Can contradictions be found in the Gospel narratives?

Answer 1

Another answer from our community:

Iraneus, as an apostle of Polycarp, who was an actual student of St. John, had a very direct connection to the oral history concerning Yeshua. His commentaries are not based on the canonical texts alone, but are connected to eye witness accounts. He believed Jesus to be in his 50's when he died. He cites John:8:56 to prove that he was in his 40's during his ministry. See the notes on the discussion page.

The Gospel of John was a problem for the orthodox church - its story was too true to omit, but its divergence from the synoptics caused problems and they had to make excuses for it. Iraneus' use of the Gospel of John is disruptive to the theory that they synoptics are historically accurate, not supportive. Origen, in defending John's Gospel, said "although he does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually" (Origen, Commentary on John).

Some liberal theologians maintain that there are inconsistencies in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke), whereas the record about Christ is simply given by different disciples in slightly different circumstances. The efforts to plant doubt are put forth largely by those who are members of the liberal National Council of Churches.

There are those who maintain that there are no inconsistencies in the Gospels, nor the entire Bible. They say that what is twisted around by the detractors is the attempt to make Ancient Middle Eastern customs, thinking & speech to fit into our Western ways. Yet the differences in the Synoptics & the Gospel of John can be seen to give a fuller richer view of the life & ministry of Christ.

This can be seen all in the context of correctly understanding the Gospel narratives in the context of their times, including the way ancient writers wrote. Alleged contradictions actually can turn out to be nothing of the sort when examined closely. They all have valid alternate explanations. Certainly there are differences, just as there are natural differences in eyewitness accounts of an accident, all of which can be true, just different aspects of viewing the same scene. When one also considers the natural differences in style and emphasis, different audiences addressed, and differences in knowledge, it would be surprising indeed if they were identical. Differences there are. Contradictions, it can be maintained, there are not.

When it is said that The Bible is just an inspired book, written by man and/or manipulated by man, it is not entirely true. Certain manipulation has taken place. There are corrupt versions of the Bible. Even the Apostles Peter and Paul, Jesus and all the Scriptures indicate such attempts at perverting what God said. Yet the claim of Scripture is that God gave it and that He will keep it pure and preserve it. So, He's either done this somewhere or it's an empty claim by God.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them forever." Psalm 12:6,7. Peter said: "No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved (Greek: einegka: borne up, carried along) by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20,21. Jesus maintained that the Old and New Testaments would not pass away, but will last. By certain studies, it can be found the test of Scriptures have demonstrated that they have been preserved and are pure (without error) as was said.

Irenaeus, between 160-200 A.D., quoted almost the entire Gospel of John in his teaching to new believers. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apostle John. This is one historical reference that verifies the accuracy of the Scriptures.

A study of the early church fathers can be very revealing (such as Iraneus and Polycarp). It gives contextual information that is indispensable to the serious Bible Student and hints about what the texts might have been like in early times. A study of Iraneus highlights the differences between the synoptic gospels as we now have them and the story of Yeshua as it was understood by Iraneus and Polycarp.

To date, no evidence has been found that any of the manuscripts which were translated into the Bible as we have it today were not tampered with by man. None of the existing manuscripts can be considered "original" by any stretch of the imagination. There is no real physical or historical evidence that the Bible is any different from any other ancient religious document in this matter.

All of the writings in the canonical Bible were in the custody of the Roman Church (not just the Roman Catholic church as we know it today, but the Roman bishops that allied themselves with Emperor Constantine) for hundreds of years before being translated into English from the Latin or Greek. A comparison of the story of Yeshua's ministry and the theology of the Gospel of John with the synoptics gives very clear signs of a divergent Gospel tradition.

Another answer

The question asks if contradictions in the Bible actually exist. They do.

This idea that there are no contradictions in the Gospel is something that many scholars could not possibly support. There are a some Christians who believe that there is nothing contradictory or non sequitur in this text. The idea that it is "perfect" is far from the truth. Offering ideas that the writing has been taken out of context or suggesting that understanding the way the ancient scribes set things down is a diversionary tactic. The idea of contradictions in the Bible isn't something some "small group" has set up to "undermine" the teachings of this Divine work. Rather, it is broadly accepted that there are some inconsistencies and contradictions in this text, yet it is accepted in the full with that understanding. Scholarship and deep delving aside, the simple believer who has studied the Bible in any depth could see the contradictions with ease. There is no "conspiracy" here.

Believing no contradictions exist in the Bible requires a broad suspension of logic and reasoning, and the substitution of blind acceptance. Is there another explanation of the zeal which would explain an individual's refusal to consider contradictions exist? God gave us an extraordinary gift to think (critically) and to reason. We have a "curiosity gene" and we ask questions. We're got the gift (His gift) of "fearlessness" in this. And we have Faith. How else could we believe and yet question? Jonestown is an example of those who blindly follow. The strong Church has strong Members that are always asking questions. Always seeking truth. Always testing it. Are there things yet to be revealed that will "clear up" the "problems" in the Bible? Patience and continued faith are all that are required to discover further truth.

Recall that the Bible came to us through numerous translations, meetings, arguments, committees, agreements, edits, etc., etc. It should be asked: "Why were things included that were included?" "Why were others left out?" "Who made these decisions?" "And by what authority?" The Bible anyone holds in his hand and presents is an interpretation and a blending of what was originally written. The Bible is an inspired work, but it is one that is written by men and not by God. And no one can make any claims regarding the "perfection" of this work of History and Religion. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

Examples of Contradictions

Yes, many contradictions are found in the Bible. Below are some examples;

1. According to Matthew 1:6-7, Jesus descended from Solomon. But according to Luke 3:31, Jesus descended from Nathan.
2. According to Matthew 1:6-16, there were 28 generations from David to Jesus, but according to Luke3:21-43, there were 43 generations.
3. According to Matthew 2:1, Jesus was born on or before 4 BCE (Herod died 4BCE). But according to Luke 2:1, Jesus was born on 6CE (AD)
4. According to Mark 1:12-13, Jesus went to the desert after he was baptized by John.

   According to John 1:35, 43, 2:1, After being baptized, Jesus gathered his disciples and went to a wedding in Cana.

5. Matthew 2:14 says that after Jesus' birth, Joseph and Mary brought the infant Jesus to Egypt: "When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt."

   Luke 2:39 says that after Jesus' birth, Joseph and Mary took the infant Jesus to Nazareth: "And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth."

Examples of Answers to Alleged Contradictions

1. There is two different lines disclosed. Matthew gives Joseph's lineage, who was not Jesus' physical father, but the father to whom He was entrusted, yet this gave Him the legal claim to David's Throne. Luke gives the lineage of Mary, which is true lineage of the humanity of Jesus, yet He was without sin, being virgin born. This was prophesied in Genesis 3:15, speaking of the"seed" of woman. Seed normally comes from man, but Jesus was sent, implanted in Mary's womb by God.
2. As above, there are two different lines of Christ be given and also a different way of reckoning eras. One is by "generations" and the other by households.
3. In Luke 2:1, it simply states, "Cyrenius was governor of Syria." It doesn't mention the year of his reign, yet it is established archeological history that Cyrenius was twice Governor of Syria, of which this may have been during the later reign. While it is true that Herod had died in 4BC, Matthew's account in no way conflicts with Luke. The "contradiction" does not exist.
4. In John 1:19-36, John the Baptist is involved baptizing People, yet saying that he is not the Christ, but the forerunner: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord." (v.23) He announces Jesus in vv. 35,36: "Behold the Lamb of God!" Jesus was to become the sacrificial Lamb. Then two of John's disciples follow Jesus (v,37), one of them being Peter's brother, Andrew. He calls Peter and goes to Galilee (v. 43). No account of Christ's baptism is given by John. There is no contradiction with the Gospel accounts of Jesus' baptism in Matthew, Mark Or Luke.
5. In Matthew 2:1-12, the account of the wise men's visit had taken place. In verses 13,14, Joseph was warned about Herod, who would try to "destoy" Jesus and told to flee to Egypt, which he did. Herod saw that the wise men had insulted him by not returning, so he killed all the babies from two years and under. So, a little less than two years had gone by. When Herod was dead, the family went to Nazareth.

Luke's account does not report the wise men or the flight to Egypt, but moves rapidly from His babyhood through youth in Nazareth to his 12th year of beginning manhood. (vv.39-42). It's a different report, both leave something out the other gives in their account. (We wrongly attempt to have ancient Middle Easteners behave like 21st Century Western society, but that's not good anthropology nor historical science.)

Answer/

Yes, according to the contextual views of the reader as given to them literally, or according to the perception and understanding that they possess.

In that vein, if the text is analysed superficially and without cross referencing the context, contradictions are readily found. If by the dictates of the translator/s and editor/s, content meaning is wrongly imposed, contradictions in their published edition/s can be found.

Answer 2

Yes, there are some apparent contradictions in the Gospel narratives, such as differences in details or perspectives across the various accounts. These inconsistencies have led to debate among scholars and theologians about the nature of Scripture and the historical accuracy of the Gospels.

Answer 3

There are too many contradictions in the gospels to list fully in a short Answer. However, it is possible to list some classes of contradictions and provide some short examples.
Nativity Only two gospels provide accounts of Jesus' birth, while John suggests that its author may have believed Jesus to have been born in Nazareth.

Matthew has Jesus in a house, where magi or "wise men" visited him. Herod sought to have Jesus killed, so Joseph fled from Bethlehem with his family to the safety of Egypt, where they remained until Herod's death in 4 BCE. They intended to return to "the land of the Israelites" (Judea), but turned aside and travelled to Galilee. John Shelby Spong (A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) says that Matthew was clearly writing Christian midrash.

Luke has Joseph and Mary travel from Galilee to Bethlehem during the reign of Herod (died 4 BCE), but also at the time of the census of 6 CE. Jesus was born in a manger, after which he was taken to Jerusalem for circumcision, and then the family returned peacefully to Galilee. Referring to the year of the census, Raymond E Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament, p233) says, "The best explanation is that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately."

Matthew and Luke both provide a genealogy for Jesus, or at least for Joseph (Matt 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph"; Luke 3:23 "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli"). They both said that he was descended from the great Zorobabel, son of Salathiel, but gave contradictory fathers for Salathiel (Matt 1:12 "... Jehonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel"; Luke 3:27 "... Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri"). And both contradicted the Old Testament genealogy, although in different ways. Raymond E Brown (ibid, p236) says that there is little likelihood that either account is strictly historical.

Crucifixion and resurrection There are many contradictions in the various accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus, most apparent in the accounts of who stood at the foot of the cross. The most important of all such contradictions are those related to the appearances of the risen Jesus. Variously: Jesus appeared only to the disciples in Jerusalem and then ascended to heaven; or also appeared, last of all, at a mountain in Galilee; or made several appearances, last of all at the Sea of Galilee.

Sayings of Jesus

Matthew and Luke are considered to have relied in part on a hypothetical sayings document, now known as the Q document, for many of the sayings they attributed to Jesus. Whenever the two gospels agree on a saying that was absent from Mark, it seems likely that this saying was from the Q document. However, the Q document contained no information about the life of Jesus or the context in which he would have spoken these sayings. As a result, each gospel contradicts the other when explaining when Jesus spoke those words and in what context.

John's Gospel

The Gospel According to St John contradicts the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) quite often. A key difference is that the Synoptics had Jesus attack the money-changers shortly befor his arrest and trial, whereas John has this event take place near the beginning of Jesus' ministry - some three years earlier. In the synoptic gospels, the crucifixion takes place after Jesus and the disciples celebrate the traditional Passover feast, but in John the crucifixion takes place before the Passover.

Origen, in defending John's Gospel, said "although he does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually" (Origen, Commentary on John).