First, it is important to understand that I do not think differences between parallel passages should always be thought of as "contradictions." On the contrary, such variations are common and expected anytime we have independent reports from different points of view. Case in point: Luke refers to two "malefactors" (kakourgos = evil doers) crucified with Christ, whereas Matthew and Mark call them "thieves" (lestes). I don't see this as a problem at all since any thief could just as well be called a malefactor. This is why I don't use things like that as examples of "contradictions" in Scripture.
Originally Posted by refugeeguru
As an aside, you might be interested in a thread called The Calvary "5" by our friend duxrow who interpreted these differences as implying that there were really four people crucified with Christ, two on the left, and two on the right. I think splitting hairs like that obscures the plain meaning of the text and makes it impossible to have any certainty about what it really says. You have given your interpretation, duxrow gives his. But no one really knows what the truth is. And that's the real problem with taking a book like the Bible as the "final authority" - it doesn't work that way. The "final authority" is always the one who interprets Scripture.
The fact that there are contradictions in Scripture is impossible to deny. For example:
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. (2 Kings 24:8)
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: (2 Chronicles 36:9)
Folks who defend the Bible will say that this contradiction was a mere scribal error, and that's certainly possible. Indeed, I think it is likely. But it could have been an error in the original manuscripts. There's no way to know. So the only thing we can know with certainty is that the Bible does indeed contain contradictions and so cannot be the "inerrant and infallible Word of God."
Now more to the point: there are real problems with the four versions of the crucifixion. They cannot all be true. We talked about this in a thread called Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge which simply asks for someone to explain what happened when Christ was resurrected without leaving out a single detail mentioned in the four Gospels. Here's how he posed it:
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.To my knowledge, no one has ever met this challenge. If you think you are up to it, I invite you to try.
You are a very good writer. You captured the story well, and with lots of vivid language and emotion.
Originally Posted by refugeeguru
But there is a hidden assumption in your question. You have assumed that the Biblical record is true when it describes the reactions of the Roman soldiers and Jews. But if we begin with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true, then there is no need to "calculate the odds" since we began by assuming what was to be proved.
We have to remember that the Gospels are really "religious tracts" written by believers with the hope of converting people. You wouldn't believe everything a Mormon religious tract says about Joseph Smith and the Angel and Golden Plates, would you? So neither would an unbeliever simply accept such fantastic stories written by the early Christians.
All the best,