian, Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and Plutarch. In particular:
* What was the name of the first conspirator to approach Caesar? Dio Cassius does not give him a name; Suetonius calls him Cimber Tullius; Seneca calls him Tillius Cimber; Plutarch calls him Metillius Cimber in one work and Tullius Cimber in another; Appian names him Atilius Cimber.
* How did he make his approach? Suetonius says that he approached Caesar as if to make some request. Appian has him actually make the request; Plutarch has the other conspirators join in it; Dio Cassius, on the other hand, says that he approached Caesar as if to acknowledge a favor.
There are many more places where these accounts of the death of Caesar fail to agree, and some of them may fairly be thought to be outright contradictions. Yet for all that, the headline is unaffected: “Caesar Murdered in the Forum.” Every classical historian knows this; indeed, it goes without saying, and the discrepancies (real or merely apparent) in the various accounts scarcely raise an eyebrow. But in the topsy-turvy world of New Testament criticism, such molehills appear to be impassable mountains. Beware of sweeping negative claims advanced on such trivial grounds.
This is an important reminder of two things: one is the differences in how classicists and biblical scholars do history and how the Gospels should be judged according to first century standards and not twenty-first century standards.
Here are some helpful links to check up on:
Suetonius, Julius 78-82 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html
Plutarch, Caesar 58-66 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html
Plutarch, Life of Brutus http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/m_brutus.html
Appian, Civil Wars 2.117 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/2*.html
Seneca Epistle 83 http://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_book_2.html#‘LXXXVIII
Thanks Stephen! This is incredibly helpful stuff. I’m amazed at how people view the historicity of Scriptures so differently from that of other historical events. One wonders what the deeper issue is. ;-)
These types of arguments are generally helpful in pointing out internal consistencies, but you should also be wary of committing the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy. Even if you are correct that the opposition holds a double standard, it doesn’t erase the points about gospel reliability and agreement. Maybe both sides have assumed too much. If two accounts differ in a significant way, then one or both is probably wrong, regardless of the particular area of history. I bet a classical historian would acknowledge that if you showed him/her two contradictory accounts.
I hear what you are saying. However, the point of this is to demonstrate the level of precision that was expected in ancient history. Critics who point to the lack of precision in the Gospels are holding the Gospels to an inappropriate standard.