Opponents of Christianity argue that these discrepancies discredit their testimony. Then, what are the alternatives?
One, you could have a single prophet who was given a divine revelation personally and privately. There are no discrepancies because the religion is based on a personal and private revelation to a single person. But there are inherent risks — what if the person is a lunatic, or self-deluded and we have seen plenty of that over the years.
Or two, would you prefer having multiple people telling the exact word for word testimony about every detail, major and minor, regarding major events in their religion?
If all the details lined up too neatly, we might suspect a fabrication, or some type of collaboration or conspiracy to make the account more believable.
Are either of these — single prophet w/ no discrepancies or a multiple people telling the exact word for word testimony about every little detail — more believable than the version recorded in each of the gospel accounts?