Where does the New Testament contradict known history?

Answer 1

The most famous contradiction between the New Testament and known history is in Luke chapter 2, which says that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in April 4 BCE, and also during the census that took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Quirinius was made governor of Syria in 6 CE, with instructions to conduct a census of Judea. The two date do not match, leading Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) to say 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. Some apologists say that Quirinius must have been governor of Syria twice, but what we know of his career makes this unlikely.

Luke's Gospel, in its genealogy of Jesus, says that the peternal grandfather of Zorobabel was called Neri, but the Old Testament says that he was called Jehoahaz. It goes on to say that Amminadab was the son of Admin and grandson of Aram, and that Shelah was the grandson of Arphaxad, but the Old Testament says that Amminadab was the son of Aram and Shelah was the son of Arphaxad. The changes created a sequence by which Jesus was destined for greatness.

Mark's Gospel, in its genealogy of Jesus, omits Jehosh, Amaziah and Uzziah from the king list, in order to achieve a sequence by which numerology demonstrates that Jesus was destined for greatness.

The gospels say that John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded in Galilee around 29 CE, but the first century history, Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus, tells us that he was imprisoned in the castle of Macherus, to the east of the Dead Sea, and executed there in 35 or 36 CE.

Acts 5:36 has Gamaliel speak about an uprising that had taken place under Theudas, before the martyrdom of Stephen and therefore in the early thirties, long before Paul's conversion. In the next verse, Luke said that after this man, Judas of Galilee rose up. The first problem is that the uprising by Theudas occurred within the procuratorship of Fadus, who was procurator in the years 44-46 CE. Gamaliel simply could not have been speaking about events that would not occur until more than a decade into the future. This is another instance in which Luke, writing early in the second century, sets his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from the past, but sometimes inaccurately.

Acts 21:38 also has the chief captain ask Paul whether he was the Egyptian who led four thousand sicarii into the desert. Acts was written in Greek but very specifically used the Latin term sicarii ('assassins'). Josephus, who also wrote in Greek, seems to have been the first to use this foreign word as a term for Jewish rebels who carried out assassinations under cover of urban crowds. The sicarii were not skilled in open warfare, and leading them into the wilderness or desert, where they would be out of their element and at a disadvantage, does not make sense. As for 'the Egyptian', far from leading anyone into the desert, Josephus tells us he wanted to bring down the walls of Jerusalem by a miracle. Josephus mentioned three specific rebel leaders, and no other, even though he says there were numerous such men. Acts mentions exactly the same rebel leaders and no other.