Timothy Beal lends an ear:
Given how many hands have been involved in so many contexts over such a long time in the history of this literature, can we honestly imagine that no one noticed such glaring discrepancies? … That Gospel mix-ups concerning who saw what after Jesus's resurrection would have been left to stand? That Judas would have died twice, once by suicide and once by divine disgorge? And so on. Could all those many, many people involved in the development of biblical literature and the canon of Scriptures have been so blind, so stupid? It's modern arrogance to imagine so.
The Bible canonizes contradiction. It holds together a tense diversity of perspectives and voices, difference and argument—even, and especially, when it comes to the profoundest questions of faith, questions that inevitably outlive all their answers. The Bible interprets itself, argues with itself, and perpetually frustrates any desire to reduce it to univocality.
I'm not sure this can be deduced from a single authorial intent, because there is no single human author. If there is a Divine author, then humans will doubtless get things wrong. Moreover, we know this now for a fact. Biblical scholarship has now irrefutably shown the human forces, mistakes, politics and varying memories and interpretations that gave us the Gospels' account of the life of Jesus. It has also revealed to us many contemporaneous Gospels, of varying punch and power. We cannot pretend any more that there is one book which is inerrant and remain respectful of the Bible's deeper truths. We cannot pretend that, in the sense of nineteenth century history or twentieth centure science, Jesus is not, at some point, a mystery.
Does this mean the Bible is junk? Far from it. Does it mean we have to reject its Divine inspiration? Of course not. We just have to see it as a human document trying to convey truths and mysteries that are necessarily beyond our understanding. So the varying accounts of the Crucixion and Resurrection do not disprove either – but rather invite us to ponder the mysteries and nuances of both. Reading the Gospels in a literalist and empirical fashion is to mistake the form and the content. It is a category error, an ignoratio elenchi.
The Dish 