Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: inconsistencies in the Bible (digest of postings) Message-ID: Date: 7 Dec 89 09:58:24 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 632 Approved: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu Because there were a number of postings on this topic, I have combined them into this digest. There are four postings here, plus a postscript from me. I hope combining them will encourage people to try to generate responses to the issue as a whole and not to each individual posting. I will have some comments at the end about possible replies. This sort of discussion could very easily become completely unmanagable. Please see those comments before replying. In some ways the most interesting posting of the group is last. However it's by far the longest. ------------------- From: kwan@cs.ucla.edu (Edmund Kwan) [This posting was actually written by Hal Lillywhite . Edmund sent it in because of a request from a reader that responses be posted. Since it apparently was posted in this group previously, I haven't asked Hal's permission. --clh] (I posted this a few months ago, perhaps it is what you remember. My posting was in response to someone, don't remember who, who claimed nobody ever backed up a claim of Biblical errors with specific examples.) Well, I don't want to spend a lot of time looking up errors but a couple come to mind immediately. First, how did Judas die? Did he hang himself (Mat 27:5) or did he fall and all his bowels gush out (Acts 1:18)? Second, when Saul of Tarsus was on the way to Damascus and had his vision, what about those who were with him, did they hear the voice but not see the vision (Acts 9:7) or did they see the light but not hear the voice (Acts 22:9)? Admitedly these are not of great consequence but they are contradictory, so one of each pair of passages must be in error. Perhaps of more consequence, John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time." However, several OT passages describe theophanies: Gen 32:30 Jacob saw God face to fact. Ex 33:11 Moses likewise Ex 33:23 Moses would see His back parts Ex 24:9-10 Moses & 70 elders of Israel saw God >From the NT, Acts 7:56 Stephen sees Jesus on the right hand of God This list is certainly not exhaustive but only provides examples. I have also only given contradictions. There are many other Bible passages believed to be in error for various reasons. I do not want to get into an argument here over their veracity. This is intended only to illustrate that there are imperfections. Also please do not take this as an indication that I do not study and learn from the Bible, I do. I simply realize that the object of my worship is God, not the book his servants wrote. ---------------------------------------------------- From: nunes@ai.toronto.edu (Joe Nunes) Subject: Re: inconsistency in Bible Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 11:33:40 EST Message-Id: <89Dec4.113416est.4809@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Status: RO In article bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >There is no such thing as an inconsistency in the Bible. There are >several passages which appear, on the surface, to be inconsistent with >one another. Further research, however, shows them to be entirely >consistent with not only each other but also all other passages too. If >anyone really believes that he has found what he feels to be an >irrefutable inconsistency then please let me know. I'll do my best to >show the consistency that is being overlooked. I may fail, but that >will be due to my own lack of understanding and not to God's inability >to give us a completely consistent message. I welcome the challenge. OK. Here's one. There are two versions of Creation. In Version 1 (Gen 1:10-31), God creates plants on the third day (before He created the sun and the moon, by the way; they were created on the fourth day), sea creatures and birds on the fifth day, and all beasts of the earth on the sixth day. After all this, God creates Man, also on the sixth day. Man is then set to rule over the rest of creation. [1:12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind ... [13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. ... [21] And God created ... every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and ... every winged fowl after its kind ... [23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. ... [25] And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind ... [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ... [31] ... And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. In Version 2 (Gen 2:4-24), God creates Adam before anything else. Then God creates creatures of the earth and birds to serve as his help mates. When they prove insufficient, God creates Eve. [2:5] And no plant of the field was yet on the earth, and no herb of the field had yet grown: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground ... [18] And the Lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone: I will make him a help meet for him. [19] And out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them ... [20] ... but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. ... [21] And the Lord ... took one of his ribs ... [22] And the rib, which the Lord had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto man. Note that the first version specifically states that *every* winged fowl was created before man, whereas the second version states that *every* fowl of the air was created after man. -------------- From: firth@sei.cmu.edu In article bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >There is no such thing as an inconsistency in the Bible. Dave, you challenge us to point to an inconsistency, for you (with God's help) to try to resolve. Here is one of the more famous ones: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen." [Genesis xxii:14] "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." [Exodus vi:2-3] So, did Abraham know the name 'Jehovah', or not? I believe the Documentary Hypothesis explains this inconsistency as the result of a later interpolation in the Genesis text, whose purpose was to plant evidence that the 'God of Abraham' was the same as the being that spoke to Moses. (It is perhaps inappropriate to discuss in this newsgroup the other names of either of these entities.) [This is perhaps an overinterpretation of the documentary hypothesis. I would say that the Pentateuch simply combines material from several sources which differ about when the Name was revealed. --clh] ------------------------------------ From: Joe Nunes [NB: This article came from another group. It was originally forwarded by someone else. I checked with Joe that it was OK to post it here. Because of the size of this posting, I have replaced the Bible passages -- which he gave in extenso -- with citations. --clh] A few weeks ago I made the comment that the Gospels do not present a good biography of Jesus, because they are extremely contradictory. I was then told that I should read a Harmony of the Gospels, and that this would explain all the paradoxes I had found. I took this advice and am sorry to report that the result was exactly the opposite: I am now aware of more contradictions than before. It is clear that the Gospels are based on different sources. The accepted theory is that Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke both use extensive portions of Mark, but both Matthew and Luke also use separate sources. John is assumed to use totally different sources. An unbiased reading of the four Gospels must lead one to the conclusion that in the majority of cases in which an evangelist uses a passage from a source not available to the others, either one of two things is true: the passage is not mentioned in the other gospels, or the passage is mentioned in the other gospels and there are grave contradictions. There are many cases of huge passages in one Gospel that have no counterpart in the other Gospels (For example: Luke 9:51-18:14, John 1:19-3:36, 5:1-47, 6:22-71, etc.) There are also numerous contradictory passages which I now discuss. The Bible which I have used is "Good News for Modern Man", American Bible Society, 3rd edition, 1972. I have used two Gospel Harmonies. The first is, "A Gospel Monogram", Sir W.J. Herschel, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1911. This Harmony actually constructs a single text out of the four Gospels and describes how the Gospels were combined. The second Harmony is, "A Harmony of the Gospels - The Standard Broadus Harmony thoroughly Revised, Rearranged and Enlarged", A.T. Robertson, New York, 1922. This Harmony presents the four Gospels side by side, with numerous explanatory footnotes. There is also a large section of notes on special points. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' Birth ------------ MATTHEW 2:1-23 LUKE 2:4-39 CONTRADICTIONS: These are two different versions. To believe that they are not contradictory we would have to believe that the phrases "left during the night for Egypt" and "they took the child to Jerusalem" refer to the same event. A family that has been warned to run away because Herod is trying to kill their son, takes him to the very city where Herod lives and shows him around the temple, where he is acclaimed as the Messiah, the very person Herod is trying to kill. Further, when Luke says "they returned to Galilee" he really means that they went to Egypt, stayed a few years, returned but were afraid of settling in Judea, and finally chose Galilee. The problem is that the two versions can't be reconciled. In Luke, Nazareth is always their home, they just go to Bethlehem to register. In Matthew, they only decide to live in Nazareth *after* they return from Egypt and decide that they can't settle in Judea. Judea, is their first choice. Why would that be if their home town is Nazareth, according to Matthew? The two versions are obviously incompatible. They both tell a story that places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and gives him a Nazareth connection in order to fulfill prophecies. They do so in different ways, however. Matthew complicates matters by also making the story agree with another prophecy about the Messiah coming from Egypt. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The Matthew account is tacked on the end of the Luke account without any explanation. In one sentence, they have returned to their home town of Nazareth. In the next sentence they are living in Bethlehem. This is hardly a satisfactory resolution of the problem. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He starts with Luke's account [2:1-38] up to the time where Jesus is taken to Jerusalem to be presented at the temple. He nows brings in the rest of Matthew's account [2:1-23] and makes Matthew's description of the return from Egypt [19:23] mesh with Luke's [2:39]: "When they had finished doing all that was required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their home town of Nazareth." The unstated assumption must be that Jesus' family left Jerusalem, returned to Bethlehem, ran away to Egypt, and waited until Herod died. All this not being mentioned in Luke. This is not very plausible. First of all, the implication is that Luke's account of Jesus' family departing Jerusalem to return to Nazareth, is really an account of a departure from Egypt. Luke, however, states that the departure took place after they had fulfilled the Law. This obviously refers to their trip to Jerusalem. How could a multi-year trip to Egypt be encapsulated in the phrase "when they had finished ..."?. Another problem is that Luke states that Nazareth was their home town. Why then would they go from Jerusalem back to Bethlehem, and be living in a house at the time of the arrival of the "wise men", if they had only gone to Bethlehem to register and their home was in Nazareth? Why, upon their return from Egypt, would they have considered Judea as their first choice of dwelling place if their home was in Nazareth? The two accounts simply do not mesh. ******************************************************************************* Peter called to be a disciple ----------------------------- MATTHEW 4:12-19 JOHN 1:35-43 CONTRADICTIONS: The two accounts are contradictory. In Matthew, Jesus goes to Galilee after John is arrested and there he meets Andrew and Peter who are fishermen. In John, Andrew is one of John's disciples and brings Peter to meet Jesus in the Jordan. Only then does Jesus go to Galilee (with his disciples). Only later is John arrested. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The account by John is told first. The account of Matthew is told much later, with the implication that the event Matthew describes is *not* Peter being called to be a disciple: Jesus already knows him. This is not very plausible. Jesus' words to Peter, as told by Matthew, make little sense if Peter is already Jesus' disciple. Also, it makes no sense for Peter to have been made a disciple, then somehow become a fisherman, and then called to end his fishing career and join Jesus full time. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. Robertson notes the problem but says that Peter and Andrew must have become fishermen after having met Jesus and only later followed Jesus full time. As I noted above, this makes no sense. After Jesus makes his first disciples (including Peter and Andrew), John mentions that Jesus goes to Cana in Galilee with his disciples, [turns the water into wine, at a wedding], then to Capernaum with his disciples, then to Jerusalem with his disciples [where he cleanses the Temple], then to Judea again with his disciples, then to Samaria also with his disciples. Then he went to Galilee (his disciples are not mentioned). Are we to believe that Peter and Andrew left some time before, went ahead of Jesus to Galilee, then became fishermen, and then followed him again when he came by the sea of Galilee? This does not seem very plausible. Also, in Matthew, Mark and Luke (Mark and Luke also have the same incident in the sea of Galilee) no mention of any disciple is made before the incident at Galilee. This suggests very strongly that, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, that was the first time that Jesus made disciples. ******************************************************************************* Mary anointing Jesus with perfume --------------------------------- MATTHEW 26:7 JOHN 12:3 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew, the perfume is poured on his head. In John, on his feet. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He combines the two accounts: Mary pours the perfume both on Jesus' head and on his feet. This does not follow from either account. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He does not remark on the contradiction. ******************************************************************************* The meal at Bethany ------------------- MATTHEW 22:10, 17, 26:6-7 JOHN 12:1-3, 12 CONTRADICTIONS: Matthew place the incident at Bethany after Jesus' triumphant arrival to Jerusalem. John places it after. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He moves Matthew 26:6 back before Matthew 21:10 so that it refers to a trip to Bethany not mentioned anywhere else in Matthew, and matches with John's account. Then he moves Matthew 28:18-19 (the description of Jesus' return from Bethany) in between 21:11 and 21:12, so that this return refers to the hypothetical trip to Bethany not mentioned in Matthew. The trip to Bethany described in Matthew 21:10 is assumed to involve no noteworthy incidents. I am not convinced. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Unlike Herschel, Robertson moves John 12:8 *forward* so that it meshes with Matthew's account of the meal taking place after the entry into Jerusalem. He assumes that John quotes this passage out of sequence. Not a very convincing solution. ******************************************************************************* Throwing out the moneylenders from the Temple --------------------------------------------- MATTHEW 21:10-12 JOHN 2:13-14, 3:22, 7:1, 12:12 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew, the throwing out of the moneylenders happens a few days before Jesus' death. In John, it happens at the beginning of his ministry, before his final visit to Jerusalem. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He merges the two accounts so that are two episodes of Jesus throwing out defilers of the Temple. Does not seem plausible that Jesus would do such a momentous action twice. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. He notes the problem but claims there is no problem with having such an event occur twice. ******************************************************************************* The Last Supper --------------- LUKE 22:7-8 JOHN 13:1-2, 18:28 CONTRADICTIONS: Luke (and Matthew and Mark) places the Last Supper on Passover. John places it the day *before* Passover. The morning after Jesus' arrest the Passover meal had not yet been eaten by the Jews of Jerusalem. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: In the version of the Bible he uses, the opening of John's account is "Now before the feast of the passover ...". He makes both descriptions be about a single Passover meal. However, the later passage in John, in which the Jews are said to refuse to enter the palace so they can be clean for the passover meal is added to the account of Jesus' arrest without an explanation. He does not explain how it is possible for the meal described in John to be the Passover meal, and yet, the next day the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover meal. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He notes the problem, but claims that there is no contradiction. He says that the phrase "Now before the feast of the passover ..." (in his version of John) is not connected to the subsequent description of the meal. So that a gap of a day takes place between them. The problem of the Jews not having yet eaten the Passover the next morning (as described in John) is dealt with by claiming that they are merely referring to another meal of the Passover festival not *the* Passover meal. Once again: not very convincing. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' trial ------------ MATTHEW 26:57, 27:1-2 LUKE 22:54, 65 JOHN 18:12, 13, 24, 28 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew, the elders have already met that night in Caiaphas' house and they question Jesus that evening. In Luke, the elders only meet in the morning, and question Jesus then. In John, Jesus is first questioned by Annas, then he is sent to Caiaphas and questioned by him, finally he is sent to Pilate. There is no mention of the elders. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Once again, everything is merged. He has Jesus being brought to the house of Caiaphas where the elders are already gathered. He is sent to Annas and questioned. Then he is sent to Caiaphas. In the morning he is sent to the elders where he is questioned. The passage in Matthew where he is questioned by the elders, in the evening of his arrest, is moved up to the morning. Presumably, the elders gathered in Caiaphas' house in the evening and then waited until morning before interrogating him. This is not very credible. Also why is there no mention of Jesus' interrogation by the elders in John, whereas there is no mention of the interrogation by Annas in Matthew or Luke? ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. ******************************************************************************* Peter denying Jesus ------------------- MATTHEW 27:69-74 LUKE 22:56-60 JOHN 18:17, 25-27 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew and Luke, all those who challenge Peter accuse him of having been with Jesus. In John, they ask Peter if he was. Peter's answers differ in all three accounts. For example, his first denial: MATTHEW: "I don't know what you are talking about." LUKE: "Woman, I don't even know him!" JOHN: "No I am not." A final iron-clad contradiction is that Matthew states that the person challenging him the second time is a *woman*, while Luke states it is a *man*. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He runs all the accounts together so that there are 7 denials. He claims, however, that only three are grave enough to be considered denials. The problem is that, with this approach, in no one account does Peter deny Christ three times: we need to combine the different accounts to get 3 denials. This is not even a remotely convincing solution. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He agrees that "the details differ considerably, as must always be the case where in each narrative a few facts are selected out of many sayings and doings." He, in fact, agrees that the Gospels do not provide verbatim accounts. ******************************************************************************* The inscription on the cross ---------------------------- MATTHEW [17:37] This is Jesus, the King of the Jews MARK [15:26] The King of the Jews LUKE [23:38] This is the King of the Jews JOHN [19:19] Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews CONTRADICTIONS: They all differ. The inscription could have only said one thing. Three of them must be wrong. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He has the inscription be: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" The best this does is admit that all three evangelists omitted part of the inscription on their account. They are still wrong. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The different inscriptions are not commented upon. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' last words ----------------- MATTHEW 27:46-50 LUKE 23:46 JOHN 19:28-30 CONTRADICTIONS: Jesus' last words differ in these three accounts. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Once again all versions are combined. Jesus cries "Eli! Eli! ..., then he says he is thirsty, then someone brings him some cheap wine, then he says "It is finished!", then he cries "Father! ...", then he dies. So when John says "Then he bowed his head and died" he really means "Then he bowed his head and cried out in a loud voice 'Father! ...' and died". It is not very believable that John would omit such an important detail as Jesus' last words on the cross. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' resurrection ------------------- MATTHEW 28:1-17 MARK 16:1-19 LUKE 24:1-51 JOHN 20:1-19, 26, 21:1 CONTRADICTIONS: I hardly know where to begin; there are so many contradictions. I'll just list some of the major problems: *** First people to see the tomb early Sunday MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome LUKE: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, other women JOHN: Mary Magdalene *** What they see MATTHEW: An angel rolling away the stone and sitting on it, on the way back they see Jesus as they run MARK: The stone already rolled away, a young man sitting inside LUKE: The stone already rolled away, two men standing inside JOHN: The stone already rolled away, an empty tomb, they run back to get Peter and John, they also see an empty tomb then leave, Mary then sees two angels sitting inside, she then turns around and sees Jesus *** Appearances of Jesus MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; some time later he appears to the 11 in Galilee (where Jesus said he'd meet them) MARK: Mary Magdalene; then to two disciples; then to the 11 as they are eating together; then he ascends to heaven (Note that Mark 16:1-8 and Mark 16:9-19 seem to be different accounts) LUKE: two disciples (the same day); then to the 11 in Jerusalem (the same evening), takes them to Bethany ans ascends heaven JOHN: Mary Magdalene (on her second trip to the grave); then to the 11 minus Thomas (the same evening); then to the full 11 (a week later); some time later to 7 disciples as Lake Tiberias HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: This was one problem that he did not attempt to solve simply by dumping all the accounts into a pot. He had to do some pretty vigorous stirring in order to get one single account. This may be as confusing to tell as it was to read but here it goes ... Mary M., Mary the mother of James and Salome bring spices to the grave (before the resurrection) [Mark 16:1]. Then Herschel places Matthew 28:2 before Matthew 28:1 so that the earthquake occurs before anyone reaches the tomb [looks suspiciously like cheating]. The angel comes and sits down but doesn't say anything. The account of the angel speaking to the woman [Matthew 28:5] is made to be that of another angel later on! Herschel assumes that Matthew omitted the fact that after the women arrive at the grave (without seeing an angel sitting on the rock) lots of other people come and go before anyone talks to an angel (the young man described by Mark is assumed to be the angel that talks to the women in Matthew 28:5 [with me so far?]). So Herschel now brings in John's account of Mary coming to the grave, going back to get Peter and John, Peter and John arriving at the grave and then leaving. Mary then goes inside, sees two angels sitting, talks with them then sees Jesus and talks to him, and then returns to tell the disciples. Now Herschel brings in Luke's account of Mary M., Mary mother of James, Joanna and other women coming to the grave. He makes this mesh with Mark's "they went to the grave" [16:2] even though the "they" in Mark refers to the two Marys and Salome. They see a young man sitting inside [Mark 16:5]. Herschel now makes the young man's words be the same as the words of Matthew 28:5, even though those were spoken by the angel sitting on the stone. Herschel now brings in Luke 24:3-7, so that the women are amazed to not find the body of Jesus (even though a young man has just told them Jesus has risen, and Mary has already spoken to Jesus!). They then see two men in the tomb who tell them Jesus is risen. Then Jesus appears to them as they run back to tell the disciples [Jesus appears to Mary for the 2nd time] and tells them he'll see the disciples in Galilee. They tell the others but are disbelieved. Jesus then appears the same day to two disciples. They tell the others but are disbelieved. Then Jesus appears to them that evening. Mark says that he appeared to the 11, while John says he appeared to the 11 minus Thomas. Herschel states that Jesus appears to the 11, and after a while says that Thomas wasn't there [so obviously he did not appear to the 11, but to the 10]. Then he breaks off Mark's and Luke's account and follows John's. Jesus comes back after a week [even though Mark states that the above-mentioned appearance was his last] and this time Thomas is there. Then he appears at the sea of Tiberias. Now Herschel brings in Matthew's account of the 11 going to Galilee and worshipping Jesus, though some doubted [even though they've already seen him; 10 of them twice; 7 of them three times!] Herschel brings in the account of Acts which says Jesus stayed on earth for 40 days [Acts 1:3] Now he continues Luke's account which was set on the evening of the resurrection and continues Jesus' words as if they take place at this later time! Jesus then takes them to Bethany and ascends to heaven. I don't think that any more comments are necessary! ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He places the accounts side by side without too many comments. I really don't want to go into a thorough analysis again. Robertson's account is equally unsatisfactory. I will just give the beginning of his outline. Matthew and Mark's account of the first visit to the grave is placed late Saturday. The angel rolling away the stone, early Sunday, is assumed to do so unobserved [Mat 28:2-4]. Then all four accounts are given side by side (up to the time that the women arrive to tell the disciples). One of the problems with this is that Matthew [28:5] now has an angel talking to a group of unspecified women (since the two Mary's came Saturday night, we have to assume that Matthew starts talking about "the women" without having previously mentioned any group coming to the grave on Sunday). Robertson makes no attempt to explain the discrepancies between the accounts (e.g. Mark has two men, Luke has two men, Matthew has an angel, John has no one at all (the two men are only present on the second trip to the grave). ******************************************************************************* Judas' death ------------ MATTHEW 27:5-8 ACTS 1:18-19 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew Judas hangs himself. In Acts he falls to his death. In Matthew the chief priests buy the field. In Acts Judas buys the field. In Matthew the field is called "Field of Blood" because it is a cemetery for foreigners. In Acts, because Judas' spilled his blood there. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He does not bring in the conflicting passage from Acts - even though he does bring in other passages from Acts in other places. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The two conflicting passages are place side by side without comment. ******************************************************************************* Some final points: The usual way that a believer attempts to disprove that two passages are contradictory is by merging the problematic accounts. For instance, let us say that Matthew has the passage, "Jesus said X and then he died", whereas John has the passage, "Jesus said Y and then he died." Since Matthew does not state "Jesus said X and then said nothing else before he died", it can be claimed that in reality Jesus said X then said Y and then he died. Such a hypothesis is not impossible. It is, however, extremely unlikely. Anyone reading these accounts with an unbiased mind will have to reach the conclusion that the two passages were contradictory. This is especially true when the conflicting passages are of the form, "Jesus did X then Z", and "Jesus did X then Y1 then ... then Yn then Z". There are many such contradictions and their cumulative effect is, to my mind, conclusive. A believer would, of course, argue that, since he has such positive evidence from other sources that the Gospels are the literal word of God, even a .001% probability that the Gospels are not contradictory would be good enough for him. I cannot argue with such a stand, nor would I wish to. The problem, however, is that there are many passages which *are* 100% contradictory. Particularly important passages which cannot be resolved are the accounts of Jesus' birth and resurrection. I have not gone through all this trouble to attempt to destroy anyone's beliefs (I doubt that I could succeed even if I wished to). I did this because I very much resent being told that the only reason I have not found Jesus is because I have refused to open my eyes. Well, as a matter of fact I have opened my eyes and read the Gospels and that has led to me to the conclusion that they are not the literal word of God and that a great portion of their accounts of the life and death of Jesus is fictional. I can accept that you have an absolute certainty that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for our sins, etc. Why can't you accept that I have the opposite certainty, and that I have come by it honestly? In conclusion, I challenge anyone to resolve *all* the contradictions presented in this posting. ------------------ A concluding unscientific postscript from your moderator: I would very much appreciate it if we did not get into detailed discussions of every individual passage. I'm sure people are going to want to give detailed responses, but please pick some representative cases. I'm not going to accept any more articles pointing out inconsistencies, simply because I think the sample above is more than we need as a basis for discussion. In some ways it might be more useful to see general responses on the subject of what people think about inconsistencies of this sort. Of course many Christians will say "what inconsistencies?" They will attempt to show that the passages can be understood in a manner that is consistent. However there are also a number of Christians who do not see inconsistency as a threat. (Indeed for much of the scholarly community, these differences are an important tool. Only by comparing different accounts of the same event can we try to see the perspectives of the different authors/editors.) I happen to believe that the editors knew they had a variety of source material, and intentionally preserved that variety for us to see. Many Christians find it sufficient to accept the Bible as reasonably accurate history, which can be judged the same way as any other historical document. In other settings, we do not expect multiple witnesses to give identical accounts.