II. The Alleged Inconsistencies of the Testimony of the Gospel Accounts:

“The New Testament has many contradictions and errors and because of this problem, it cannot be trusted to present factual history”.

This objection that the Bible or the New Testament is “full of contradictions and errors” is a statement that I have heard over and over in my life starting when I was a young boy. Any serious Bible student would have to acknowledge that there are difficult passages and accounts of events recorded in the Bible. Based on my research, there are approximately (50) such difficulties in the four Gospels and the related material in the other books of the New Testament. (See note #2 for full list.) The majority of these difficulties are quite easily explained and clarified, while others require a more thorough investigation. There are some that we may not be able to arrive at a satisfying explanation because we are limited in our understanding of the situation. Some of these passages contain what appears on the surface to be contradictions and inconsistencies in the narratives. Are there contradictions in the Bible and in the New Testament Gospel narratives in particular?

To answer this question we need to look carefully at the evidence.It is very important to remember that claiming that something is a contradiction and proving it is quite a different matter. In order for something to be a contradiction, there cannot be a plausible explanation for the differences. Are there plausible explanations for the divergent testimonies found in the New Testament? Discrepancies are very common in historical documents and even in court room testimony. The advantage of the court room setting is that the witnesses can be cross examined to see if their testimonies converge or if one witness has provided details that the other witness did not observe for plausible reasons. Rarely do two witnesses of an event see all the details the same and they do not describe the occurrences the same.

In the case of historical documents, we do not have the cross examining possibility.However, discrepancies do not invalidate the reliability of a document in question especially when the details do converge in so many areas as noted in the Gospel accounts. It is important to be fair in this type of an examination. We certainly should not minimize the issue but neither should we exaggerate it.It is a basic rule to give the benefit of doubt to the writer of a document. This is true in literature and in our courts of law. This is because experience has shown that two or more descriptions of events can be different and still not be contradictory. An omission is not a contradiction. A partial or divergent narrative is not a false narrative. Two sources of a narrative can be including or excluding pieces of information and yet if the complete understanding of the situation were known, the two sources would be found to be in complete agreement, each providing parts of the total description.

Many of the difficult issues that appear to be contradictory are derived from inadequate knowledge of the circumstances under consideration. Violations of the law of non-contradiction are a different matter. Something cannot be “A” and “non A” at the same time. If this is found to be the case, we need to not minimize this but instead concede that a contradiction is present. However, this is much easier to state than it is to prove.

There are a number of principles that need to be acknowledged as we investigate this issue. The Biblical documents including the New Testament narratives in particular, were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic). Some of the books of the New Testament were most probably translated from Aramaic into Greek which is a process that can account for certain variances. They were written at different time periods, in different cultures, and from authors with varying writing methods. There were different modes and methods for computing time and methods of reckoning days, months and years. There were various idioms or figures of speech that were used. There was the use of different proper names and words that can have opposite significance in different settings. There is also the possibility that in the copying process, some errors were included into the text, especially with data such as numbers.

The Gospel record is not a biographical representation of the life and ministry of Christ, but rather it is an abbreviation. Jesus probably repeated many of His sayings and concepts to varying audiences and there were many parts of the life and ministry of Jesus that are not covered in the Gospel record – John 20:30,31 ; 21:25. One Gospel writer can be referring to one event in which it is paraphrased and in another instance a more complete account where more details are given. This does not constitute a contradiction.The Gospel writers in some cases, provide what appears on the surface to be contradictions or discrepancies. Writers, who truly want to convince their readers by collusion, work together to minimize these divergent materials in order to appear uniform in their story.

This is not the case with the New Testament and the Gospel accounts. Some of these apparent contradictions and discrepancies are easier to resolve than others. And for a few, a complete and satisfying resolution may not be possible. There may be factors that are not available to us and if we were aware of them they could completely harmonize these accounts. Remember, in order for something to be a contradiction, there cannot be a plausible explanation for the differences. Two statements are considered contradictory when both cannot be true, not simply because they differ in their details.

Let’s examine some of these apparent inconsistencies:

There are (11) difficult passages in the New Testament Gospel accounts that provide problems for thoughtful people. These listed below are typical of the more complex of the problematic narratives. (For a complete examination of various apparent discrepancies in the Biblical records, see the books listed here in note #3.) The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the book of Acts provide the historical context for the New Testament. The Gospels cover much of the same material on the life of Christ and because they provide these various accounts, the possibilities for differences among them are evident.

 

1. The instructions given to the twelve disciples.

The instructions given by Jesus to His twelve disciples prior to their first missionary venture are recorded in Matthew 10:8-10; Mark 6:7-9; Luke 9:1-6. Jesus tells them in these instructions that He wants them to carry no extra or additional provisions only the basic necessities for this trip. In Matthew’s account, Jesus tells His disciples to not take staffs – (plural) or sandals or a bag (luggage). However, in Mark’s Gospel Jesus is recorded as telling His disciples to take a staff (singular) and wear sandals and to not take a bag (luggage). In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus stated that they are not to take staffs (plural) or a bag but did not mention the use of sandals.

These accounts agree on the following: Don’t take two tunics, no bag, no money, take only the essentials. However, Matthew and Luke agreed on not taking staffs (plural)and yet Mark records that Jesus told his disciples to take a staff and to wear sandals which seems to be at variance with Matthew and partially with Luke.Is there a contradiction here? It is clear from this passage that Jesus wanted His disciples to carry only the most basic essentials probably so that they could identify with the people they were to minister to and to learn to trust in God’s provision for them.

The differences take place when Matthew records that Jesus told them not to carry staffs (plural) or sandals. The implication is that Matthew records Jesus telling them to not take an additional staff or a set of additional sandals. This can be seen in the fact that Jesus told them to “wear” sandals in Mark implying they could have only the sandals on their feet. Jesus is certainly not telling His disciples, as narrated in Matthew, to go barefoot, but rather to go with the clothes on their backs and shoes on their feet.The other prohibition in Matthew and Luke is to not take staffs (plural) yet Mark states that Jesus told them to “take a staff” (singular). When the nature of the singular and the plural uses are understood, the difference is explained. Jesus is telling them not to take extra staffs or sandals.

The use of carrying additional sandals and a staff was a form of carrying the necessary baggage for journeys that were traveled on foot. Jesus does not want them to take these additional “spare” items, but rather to go with only the essentials. This is a very plausible explanation for these apparent differences.

2. The genealogy of Jesus:

There are two genealogies of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. – Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38.When these two genealogies are examined, it becomes evident that they are different. Luke’s genealogy moves backward starting from Jesus and ending at Adam; Matthew’s genealogy starts at Abraham and moves forward to Joseph , Jesus’ legal father. When you look at the individuals mentioned in these two narratives, it is obvious that they have dramatic differences. Does this constitute a contradiction? Are these two obviously different listings of the lineage of Jesus evidence of a contradiction in the Gospel record?

First of all, this would be a contradiction if it was strictly a description of the lineage of Joseph or distinctively of Mary. You would have to say under these circumstances that one of these Gospel writers got it wrong or maybe both got it wrong. However, there is good evidence that this is not a single lineage but rather two separate lineages. Matthew’s genealogy belongs to Joseph’s family, and Luke’s genealogy is that of Mary’s family. This issue was dealt with as far back as the early church fathers, Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), Irenaeus (125 – 202 A.D.), Tertullian (160-225 A.D.), Origen (184-253 A.D.) and Athanasius (296-373 A.D.). They each agreed with the proposition that these accounts in Matthew and Luke consisted of two separate genealogies, one of Joseph’s (Matthew’s genealogy) and one of Mary’s (Luke’s genealogy).

Luke’s genealogy starts with – “Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as it was supposed), the son of Joseph, the son of Heli….” – Luke 3:23. If this indeed is Mary’s lineage and if she is the daughter of Heli, how do we know this?The great English scholar John Lightfoot (1602-1675) in his work Horae Hebraicae, cites from Talmudic writers who wrote regarding the pains of hell and stated that Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in these dark regions and was experiencing terrible tortures. This writing obviously contains narrative that exposes the antagonism held by these Jewish writers toward the Gospel and in this particular instance, the person of Mary. But it also reveals that there was a long received Jewish tradition that Mary was the daughter of Heli referred to in the genealogy of Luke.

The typical practice in Jewish genealogies was to provide the names of the fathers of a particular individual – father, grandfather, great grandfather…. If this is true, why does the text state “Joseph the son of Heli” if in reality Heli was not the father of Joseph but was Mary’s father? If this man named Heli had no sons of his own, then by Joseph’s marriage to his daughter Mary, Joseph would become the representative of Heli’s descendents. In the law of Moses, this substitution was established and allowed and was set as a precedent for this process – Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12. If Mary indeed had no brothers, she could then be the heiress of her father and by extension her husband Joseph, according to Jewish law, would be accounted as her representative in her father’s lineage.

According to Jewish law, genealogies must be accounted by fathers not mothers. However, this exception was allowed for a man without sons. This is not some type of a stretch but is based on established Jewish family lineage precedents and it is an accepted view held by numerous Bible scholars including the church fathers mentioned earlier. Matthew’s genealogy through Joseph establishes Jesus’ legal, royal record back to king David and Luke’s genealogy through Mary establishes Jesus’ actual, natural, royal record back to king David. From king David to Abraham these two lists are in total agreement. Only Luke continues the listing from Abraham back to Adam.

Luke clearly establishes that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus and the reality of Jesus’ humanity came through Mary’s natural pedigree. With this as a background, it can then be understood that Luke is utilizing Mary’s genealogy. Luke, of all the Gospel accounts, is the most identified within a historical context and he included details that the other Gospel writers are not inclined to provide. Matthew’s theme is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messianic King, the son of David and this can be seen throughout the Gospel of Matthew. His constant appeal to fulfilled messianic O.T. prophecies and his use of the term “the kingdom of God” (used 32 times) is evidence of this. Matthew establishes Jesus’ legal right as a descendant of king David and he does this through Jesus’ legal father, Joseph.

When this is understood, the alleged contradiction claim between these two genealogies is not viable. Every person has two genealogies and in the case of Jesus Christ, there is a much more involved process than any other person in all of human history.

3. The healing of the two blind men at Jericho:

There are (3) accounts in the Gospels of the healing of the blind men at the city of Jericho.

Matthew 20:29-34 states that there were (2) men that were healed and that this healing took place as Jesus and His disciples went out from the city of Jericho.

Mark 10:46-52 mentions that there was one blind man named Bartimaeus who was healed and records, as Matthew has, that this event took place as they went out from the city of Jericho. Luke 18:35-43 states that an un-named man was healed as they came into the city of Jericho. So which account is true? Were there two men or one man and did the healing occur as Jesus and His disciples entered the city or as they left the city? It would appear on the surface that these are contradictions. Are these indeed contradictions in the Gospel record?

It is important, as it is in all of the Gospel accounts, to recognize that we do not have all the information in any one of these narratives. This is another example of authors who are being selective in their material. The rule that must be remembered in this case is that a partial report is not a false report. One way to resolve these differences is to place them as two separate events; one as they came into the city and a second as they left the city. The record of two blind men can be resolved by recognizing that one man either spoke as the representative of the two and therefore he is the only one mentioned or the one, who is named, Bartimaeus, is mentioned because he was known by Mark or by one of Jesus’ disciples.

In Mark’s Gospel, he is referred to as Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, implying that there was knowledge of who he was. A second way to resolve these passages is to acknowledge the fact that there were two Jericho’s in existence at this time in history. There was the ancient city of Jericho which was located just outside of the actual inhabited city of Jericho. The ruins of this city are still located at this site today. The newer Jericho was built by Herod the Great (73-4 BC) near the ancient ruins of the old Jericho. Matthew and Mark’s accounts state that they were leaving the city of Jericho and Luke says that they were coming near the city. They could have been leaving the ancient city and approaching the existing habitable city when this healing took place. If this was the situation, all three accounts would be accurate in their description.

There is also the possibility that the Greek verb that is used in this setting as “coming” near to the city could also be translated “still” near to the city without being translated incorrectly. I believe that the best answer for these differences that meets with all of the available evidence is to understand that there were two cities of Jericho and two blind men who were healed by Jesus. One of the blind men was either known by the disciples and was then mentioned for this reason or one of the two acted as the representative and spoke for both of the two men. The mentioning of two men by one Gospel and one man by the third Gospel does not constitute a contradiction.

This type of situation happens all of the time in the normal course of life. Suppose you meet two men on a street, but your primary conversation is with just one of them. Later, you tell someone that you met with and talked to man #1. Still later again you tell another person that you met two men. Have you contradicted yourself? No. If you said that you met with only one man and then stated later that you met with two men, this would be a contradiction. But this is not what has taken place. The Gospel record here is likewise not a contradiction but rather is a case where there are incomplete details provided. The authors do not tell us that there were two cities or does Mark or Luke explain the facts for the reality of the second blind man. But we can provide plausible answers that explain how these details do converge.

4. Peter’s denial:

All four Gospels provide the record of Peter’s denial of Christ on the night of His betrayal and crucifixion. Matthew states “Assuredly, I say to you (Peter) that this night before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” – Matthew 26:34. Verses 74, 75 records – “Then he (Peter) began to curse and swear saying, ‘I do not know the Man’! Immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him ‘Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times’. So he went out and wept bitterly. Luke records Jesus as saying “the rooster shall not crow this day before you deny Me three times.” – Luke 22:34. John states that right after Peter’s third denial of Christ, that the rooster would crow – “Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.” – John 18:27.The Gospel of Mark (Mark 14:29,30) states that Jesus told Peter that before the rooster crows twice, that he would deny Christ three times.

The other (3) Gospel accounts state before the rooster crows Peter will deny Christ three times. So does this account in Mark contradict the other (3) Gospels? Is there a contradiction here?This in itself may appear as a contradiction but it needs to be pointed out that this is not a direct statement of “once” versus” twice”. Rather, it is one in which Mark provides more information about this event than the others. Eusebius, the 3rd century church historian has preserved some of the writings of Papias, the bishop of Heirapolis, who died in A.D. 120-130 and was a student of the “elder”, the apostle John.

Papias stated:“The Elder used to say this also: Mark having been the interpreter of Peter wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake writing down in this way some of the things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them.” – Eusebius, Church History, III. 39

This information, from an individual who accompanied the apostle John, gives solid historical evidence that Mark (from the apostle Peter as the source) wrote the Gospel of Mark. If Mark’s Gospel is based on information from Peter, then Peter would be in the position to provide these additional details.Many scholars have written regarding this difference and the general consensus is that a rooster will crow at least twice between midnight and the beginning of dawn. Usually the second time that the rooster crows is near the breaking of dawn and this is essentially what this term “before the rooster crows” is referring to. The time of the cock crow is another term for the dawn. The Gospel of Mark provides another detail that pinpointed this rooster crowing to be at dawn or the last of the crows of the rooster which is the same time as described by the other three Gospels. This is not the basis for a contradiction. It is simply one account providing more detail than the others.

5. The time of Jesus’ crucifixion:

The Gospel of Mark 15:25 reads “Now it was the third hour and they crucified Him.” The third hour according to the Jewish reckoning of time was about 9:00 in the morning and Mark states that this was the time on Friday morning when Jesus was crucified.The Gospel of John 19:14 reads – “Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover (Friday), and about the sixth hour. And he (Pilate) said to the Jews, ‘Behold your king’.”

The sixth hour according to Jewish reckoning was 12:00 A.M. (noon). John states that Jesus was in His trial before Pilate at the sixth hour.If Jesus is at His trial before Pilate at noon as John affirms, how can He be crucified at 9:00 A.M. as Mark affirms? If the crucifixion happened after the trial before Pilate, how can we account for this difference of at least three hours? This certainly would constitute a contradiction.In examining this difference it needs to be established that the Jewish basis of time started at 6:00 A.M. in the morning and set this as the first hour of the day. Based on this method of calculating time, Mark’s third hour, when Jesus is being crucified, would be at 9:00 A.M. in the morning.

The time of day according to the Jewish time reckoning was divided up into four periods each consisting of three hours and it could very well be that the third hour could represent anytime between 9:00 -12:00. If we allow for the possibility that neither writer was attempting to establish an absolute down to the minute reckoning of time, it helps in harmonizing these accounts. It certainly appears that Mark could be applying a period between 9:00 -12:00 A.M. However, even with this real possibility, we still do not have an agreement in time based on this understanding alone. The most plausible answer to this difference is that these two authors were using different methods of accounting for time. The Roman time period started at 12:00 P.M. (midnight) while the Jewish method started at 6:00 A.M. (sunrise) a six hour difference.

The land of Israel during this time was a subservient nation under the Roman Empire and both of these time methods were used by Roman and Jewish citizens. Mark’s Gospel was probably written 30-35 years before John’s Gospel and we know that John wrote his Gospel in Asia Minor where the Roman time method was employed. If this were true, then John could be recording that Jesus was before Pilate at 6:00 A.M. (the sixth hour according to Roman time) and approximately three hours later Mark affirms that Jesus was crucified. This allows three hours (6-9:00A.M.) for the process for the preliminary events, including the walk to Golgatha that eventually led to the crucifixion.

If we understand that the authors are providing general time periods and not down to the minute accuracy as the text implies, then this is a very plausible explanation for these differences. Both authors are stating that Jesus was before Pilate at approximately 6:00 A.M. and at the crucifixion site at 9:00 A.M. Many times we judge the narratives of these ancient texts by the standards that we would employ in the 21st century, and yet this is not how they recorded history in the 1st century. We have to accept their methods and literary standards, not ours.

6. The length of time Jesus was in the tomb:

In Matthew 12:40, Jesus is recorded to have said – “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

All four Gospel accounts state that Jesus was crucified on Friday morning (the day of Preparation for the Sabbath) between 9:00A.M. and noon; He was buried in the tomb on Friday before sundown and resurrected on Sunday (the first day of the week) before or right at sunrise. This means that Jesus was dead and in the grave part of Friday, all of Saturday (the Sabbath) and part of Sunday. This is two full nights, one full day and two parts of two days. If Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave for three full nights and three full days, is this not a contradiction or at least a mistaken uncompleted prophecy?

The answer to this question seems to hinge on what “three days and three nights” means. Is this referring to three full 24 hour periods of time or could this possibly be an idiom or a figure of speech indicating any part of a day as a day? It appears not only from the use of this term in ancient times but also in Biblical usages that these words are an idiom in which any part of a day is reckoned as a whole day. We see this very same use of “three days and three nights” or “after three days” used in Genesis 42:17; I Samuel 30:12,13.

In both of these passages the text makes it clear that three full days and nights were not implied, only the passage of some part of three days is indicated. In the Gospel texts, Jesus was not implying three full days and nights in this prediction. He later expounded and clarified that He would be “killed and be raised the third day” – Matthew 16:21; or after three days” – Mark 8:31; “in three days” – John 2:19. If He meant that it would be three full days and nights, then He would have to be raised on the fourth day not the third day.

Even the Jewish rulers who heard this prediction knew that He meant three days or the third day.“On the next day which followed the day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will arise’. Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away and say to the people, ’He has risen from the dead’. So the last deception will be worse than the first. Pilate said to them, You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know how.” – Matthew 27:62-65.These Jewish leaders indicated that Jesus had said He would rise the third day and they secured the tomb only to the third day, not the fourth day.

This term “three days and three nights is an idiom, a figure of speech indicating the passage of three days, partial or complete. With this understanding, there is no contradiction or discrepancy in this passage.

7. The angels at the tomb of Christ:

The Gospel accounts seem to differ on the number of angels present at the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection. How many angels were at the tomb? Was it one angel as Matthew records, or was it a young man as Mark indicates or two men as Luke indicates or two angels as recorded in John’s Gospel? (See Matthew 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-7; John 20:11-18). The account of Matthew indicates that there was one angel who spoke to the women; Mark says that there was one young man who spoke; Luke says that there were two men and John says that Mary sees two angels. How do we reconcile these divergent details?

The appearance of angels in the form of men is very common in the Bible. As a matter of fact, it is the most common form in which they appear. According to the Scriptures, they are servants of God, and they are spirit beings. When they do appear, they usually appear in the form of a human. Luke describes the two men as having shining garments. Mark describes the young man as being clothed in a long white robe. In both Mark and Luke, the women are described as being fearful and Luke states that the women bow their faces to the earth. Angelic appearances in the Bible are recorded as being very fearful and awesome experiences and both of these records indicate this.

All four accounts make it clear that these are angelic appearances in the form of men.Were there two angels or one? A contradictory statement would be indicated if Matthew or Mark stated that there was only one angel, while Luke and John stated that there were two. This would be a contradiction. But neither Matthew’s nor Mark’s account state this. The most plausible explanation is that there were obviously two angels, but one spoke, or one was the more prominent and featured angel. There is no way to know for sure but this is a very possible reality. A contradiction is not present if there is a plausible explanation and in each case in these angelic narratives, there is a viable explanation for the divergent details without any compromise to the validity of the testimony.

8. The cursing of the fig tree

This is one of the more intriguing passages in the Gospels and it presents some unique challenges to the thoughtful reader. In Mark 11:12-21, Mark states that Jesus and His disciples went from the town of Bethany to Jerusalem (a distance of about two miles). On their way into Jerusalem, Jesus sees a fig tree with leaves on it indicating that it should also have figs. When He came to the tree, he discovered that it had no fruit and Jesus cursed the tree and said ”Let no one eat fruit from you ever again” – Mark 11:14.

There is a great deal of Scriptural and national importance to what Jesus was attempting to demonstrate to His disciples in this event. In the Bible, the fig tree is always linked to national Israel.Jesus and the disciples proceed into Jerusalem and arrive at the temple. When Jesus sees the disarray and economic activity that is taking place on the temple grounds, He overthrows the moneychanger tables and drives the merchants out of the temple.

He then states the well known lines – “It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves” – Mark 11:17. Jesus is making the point that Israel, God’s chosen people are no longer bearing fruit; they are spiritually dead and hypocritical. Just as He cursed the barren, fruitless tree that represents Israel, He demonstrates again the barren nature of His nation.They had turned the house of worship of the true and living God into a place of extortion and bribery.

History confirms that Israel and the temple were destroyed in A.D. 70 by the army of the Roman Emperor Titus, losing not only their national life but also their spiritual life. This is the object lesson that Jesus was using to teach His disciples; the great danger of spiritual fruitlessness, something that God will judge. The cursing of the fig tree was not just an act of anger and disappointment on Jesus’ part as some have claimed, but it was an instructional lesson on the consequences of spiritual barrenness.

According to Mark, they leave Jerusalem that evening and return to Bethany. The next morning as they passed by the fig tree, they noticed that it had dried up and withered at its roots and Jesus proceeded to teach them another object lesson on the power of prayer and faith in God – Mark 11:20-26.

Matthew’s Gospel provides a record of these same events in Matthew 21:10-22. He states the same narrative as Mark. Jesus and the disciples leave Bethany and arrive at Jerusalem in the morning. However, Matthew does not mention that Jesus saw the fig tree or that He cursed it. Jesus arrives at the temple in Jerusalem, drives out the money-changers as recorded in Mark and in the evening returns to Bethany. The next morning Jesus and the disciples pass by the fig tree and at this point Matthew states that Jesus cursed the fig tree and that it immediately dried up and withered away. Which account is correct? Are they contradictory? Mark indicates that the fig tree was cursed on day #1 and Matthew indicates that it was cursed on day #2. It appears on the surface that in Mark’s account the fig tree did not immediately dry up, but in Matthew’s account it withered up right away. If this is a true and accurate understanding of these events, these accounts would seem to be at variance with each other. There are a few plausible solutions to this apparent discrepancy.

First, Matthew may be recording this account by using a method of narration that is different than the methodology that Mark employs. Mark lists these events in a chronological order whereas Matthew records it in a topical arrangement, not in the actual sequence of the ordering of the events. This method is used in numerous parts of the Bible, the greatest example found in the creation accounts of Genesis 1,2. Matthew does seem to combine the cursing of the fig tree and the discussion with the disciples and yet he does not actually affirm that all of these events happened on the same day.

Second, it is possible that Matthew simply compresses the time of these events into one event for the sake of brevity, leaving the door open to the fact that these events may have happened on two different days. This type of testimony occurs not only in oral witness, such as a court proceeding, but also in the ancient recording of history.(See the books listed in note #3 more information on this use of time compression in historical narratives.)

Third, some scholars have suggested that there were two separate events here, one in which Jesus cursed the fig tree on day #1 and then day #2 cursed it again providing an immediate withering affect which was meant to emphasize the object lesson described above. The two independent witnesses (Mark and Matthew) could each have been unaware of both of the two separate events, Mark recording one and Matthew the other. What these various options demonstrate is that there are valid solutions to the differences between Matthew’s account and Mark’s record.

At least two of these options offer a real and plausible solution to these differences and the third remains a valid possibility. We really don’t know exactly how these events took place but we do know that two eyewitness writers can provide different pieces of information without contradicting one another. This again is not an irreconcilable difference.

 

9. The number of women at the tomb:

Matthew 28:1 states that Mary Magdalene and the ”other Mary” came to the tomb. Two women.

Mark 16:1 states that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome came to the tomb. Three women

Luke 24 :1 states that they (women from Galilee) and certain other women with them, came to the tomb.

Verse 10 lists this group as consisting of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them. More than three women. John 20:1 records that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb. One woman.So which of these accounts is correct. Was there one, two, three or four or more women who went to the tomb? Is this a contradiction? How can all of these accounts be true?

The Gospels provide us with independent witnesses to the record of Christ’s life and ministry and the evidence they were not involved in some type of an effort in collusion is verified by the differences in the accounts. For instance, none of the Gospel accounts provide all of the events of the resurrection of Jesus. Matthew is the only witness who records the first appearance to the women – Matthew 28:9,10. Only Luke mentions the specifics of the two disciples and the appearance of Christ to them while walking on the road to Emmaus –Luke 24:13-32. John’s Gospel is the only one which relates the appearance to Thomas specifically- John 20:26-29 and to the disciples on the Sea of Galilee – John 21:1-23. Each of them provides a number of details that are not included in the other accounts.

However, they agree on the facts of the empty tomb; the presentation of the angels; the physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead and His appearances to the disciples on numerous occasions.One of these instances where there are details that are incomplete is the record of the women at the tomb. How do we reconcile these seemingly divergent details? Can we find plausible answers to explain these differences? First, there is nothing that precludes a partial listing of the names of the women from one writer to another. This is a regular occurrence that happens to all of us and is a common method of transcribing historical events. We each have done this many times. We will recall an event and only include the name of one person when there may have been two or more people involved in that event. A partial amount of detail provided for an occurrence does not result in a discrepancy or a contradiction.

The Gospel writers may have only listed the women that they felt were necessary to establish the evidence in presenting the account of the resurrection to the audience to whom they were addressing. Mary Magdalene, for instance may have been one of the better known women in the early church. The names of the other women may also have been known to the audience of one of the Gospel writers more than to the audience of another writer. Luke makes it clear that some of these women were not identified or named.Second, there may very well have been two groups of women who came to the tomb at close intervals in time. None of the Gospel accounts forbids such an understanding. One group could consist of Mary Magdalene along with the other two women mentioned in Mark and a second group could consist of the other women from Galilee mentioned in Luke’s account coming at approximately the same time.

It definitely appears that Mary came with the other women but left by herself to go and find the disciples Peter and John. Later she returned by herself to the tomb and saw the risen Jesus. There are some who find the fact that John mentioned only Mary Magdalene and no other women with her as a contradiction with the other Gospel accounts which record at least one other woman with her at the tomb. However, a closer examination of John 20:2 states that when Mary Magdalene ran and found Peter and John she told them – “Then she (Mary) 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 do not know where they have laid Him.” She specially refers to “we” implying that she speaks on the behalf of others and those others would be the other women that were with her.

There are some who point out that Mark’s Gospel states that the women came to the tomb when the sun was rising “very early in the morning” – Mark 16:2, while John’s account states that it was “early, still dark” – John 20:1. It is important to note that John does say it was early (implying in the morning). Was it dark or was the sun rising? If the women came from either Jerusalem or the town of Bethany, it would take some time to walk outside of Jerusalem to where the tomb was located. They simply could have started to walk to the tomb when it was still dark (“went” – John 20:1) and arrived at the tomb (“came to the tomb” – Mark 16:2) when the sun was rising.

When the evidence of the number of women who came to the tomb is examined, there are very plausible explanations for the differences in the Gospel records. The charge that these varying details are contradictions does not stand.

 

10. Judas hanging himself:

Matthew 27:3-8 provides a record of the death of Jesus’ betrayer Judas, and the purchase of the potter’s field.“Then Judas, His (Jesus’) betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, ‘I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.’ And they said, ‘What is that to us? You see to it.’ Then he (Judas) threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, ’It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.’ And they consulted together and bought with them (the thirty pieces of silver) the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the field of blood to this day.”

Luke says in Acts 1:18,19 regarding Judas – “Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.”These two accounts point out two differences that appear to contradict one another.

Matthew states that Judas went out and hung himself and that the priests and Jewish rulers purchased a field with the blood money that was paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus. Luke tells us in Acts that Judas fell and his body burst open and his entrails “gushed out”. He (Judas) is said to have purchased the field. Are these direct discrepancies? Do these passages essentially contradict one another? Matthew makes it very clear that Judas hung himself and yet he says nothing about Judas falling. Luke states that he fell and his insides burst open. However, Luke (who is quoting Peter), does not say directly that this fall was the cause of his death, only that he fell and burst open. The description sounds like a bloated body that has decomposed sufficiently to burst when it fell. The most probable event that unites these two accounts is that Judas went and hung himself on a tree that was either a fairly tall tree or a tree that overlooked a cliff or precipice. Eventually the rope or branch broke and his body crashed to the ground and burst.

Neither of these two accounts forbids such an occurrence and the Acts 1:18 description actually sounds like a bloated body that has been decomposing for some time and when it falls, it bursts open. This is not a requirement but it certainly is a very real possibility. It could also have been that after he hung himself, the branch or rope immediately broke and he fell to the ground and his body opened up without any time lapse between the two actions. Either one of these two scenarios can account for both of these two descriptions.

The next difference is based on the descriptions of who purchased the field with the thirty pieces of silver that was paid by the Jewish rulers to Judas as payment for betraying Jesus. Did Judas purchase the field or did the Jewish rulers purchase it? Is this a contradiction?Both writers agree that this money was used to purchase a field and they agree on the term that was commonly used to describe this purchased property – “the Field of Blood”. They differ in that Matthew affirms that the Jewish rulers took the money that Judas threw away in their presence and they decided to purchase a field with the money. Luke simply states “this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity”. No further details. This passage clearly leaves open the very real possibility that the Jewish leaders purchased the field on behalf of Judas. This is a use of terminology where the action is attributed to the person who furnished indirectly the means to accomplish it.

This is a fairly common figure of speech that is used in transactions where someone initiates an action on the behalf of another and then the action is attributed to the individual who provided the means to do so. This is what is taking place here. The Jewish rulers purchased the field with Judas’ money and Peter, through Luke’s record, tells us that Judas indirectly purchased it. This understanding is based on a very reasonable and common methodology. This very principle is employed in various places in both the Old and New Testaments. In Matthew 20:20, Zebedee’s wife makes a certain request for her sons and in Mark 10:35, Mark states that the two sons made the request.

In the Old Testament I Samuel 12:9, David is stated to have killed Uriah and in II Samuel 11:17, the Ammonites are referred to as the ones who killed Uriah.Here David planned and plotted Uriah’s death and yet the Ammonites are the actual means by which he was killed. Another example in the Old Testament is Deut. 27:14,15 and Joshua 8:34,35 and in the New Testament Matthew 8:5 and Luke 7:8. These are examples where a writer refers to one person doing something which was actually accomplished by proxy. Someone else was an agent or a substitute and authorized to act for another person or persons. This is what is taking place here with the case of the purchased field. The Jewish rulers have purchased the field and have done so as agents or substitutes for the one who actually had the rights to the money for this purchase which was Judas himself.

There are no contradictions in these passages because we have plausible explanations for both of these two differences. It is very much within the common course of human interaction that these events could have transpired as we have indicated here.

11. Paul’s conversion:

The conversion experience of the apostle Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus has provided a difference that people believe is a contradiction. Acts 9:7 states – “And the men who journeyed with him (Saul) stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.” Later in Acts 22:9, Paul describes this incidence to a crowd of people in Jerusalem. He states “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.”

These two accounts seem on the surface to contradict one another. In one passage the men are said to have not heard a voice and in the other passage they are described as hearing a voice. The verb that is used here for the word “to hear” is the Greek word “akouo” and the way that it is used in each passage is different. In Acts 9:7 it is used with the genitive and in Acts 22:9 it is used with the accusative. The genitive expresses the idea of hearing certain sounds but not understanding. In Acts 9:7, they hear a sound but do not understand or comprehend the sound. The accusative construction used in Acts 22:9 is describing hearing a sound in such a way as to comprehend and understand the sound. Acts 22:9 states that they did not hear in such a way as to understand or comprehend the sounds. When the construction of the Greek verb is examined in each passage, the difficulty is completely resolved.

They heard a sound of a voice but they did not understand the voice. Each passage is saying exactly the same thing but when it is translated into English, the construction of the verb must also be understood in order to fully know the proper rendering. The men who were traveling with Saul heard the voice but they did not understand what was said. Both of these passages state the same thing. There is no contradiction.

Conclusion:

As we have looked at these (11) difficult passages, it is understandable that some would see the apparent differences and conclude that there may be contradictions in the narratives. However, in order for a contradiction to actually exist, there cannot be a plausible explanation for the differences. The definition of a contradiction is that it consists of “a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions.” Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction states that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

When we look at these differences in the Gospel record, there are explanations for the apparent differences.Some of these explanations are better than others. One may sincerely not like one of the explanations that we have provided here, but it does not follow that because the explanation is not acceptable to a person that he then has the logical right to infer that a contradiction has taken place. Since we do not have all of the information for these events, we cannot assume to know what other factors may be involved in the construction of the alleged discrepancies.

If all of the information was available, the differences might be better explained. When a plausible explanation can be provided, then there are no logical grounds upon which to assert that a contradiction is present. It is also important to understand that the four Gospels cover over (110) of the same events, teachings or parables of Jesus and they converge and agree on hundreds of details. When the agreements on these details are listed out, the apparent differences pale in comparison.

The following quotation is from Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), the Royal professor of law at Harvard University and one of America’s greatest legal scholars. Mr. Greenleaf makes his case for the trustworthy nature of the testimony of the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in his work, The Testimony of the Evangelists. He deals with the veracity of the eyewitnesses of the Gospel record and the normal differences that arise when examining testimonies.

“The discrepancies between the narratives of the several evangelists, when carefully examined, will not be found sufficient to invalidate their testimony. Many seeming contradictions will prove, upon closer scrutiny, to be in substantial agreement; and it may be confidently asserted that there are none that will not yield, under fair and just criticism. If these different accounts of the same transactions were in strict verbal conformity with each other, the argument against their credibility would be much stronger. All that is asked for these witnesses is, that their testimony may be regarded as we regard the testimony of men in the ordinary affairs of life. This they are justly entitled to; and this no honorable adversary can refuse. We might, indeed, take higher ground than this, and confidently claim for them the severest scrutiny; but our present purpose is merely to try their veracity by the ordinary tests of truth, admitted in human tribunals.

If the evidence of the evangelists is to be rejected because of a few discrepancies among them, we shall be obliged to discard that of many of the contemporaneous histories on which we are accustomed to rely. Dr. Paley has noticed the contradiction between Lord Clarendon and Burnett and others in regard to Lord Strafford’s execution; the former stating that he was condemned to be hanged, which was done on the same day; and the latter all relating that on a Saturday he was sentenced to the block, and was beheaded on the following Monday.

Another striking instance of discrepancy has since occurred, in the narratives of the different members of the royal family of France, of their flight from Paris to Varennes, in 1792.These narratives, ten in number, and by eyewitnesses and personal actors in the transactions they relate, contradict each other, some on trivial and some on more essential points, but in every case in a wonderful and inexplicable manner. Yet these contradictions do not, in the general public estimation, detract from the integrity of the narrators, nor from the credibility of their relations. In the points in which they agree, and which constitute the great body of their narratives, their testimony is of course not doubted; where they differ, we reconcile them as well as we may; and where this cannot be done at all, we follow that light which seems to us the clearest.

Upon the principles of the skeptic, we should be bound utterly to disbelieve them all. On the contrary, we apply to such cases the rules which, in daily experience, our judges instruct juries to apply, in weighing and reconciling the testimony of different witnesses; and which the courts themselves observe, in comparing and reconciling different and sometimes discordant reports of the same decisions. This remark applies especially to some alleged discrepancies in the reports which the several evangelists have been of the same discourses of our Lord.” The Testimony of the Evangelists pages 11, 12.Dr. Gleason Archer (1916-2-4) has performed a great service in his exhaustive research on Bible differences and difficulties.

He stated in the forward of his book – Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties the following summary of the consistency of the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments)“As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself – or else by objective archaeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record; and no properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion.” Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties page 12.

When the alleged discrepancies of the Gospel are closely examined, the case for contradictions among the various writers does not stand up. This evidence is not of the type which can remove existing prejudice, but if studied with an open mind, confidence in the general and specific veracity of the Gospel testimony can be assured.