Chapter Nine

Is the NT ‘riddled’ with contradictions?

The claim is often made, that the Bible is ‘riddled with contradictions and errors’, so riddled in fact that it couldn’t possibly be considered a reliable source of information; therefore you can’t trust it, QED, again. The claim is not always made in quite that dismissive way. Ehrman, asserts that the NT is riddled with contradictions, but still sees it as having value both historically and spiritually (Ehrman, ‘Jesus int’ 139, 269-283). Nevertheless, he does maintain that the NT is riddled with contradictions.

It that true? In my experience, in most cases, claims that there is a contradiction in a particular place in the NT tend to disappear like scotch mist when subjected to close examination. The claim that the NT is riddled with contradictions overpromises and underdelivers, to say the least of it. My reaction to the majority of the alleged contradictions is: is that it? Is that the best you can do? Having said that, there are genuine differences and difficulties in some places. Clearly this is an issue of critical importance, so it’s worth spending some time looking at it in detail.

Some might think that it’s rather negative to focus on problems, differences and difficulties in this way, which I do this quite lot in this book. Surely, it’s better to focus on the positives, the strengths of the NT? Always look on the bright side of life, as Monty Python so sagely put it. After all the stated aim of this part of the book is to show that:

it is rational and reasonable, supposing that you are open to the possibility of the miraculous, to regard the NT as good historical evidence for Jesus, what he said and what he did, and for the history of the first few decades of the Christian church.

So why not concentrate on positive reasons for holding this view? Addressing the negatives and bringing out the positives are not contradictory activities. The intention is that by investing time and effort into the former, we will achieve the latter more effectively!

The differences and difficulties aforementioned are not a modern discovery. Early Christian writers were aware of them, and their opponents used them to attack the credibility of the scriptures. Irenaeus, for example, writing around AD180 says:

But when their arguments are challenged using the scriptures, they [the opponents] respond by criticizing the scriptures themselves, claiming they are incorrect, lack authority, are inconsistent, and that the truth cannot be discerned from them …

Against the Heresies, book III, 2.1 (adapted from Wiles and Santer, p128).

So, there’s nothing new under the sun. Around the same time a writer called Tatian produced a harmony of the four gospels called the Diatessaron, which was widely used in the Syrian Church for a time; but according to the early fourth century historian Eusebius:

… [Tatian] dared to alter certain of the apostles’ expressions with a view to correcting the style in which they were composed.

Eusebius HE, iv 29:6-7 (Stephenson, p125, 382).

A harmony attempts to combine the four gospels together into one. This would be a way of ironing out all the differences but, for most of the church, altering certain of the apostles’ expressions in order to correct them was too outrageous even to be contemplated. This is a sign of the authority that the four gospels had by this stage (c. AD180). They could not be altered. The four originals were kept as they were, together with all their puzzles and paradoxes, and the Diatessaron was rejected.

 

What is a contradiction anyway?

Strictly speaking a contradiction occurs when you have two statements which say things which cannot possibly both be true. Either one statement is false or both are. If you use this strict definition then there are very few contradictions in the NT. The story of Jairus’ daughter is one of very select group. None of these contradictions are any more significant than Matthew’s abbreviation of Jairus’ story.

However, this strict definition is rather a blunt instrument. Sometimes it can be argued that a difference between two accounts amounts to a contradiction, even though it doesn’t strictly fit the definition; but the case has to be made in each instance, and that case must be judged on its merits. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that there is a contradiction.

A popular example is found the Christmas story. You can read it in Matt 1:18-2:23 and Luke 1:26-2:40. Richard Dawkins claims that there are many contradictions between the accounts of the birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke which are: ‘glaring, but consistently overlooked by the faithful’ (Dawkins, 120). The contradictions came about, he claims, because the stories were invented by Matthew and Luke. Some historians make similar claims. Paula Fredriksen, for example says:

Their [Matthew and Luke’s] efforts are especially showcased in their birth stories. Christmas nativities seamlessly blend these two gospels, but their respective narratives are in fact mutually exclusive … these authors were unconstrained by any historical knowledge (Fredriksen, 115-118).

That is such a great phrase. I am going to use it next time a write a school report. ‘These students were unconstrained by any mathematical ability …’ On the other hand, perhaps not!

If you are a fan of the traditional story as told in children’s nativity plays you will notice, as you read, some rather disappointing omissions. There is no stable, there are no animals around the manger, no innkeeper, no inn, no late arrival of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem, no little donkey, no little drummer boy, no kings (they are magi i.e. wise men) and no camels. Sorry to be a spoilsport. There are also no contradictions, at least not if you use the strict definition of that word. Matthew and Luke’s accounts are strikingly different, but there is no logical reason why they can’t both be true. But do the differences between the two accounts amount to contradictions, even though they don’t fit the definition?

According to Fredrikson, Matthew states that Mary and Joseph were natives of Bethlehem, whereas Luke says they were from Nazareth: a contradiction. But Matthew does not state that they were natives of Bethlehem; he states that Jesus was a native of Bethlehem. Does Matthew imply that Mary and Joseph were natives? Well maybe, and then again, maybe not. In Matthew, the Holy Family are in a house when the magi arrive, some time after Jesus’ birth, but where else would they be? I think we’ve established that they were not in a stable or an inn. The fact they were staying in a house doesn’t mean they were natives of Bethlehem. Matthew does not say that Mary and Joseph travelled from Nazareth to Bethlehem before Jesus’ birth as Luke does, only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; but you can’t conclude much from something that Matthew does not say.

There is another striking different between the two. Luke does not mention the journey into Egypt after Jesus’ birth to escape the murderous King Herod that Matthew describes; but you can’t conclude much from what Luke doesn’t say either. Do these differences amount to contradictions? You can make your own judgement.

In cases such as this it is necessary to consider both the differences and the similarities. The two accounts are certainly independent of each other; if they are not, then why are they so strikingly different? If they are invented, as both Dawkins and Fredriksen claim, how do you explain the fact that, as well as there being no actual contradictions between the accounts, they agree in essentials: the birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great, the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth, the names of Jesus’ parents and the fact that Joseph is the descendant of King David? Matthew and Luke cannot have independently invented those things. Those ideas came from somewhere. Where did they come from? It’s an interesting question, which has no straightforward answer.

On the other hand, sometimes there is difference between two gospels which technically fits the definition, but which cannot sensibly be called a contradiction. When two gospels tell the same story, as often happens, with a different order of events, or with a different wording, this is usually the case. For example, in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, when Jesus dies on the cross, the veil of the Jerusalem Temple is torn apart. The veil of the Temple was the barrier which separated the most sacred place in the Temple, the Holy of Holies, from the rest of the building. This was the place where the presence of God was found. No one was allowed in, except the High Priest, and he was only allowed in once a year, on the day of atonement. Whether this tearing of the veil literally happened, or whether the verse is meant to be symbolic, the meaning is clear. The death of Jesus has torn apart the barrier between humans and God. Luke, however, has things the other way around: when the veil is torn apart, Jesus dies. Ehrman makes much of this difference (Ehrman, ‘Jesus Int.’ 51-52, 64-70); but perhaps the events, the tearing of the veil and the death of Jesus, are simultaneous, and Luke is simply telling the story in a different order. If he is trying to convey some symbolic meaning by this, then it is not obvious what it is. Perhaps the difference in this case doesn’t mean anything at all. (Luke 23:45-46; Mark 15:37-38; Matthew 27:50-51)

If, rather than talking about two different accounts of the same event, you are talking more broadly about two different views of Jesus, or of different views the nature of his mission, then the question, ‘is this a contradiction?’ often becomes of a matter for debate. Mark’s view of Jesus is certainly different to that of John, but are those two views complementary or contradictory? The letter of James presents a different view of faith to that of Paul, but is really the same view seen from a different angle? These views are not contradictory in the sense that they cannot both be true, but are they sufficiently different to be considered contradictory nevertheless? Ehrman says they are (Ehrman, ‘Jesus Int.’ 61-99), others beg to differ (Blomberg, 208-214). I won’t say much about this type of difference in this book, since an adequate treatment would require a book of its own; a multiple volume book!

 

Two common types of ‘contradiction’

Many of the alleged contradictions in the NT are either to do with omissions or numerical differences, which you could see as a subcategory of omission.

An omission is not strictly speaking a contradiction, but in some cases the omission will be so significant that it amounts to a contradiction. For example, if Fred tells his wife that he is going for a walk, but omits to tell her that the purpose of the walk is to visit the pub, I think we would call that omission significant. It often happens in the NT that one version of a story includes details that another version omits and vice versa. We saw an example in the Christmas story above. When does this amount to a contradiction? A judgement must be made in each case.

A question: in a year which is not a leap year, how many months have 28 days? This catches lots of people out. The answer is all of them. They all have 28 days, but one month, February, has precisely 28. But forewarned is forearmed; you won’t fall for that one now!

What if one source says that a particular person was in a certain place at a certain time, and another says there were two or more people? This I call a numerical difference. Is this a contradiction? If one person says that Fred and Bert were in the pub having a couple of pints, and another says that Fred was in the pub having a couple of pints without mentioning Bert, then there is obviously no contradiction; but there might be circumstances where failing to mention that a certain person was present amounts to lying by omission. Once again, a judgement must be made in each case.

It reminds me of an old mathematical joke. Yes, they do exist. A biologist, a physicist and a mathematician are travelling to Scotland together on train. They do not walk into a bar. As they cross the border, the biologist sees a sheep in a field, points out of the window and exclaims, ‘Look! The sheep in Scotland are black.’ The physicist then says, ‘No. Some of the sheep in Scotland are black.’ Finally, the mathematician points out, ‘No. At least one half of at least one sheep in Scotland is black.’ So, how many black sheep are there in Scotland? The biologist goes beyond the evidence, the physicist makes a reasonable but unproven assumption; only the mathematician is strictly correct; but quite frankly, you wouldn’t get very far in life if you applied that level of pedantry to everything!

We find an example of numerical difference in the story of Blind Bartimaeus (Matt 20:29-34 c.f. Mark 10:46-52 c.f. Luke 18:35-42). In Mark and Luke, Jesus heals one blind man, but in Matthew there are two. It seems, once again, that Luke are Matthew are using Mark as a source. You can understand why Matthew might reduce the number of blind men to two from one in order to simplify the story, but here he increases the number from one to two? Why? If Matthew the tax collector, one of the twelve apostles, is the figure behind the gospel, then the explanation could be that Matthew is correcting Mark, because he knew there were two blind men healed. How did he know? Because, he was there.

This is a habit of Matthew. There are two demon possessed men healed, not one as in Mark (Matt 8:28-34 c.f. Mark 5:1-20).

The most popular examples of numerical differences occur in the story of Jesus resurrection. How many women were there at Jesus’ empty tomb? How many angels? The scores are:

 

 

Angels are often described as men in the Bible (e.g. Daniel 9:21).

The mathematical answer is that there were at least five women and at least two angels. Pedants of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your anoraks!

Technically, then, this is not a contradiction, but does it amount to one? Some say so, but you can make up your own mind. Here are the references:

• Matthew: Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb (Matt 28:1)
• Mark: When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him (Mark 16:1)
• Luke: Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles (Luke 24:10)
• John: Now on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went early, while it was still dark, to the tomb, and saw the stone taken away from the tomb. Therefore, she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, ‘They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him!’ (John 20:1-2)

 

Don’t try to explain contradictions away: contrivance is not a sign of truth

There is another contradiction in the story of the healing of the blind man/men. In Matthew and Mark this healing happens as Jesus leaves Jericho, but in Luke it happens as Jesus enters Jericho. Why? Yes, I know, who cares? But we are discussing contradictions, so let’s discuss it. Some people say that as Jesus entered Jericho, Jesus healed a blind man, and on the way out, he healed another two, one of whom was called Bartimaeus. Word got round clearly! Whilst this is logically possible, this explanation is more than a little contrived, as are many of the attempts that are made to explain away the apparent contradictions in the NT. As we noted at the end of the prologue, contrivance is an indication, although not a proof, that an explanation is not correct. In these cases, it is better to say, as Patrick Moore used to say, looking you straight in the eye, at some point in most of his astronomy TV programmes: we just don’t know.

However, as Blomberg puts it:

Unconvincing harmonisation does not discredit the method itself … When one realises that historical research regularly seeks to harmonise apparently conflicting testimonies, it becomes clear that it is disingenuous to disparage this method in the way that so many today do when it is applied to the Gospels. … The student who takes the time to read any three reliable historians’ accounts of other ancient figures or events will frequently find much more variation among them that he encounters in the Synoptics [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] (Blomberg, 195).

In other words, once again, avoid inverted fundamentalism.

 

The twin brother of omission: addition!

Luke offers a distinct perspective on the life of Jesus, particularly regarding his passion, compared to Matthew and Mark. The passion of Jesus means the story of the Last Supper, and Jesus’ arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial.  In fact: ‘in every pericope [section of text] of the passion, Luke adds his own material to put his unique stamp on the story’ (Garland, 883). An example is the story of the penitent thief, a man traditionally called Dismas, although Luke does not actually say that he was a thief or that he was called Dismas. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that there were two others crucified (hanged) alongside Jesus, one on the right and one on the left.

One of the criminals who was hanged insulted him, saying, ‘If you are the Christ, save yourself and us!’

But the other [Dismas] answered, and rebuking him said, ‘Don’t you even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.’ He said to Jesus, ‘Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom’. Jesus said to him, ’Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise’ (Luke 23:39-43).

Does this contradict Mark 15:32 and Matt 27? In Matthew and Mark both of those crucified with Jesus insult him, so this could be considered a genuine contradiction.

Some say that perhaps Dismas started by reviling Jesus, and then thought better of it later on (Morris, 346). This harmonisation of the accounts seems a little contrived, but is certainly more plausible the multiple blind man healing theory above. It’s easy to imagine that hanging on a cross for a couple of hours waiting to die could make you reconsider a lot of things.

Whatever the explanation, clearly Luke is adding to the account of Mark. Is this evidence that Luke made stuff up? Is the story invented by Luke himself? Well perhaps, but we know that Luke was in the habit of getting his information from sources which he considered reliable, most obviously the Gospel of Mark; but also, according to most scholars, a now lost document called Q which Matthew also used, and other documents which Matthew had no access to. Luke will also have heard stories told by word of mouth many times over; so, there is certainly no need to suppose that the story of Dismas is a lie made up by Luke as some do. There is every reason to suppose that he got it from a source that he considered reliable.

 

What do the ‘contradictions’ imply about the reliability of the NT?

We have noted that the gospel writers adapt their sources of information in different ways. All of this is legitimate and does not constitute making things up. If you add to this the variations that you would naturally expect from accounts based on eye witness testimony, and you take into account the fact that Jesus probably spoke to his listeners in Aramaic most of the time, whereas the gospels are written in Greek, you can see why you see different versions of events, and different versions of the sayings of Jesus, appear in the four gospels. You also see variation when you compare Paul’s letters with Acts, although that is a somewhat different situation since in the letters of Paul, Paul is the source of information about Paul. It’s safe to assume that Paul was quite well informed on that subject. Paul writes his letters in Greek, and they are addressed to Greek speakers.

You would expect the stories told in the NT to be told very differently for the reasons discussed above. Just because two versions of the same story are very different, that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily contradictory. Even if two of your sources are contradictory, or if a source makes a mistake, that doesn’t necessarily mean that your sources are unreliable. The legal principle, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, false in one thing, false in all things, doesn’t always apply, even in a law court. In fact, if you apply it strictly, the principle is self-refuting. If the principle applies to itself, then it immediately disproves itself; you just have to show that it is falsus in uno, which is not hard; then the principle itself ‘proves’ that it is falsus in omnibus. That doesn’t mean that the principle isn’t sensible; it is. It just shows that you have to be sensible how you apply it. If the contradictions or mistakes are sufficiently numerous, and/or sufficiently significant they may well lead you conclude that your source is unreliable; but once again, a judgement must be made in each case. We all make mistakes of course. My most embarrassing mistake as a teacher, probably, although it’s a crowded field, was when I wrote on the board in large letters 5x1=1 and then proceeded to lecture the students on how important it is to take care even over simple calculations. Fortunately, we are allowed to be falsus in uno sometimes. In this case I was literally falsus in uno. I used the tell the students that I’m glad to be corrected by a student, because it shows that at least one person in the class is paying attention.

So, what are we to do? Many take the view that the differences between the gospels and the other books are simply what you would expect: they are different but compatible; and as a matter of fact, having multiple accounts of the same stories adds the reliability of the NT, and that the diverse perspectives they give add to our understanding of Jesus and his teaching. Others will claim that the differences came about because the accounts of Jesus life and teaching found in the NT are either invented, or hopelessly corrupted by the way in which they were transmitted, or a combination of the two. There are also those who argue that the differences between the gospels and the other NT books are so great that they cannot be reconciled, regardless of what the explanation for those differences might be. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the similarities between the books are far more numerous and significant than the differences. If the differences need to be explained, so do the similarities.

Recall our first two questions in chapter 8.

• Are the sources of information used to write the NT books independent of each other?

In this case, by independent, I don’t mean completely independent. If the traditional explanation given in this book of how the NT came to be written is correct, then most of the NT writers knew each other, at least as acquaintances, so their books cannot be completely independent of one another; although there could be some exceptions to that, such as the Christmas story of Matthew and Luke. By independent, I mean here that the two authors did not get together to agree what to write, and that one did not copy from the other.

As we noted in the previous chapter, we can’t expect the answer to this question to be clear cut. For example, just because accounts are different, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are independent of each other, as we can see from the story of Jairus’ daughter. In those places where Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, as appears to be the case in the story of Jairus, that fact explains the similarities between them; but there are lots of places where they don’t use a common source. It’s fair to assume that if two accounts are very different, then they probably are independent; but a judgement has to be made in each case. If two or more accounts are independent and they agree on the essential facts, then that is strong evidence that the story that they tell is correct. This is the problem with the, ‘it’s all made up theory’. It can’t explain the similarities if the accounts are independent. This means then that the question of independence together with the second question:

• Are the NT books contradictory, or are they, essentially, in agreement?

are the sixty-four-thousand-dollar questions. In this chapter we have considered some examples of ‘contradictions’. Now let’s consider a more detailed example.

Summary

There are contradictions between the gospels, for example in the story of the healing of Jairus’ daughter. If we use a strict definition of the word contradiction then contradictions of this type are few and far between. There are important differences between accounts, for example between the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke, which, although they do not fit the strict definition, could be considered to amount to contradictions. This however involves a subjective judgement. Conversely, there are also important cases where differences do fit the strict definition of a contradiction, for example where the gospel writers tell the same stories in a different way, or in a different order. But this is a legitimate practice, and even though these cases might strictly count as contradictions, they are of limited significance.

We looked in some detail at various types of difference between the gospels which some consider contradictions.

Finally, we considered what the differences between the gospels and the other New Testament books imply about their reliability. Many take the view that the differences between the gospels and the other books are simply what you would expect: they are different but compatible; and as a matter of fact, having multiple accounts of the same stories adds the reliability of the NT, and that the diverse perspectives they give add to our understanding of Jesus and his teaching. There are also those who argue that the differences between the gospels and the other NT books are so great that they cannot be reconciled, regardless of what the explanation for those differences might be. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the similarities between the books are far more numerous and significant than the differences. If the differences need to be explained, so do the similarities.

 

Works Cited

Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2^nd ed., Apollos. 2007

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. 10^th Anniversary Ed., Transworld Publishers 2016

Ehrman, Bart D, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them.) HarperOne, 2009.

Fredriksen, Paula. When Christians were Jews. Yale University Press, 2018

Garland, David E. Luke. Zondervan Academic. 2012.

Morris, Leon. Luke. Second ed. Inter-varsity Press. 1988.

Wiles, Maurice and Mark Santer. Documents in Early Christian Thought. Cambridge University Press, 1975.