Home - Sitemap - About Us - Support Us - Contact Us - Copyright - Resources
Five different sources (the gospels and Paul) give testimony
about Jesus. Are these consistent, or do they contradict? It seems
both. There are numerous events mentioned in more than one or even
all accounts, but there also seem to be significant differences or
even contradictions. For many skeptics, it is even a
favorite criticism that the gospels frequently contradict each
other. Some have written books[1]
about it and others even keep lists of contradictions.[2] Before pursuing this discussion, step
aside for a moment to consider what one would expect to find. We are
looking at testimonies from (eye) witnesses to events that happened
20 years earlier (Paul and Mark) to even 50 years (John) earlier.
Many studies have been done about how people remember events from
the past.[3]
The general (and quite logical) conclusion is that people are well
able to remember unique events over time that are significant to
their personal lives. Memories are even better retained if the
person is also emotionally involved in the events. Accurate memories
are usually characterized by strong visual imagery and irrelevant
details from a personal point of view. The “gist” (the sequence
or structure that makes the event meaningful to the person) of the
memory is likely to remain accurate, even when the details are not.
Frequent rehearsal is an important factor in both retaining the
memory and retaining it accurately. In other words, people tend to
accurately remember the main storyline of the event, especially if
it is life changing and frequently rehearsed or recalled. Only
limited (irrelevant) details are remembered, sometimes not entirely
accurate and often just from the point of view of the observer. Quite obviously, the accounts as
recorded in the gospels were in many forms already circulating
orally amongst the Christian community before they were written
down. As explained, that is a big “plus” for accurately
remembering the events. Also if we look at the various writings,
they are remarkably consistent in the gist of their recordings:
Table
16-
4
: All Writers Agree on the Main Events There are no serious disagreements in
the New Testament books concerning major events in Jesus life, His
crucifixion, or His resurrection. The differences, or as some prefer
to call them, the contradictions, always deal with the details. Many
of these alleged contradictions are explained by paraphrasing,
abridgment, explanatory additions, selection, omissions, or just
using different names for the same location or participants. As
explained earlier, over time, people remember details differently,
due either to the fact that they remember them from their unique
perspective or just do not remember them accurately. Without going into too much detailed
analysis of alleged contradictions, [4]
(I do not have a complete Bible contradictions list) I would like to
address the two most often mentioned “major” discrepancies in
the gospel accounts. The first one deals with the
different genealogies (this one is one every Bible contradictions
list) for Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-37. It is perfectly
clear that the two genealogies differ widely from one another, and
yet each is given as the line of ancestry for Christ. How can they
both be true? There is a simple answer to this
alleged contradiction. Matthew, as we know, wrote as a Jew for Jews.
Therefore his genealogy starts with Abraham, the father of all Jews.
With the Jewish culture, only the man represents the official line
of descent. The father passes his rights on to the son he selects,
usually his oldest son, but sometimes another son. David for
instance had multiple wives and sons. David chose Solomon (a son of
Bathsheba) over his oldest living son Adonijah as his successor (1
Kings 1). That makes the line through Solomon the Jewish legal or
royal line. Joseph’s father Jacob was a descendant from Solomon.
And as Matthew makes the link: “Jacob
the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,
who is called the Christ” (Matthew 1:16). So Joseph, who
Matthew states is the husband of Mary, not the father of Jesus, is
the legal and royal father of Christ and therefore through
Joseph’s lineage Matthew establishes Jesus to be a son of David
and Abraham. Luke however approaches Jesus’
genealogy from a Gentile, “mankind” perspective. Therefore, he
starts with Adam (the first human) through Abraham (the first Jew)
to David. From David he descends through Nathan (2 Samuel 5:14) to
Heli the father of Mary and subsequently to Mary the mother of
Jesus. That is the natural line of descend. Also Mary herself was
through her father Heli a descendant of David. How it all fits together! Readers of the Old Testament might wonder how Jesus could have been the Son of David because of God’s curse on king Jehoiachin. We read in Jeremiah that no descendant of Jeconiah (or Jehoiachin) could ever ascend to the throne of David: “This is what the Lord says: ‘Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah’” (Jeremiah 22:30). Joseph was of the line of Jehoiachin, and his genealogy furnishes the royal line of Jesus, who was his son under the law. Nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter. Jesus was not of the seed of Joseph. and therefore was not of the seed of Jehoiachin. Jesus is from the royal line of David through the line of Jehoiachin and Joseph, but He is a natural son of David through Nathan and His mother Mary. The other favorite “discrepancy”
is the apparent contradictions between the gospels as to the
discovery of the empty tomb and those to whom Jesus appeared after
the resurrection. When reading the gospels, all seem to disagree.
For instance in Matthew the empty grave is discovered by Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1). Mark tells us it was
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1).
Luke mentions only “the
women” (Luke 24:1) later they are named Mary Magdalene, Mary
the mother of James, Joanna and “the
others with them” (Luke 24:10). Lastly John only mentions Mary
Magdalene (John 20:1). Who was or were there? On the surface, apart
from Mary Magdalene, they all seem to disagree. Similar confusion seems to exist
about those to whom Jesus appeared. Was it Peter or John or all
disciples with and without Thomas? Was it in Many have written books about how
these accounts can be harmonized.[5]
Without going into extensive details, the different women at the
empty tomb might well be explained by how our memory remembers
different specific details as explained earlier. Each gospel writer
gives his own testimony about how he remembered this miraculous
morning, and as often seen in (eye) witness testimony, they agree on
the gist but have a somewhat different recollection on the
peripheral details. Additionally, these details are not necessarily
in conflict. The other Mary of Matthew is likely Mary the mother of
James and Joses (Matthew 27:55). So those are the same Mary’s
mentioned by Mark and Luke. The differences are all explained by
omissions. Some writers just decided not to mention them all or only
to mention Mary Magdalene. These omissions of the names of some of
the other women also fit well the Jewish views of those days about
the unimportance of women. As for the resurrection appearances,
no one’s story contradicts earlier other accounts. They seem to
differ only in order. For instance, it is plausible Jesus appeared
to the eleven in Jerusalem, then later in Galilee when they had gone
home after the Passover, and then once again in Jerusalem upon their
return in preparation for the feast of Pentecost.[6] Some Remarks About John Versus the Synoptic GospelsMany books explore the differences and similarities between the
Gospel of John and the synoptic gospels. This has launched a wide
range of opinions about the credibility of John. In general, the
more critical scholar community raises serious doubt or even rejects
altogether the historical credibility of John. However, detailed
analysis based on more recent information (especially also from
historical information about the first century Jewish society
derived from the Before discussing differences, I’d like to emphasize the consistency of the gist of John and how well it lines up with the synoptic gospels and the Pauline epistles. John’s description of the passion narrative in the last chapter of his book is not only consistent with the synoptic gospels, but it also provides many details missing from the other gospels. John completes these accounts (and has proved himself historically correct). For example, John says that the Jews no longer could exercise capital punishment. Therefore the Roman authority/Pilate had to be involved. This fact, verified as historically accurate, explains the trial before Pilate as also described in the synoptic gospels. [8] What would happen if all accounts were in perfect harmony? We’ve spent considerable time explaining and analyzing the discrepancies between the various gospels. However, can you imagine how skeptics and liberal scholars would react if all accounts were in perfect harmony? What if all details about Jesus’ life, the disciplines, the locations, the miracles, the resurrection and so on, were to line up perfectly? What if there were no Bilbe contradictions? At best, that would have caused critics to (rightly) claim that all gospel accounts are “synoptic,” i.e. using the same sources and therefore only a single independent testimony. Likely, however, critics would also claim that it is all fabricated testimony, that everyone agreed upfront in detail what to write down. If all books in the NT would be in complete agreement on every detail, the whole NT would have to be rejected as an elaborate hoax. The fact that there are discrepancies in the details but fabulous agreements in the general storyline is the best evidence one can find for honest, reliable, and independent witness accounts! Major criticism between John and the synoptic gospels is in four different categories: · John’s selection of material (not much overlap/confirmation of the synoptic accounts). · John’s different theological style (Jesus is directly identified as fully divine). ·
An apparent contradiction of chronology. Most
important here are the cleansing of the temple (happens in John at
the beginning of His ministry but in the other gospels it is
described to have happened during the last week of Jesus’ life)
and the number of visits by Jesus to · The different style of Jesus in John versus the other gospels. Analyzing these similarities and differences, different scholars reach different conclusions. For many of the differences possible explanations can be given,[9] especially remembering that John wrote his gospel after the synoptic gospels were already completed and in circulation. He had no intent to write another similar account; his objective was to teach Christians about Jesus’ divinity as the Son of God. Start reading about the next criterion: (5) Is there evidence of exaggeration?
[1] For instance Bart Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus (2005). [2] Just search for “contradictions in the Bible” on the internet. [3] The following summary is derived from Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2006), chapter 13. [4] For possible explanations to many of the alleged contradictions see for instance Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Book (2004), Larry Richards, Baffling Bible Questions Answered (1993) or Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (1982). [5] Two excellent references are John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Do the Resurrection Stories Contradict One Another? (1984) and Morison, Frank: Who Moved the Stone? (1930). [6] Ibid. See also Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (1987), pages 100-102. [7] For a detailed analysis of John see: Blomberg, Craig: The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (2001). [8] Ibid, page 53. [9] See among others, Craig Blomberg: The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (1987), chapter 5.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Windmill
Ministries - Christian Apologetics - Evidences for Christianity Home - Sitemap - About Us - Support Us - Contact Us - Copyright - Resources |