Watch on Youtube
How Can Two Inerrant Scriptures Differ Over a Common Historical Fact?
Q: I have recently been re-reading through the New Testament. I have a particular focus on the last week before the crucifixion of Jesus. I have a long-time concern about the sign of Jonah and how that does not work with Good Friday. However, two days ago I had a heart stopping realization as I read John 18:28 about the high priest not being able to enter Pilate’s palace. I realized that Jesus was arrested before Passover seder according to John. However, in the synoptic Gospels Jesus was arrested after Passover seder. Mat 26:17, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7 tells us the last Supper was a Passover meal on the day of the feast of the unleavened bread (Nissan 15). In John’s account, Jesus had a meal with his disciples, did not institute communion and was arrested on Nissan 14 the day before Passover/the feast of unleavened bread.
The base question is, how can two inerrant scriptures differ on a common fact? Was Jesus arrested before or after Passover?
As I have struggled with this, I have discovered that the book of John was strongly debated before it was accepted into the cannon. It was also written after Romans and therefore greatly influenced by Paul. At this point, I am tempted to treat what used to be my favorite New Testament book as apocryphal. Much as I view the book of Enoch or the book of Jubilees.
Summary
In this episode, Dr. E tackles a question about apparent discrepancies in the Gospel accounts surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. From the “sign of Jonah” to the timing of Passover, Dr. Easley explains why these tensions don’t undermine Scripture’s reliability—but actually deepen our understanding of it.
He unpacks the phrase “three days and three nights,” showing how it reflects a common Jewish idiom where any part of a day counted as a full day. Rather than requiring a strict 72-hour timeline, this cultural context aligns with a Friday crucifixion and Sunday resurrection.
Dr. Easley also addresses differences between the Synoptic Gospels and John regarding Passover. While the timelines may seem difficult to reconcile, he offers historically grounded explanations, including Jewish feast practices, that help make sense of the accounts.
Most importantly, he reminds listeners that inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, not modern translations, and that minor variations in detail are expected in eyewitness testimony. Far from weakening the Bible’s credibility, these differences actually strengthen it—revealing independent perspectives that consistently point to the same truth: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Takeaways:
- “Three days and three nights” reflects a Jewish idiom, not a strict 72-hour timeline.
- Any part of a day counted as a full day in ancient Jewish culture.
- Differences in Gospel accounts reflect perspective, not contradiction.
- The Passover timeline tension has plausible historical and cultural explanations.
- Inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, not modern translations.
- Variations in detail actually strengthen the Bible’s credibility as eyewitness testimony.
Find more episodes of Ask Dr. E here.
If you’ve got a question for Dr. Easley, call or text us your question at 615-281-9694 or email at question@michaelincontext.com.