0. Introduction
Unfortunately, no shortage of fundamentalists keep trying to argue Biblical inerrancy with me. I find such arguments tiresome. Biblical scholarship gave up on the idea of inerrancy over a hundred years ago. To illustrate the fallibility of the New Testament I will spell out a few select contradictions though many more might be added. For similar posts see, Which Day is the Crucifixion?, and Lukan Redaction of Mark. For the second part New Testament Contradictions (Part 2).
Contradictions
The Genealogies
The Call of Andrew
Abiathar the High Priest
The Daughter of Jairus
Ministry Instructions
The Transfiguration
1. Contradictions
I shall define contradictions within the New Testament texts as places where some proposition P and not-P are both being affirmed, either directly or by implication. For example, either the apostles remained in Jerusalem from the day of the resurrection until Pentecost or they left for Galilee on the day of the resurrection. If they did one, then they cannot have also done the other because they cannot be in two places at once. To say that they remained in Jerusalem is to say, by implication, that they did not go to Galilee. Let G signify going to Galilee, and there is a contradiction before us if someone claims they remained in Jerusalem because this claim implies not-G, we have two claims which are incompatible with one another because one implies the falsity of the other. This is a very high standard for a contradiction because for any finite set of data there are an infinite number of possible explanations that could be offered. This is why it is possible to offer elaborate explanations for nearly any discrepancy found in popular holy books.
There is a difference between a discrepancy or inconsistency and a contradiction. Often there are narrative differences and omissions between the historical books of the Bible. If one story leaves out a detail that a parallel account includes this is not necessarily a contradiction. I will primarily consider examples only of contradictions, claims which cannot be mutually accepted without affirming some proposition and its negation, either directly or by implication (however, discrepancies are mentioned in passing though, naturally). The earliest Christian exegetical schools were founded in Alexandria during the time of Origen, who begins his De Principiis by acknowledging that there are various contradictions in Scripture for which he suggests mystical and allegorical interpretations should be applied. The modern notion of an inerrant Bible which must be interpreted literally whenever possible is far from historical.
2. The Genealogies
There are two genealogies of Jesus of Nazareth, one found in Matthew (1:1-18) which traces the lineage of Jesus back to Abraham and the other found in Luke (3:23-38) which goes back to Adam. There are contradictions between the two genealogies, and several within the genealogy of Matthew, and major departures from the genealogies of the Old Testament. From David onward, the bloodlines are different. And the closer we go to the time of Jesus the more the genealogies depart. These genealogies contradict so much that some claim the genealogy and Luke is for Mary and not actually for Joseph, even though quite clearly both genealogies trace the line of Jesus from Joseph. Neither genealogy mentions Mary even once. Matthew also attempts to count the number of generations in his genealogy, but he makes a mistake in calculation.
The genealogy of Matthew claims to be arranged into three sets of fourteen generations which total forty two generations (3・14 = 42). Some names were omitted deliberately to try and make the genealogy fit within these three sets of fourteen. From a comparison of 2 Chron. 22:1-11 and 24:27 with Matt. 1:6-8 we see that Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah, the immediate descendants of Jehoram are all omitted. Therefore, it is simply factually incorrect to say that there were forty two generations from Abraham to the Messiah, the author of this genealogy is deliberately omitting the names of kings.
"So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations." (Matt. 1:17)
On purely historical grounds it is false to say the second set of names is fourteen generations, because the author has deliberately omitted three generations when making his genealogy. This pattern of fourteen generations was evidently used to echo the gematria of the Hebrew consonants of King David’s name. The Hebrew name of David (דָּוִד) is numbered as fourteen by adding the consonants, four, six and four. But the author of the gospel does not actually list three sets of fourteen generations. There are only forty one names in the genealogy and not forty two.
First Set (Matt. 1:2-6) |
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nashon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David. |
Second Set (Matt. 1:6-11) |
David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah. |
Third Set (Matt. 1:12-16) |
Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abihud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliu, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus. |
The author obliges us to count the three sets of fourteen "from Abraham to David," and "from David to the deportation" and "from the deportation to the Messiah." (Matt. 1:17) The first set, from Abraham to David, amounts to fourteen generations, either the second or third set does not, depending on whether the first name of these sets is counted.
From David to Jeconiah fifteen generations are mentioned if David is counted. If the first name, David, is not counted, then this set amounts to fourteen generations. From Jeconiah to Jesus, there are fourteen generations mentioned if Jeconiah is counted. If the first name, Jeconiah, is not counted, then this set amounts to thirteen generations. In other words, if you count the first name of the second and third sets, then the second set is too large. If you do not count the first name of the second and third sets, then the third set is too small. Hence, on any consistent counting method, the genealogy does not amount to three sets of fourteen. The author of the genealogy failed to calculate the simple equation 3・14 = 42 because he omitted one name too many.
From David onward, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke disagree. Matthew traces his lineage from David through Solomon to Jeconiah while Luke instead makes no mention of Solomon and instead traces the lineage of Jesus from Nathan and a certain Neri who is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.
St. Matthew 1:6-11 | St. Luke 3:27-31 |
Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah | Nathan, Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Joshua, Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melchi, and Neri. |
The Davidic covenant passed through the line of Solomon and not through the line of Nathan, who never sat upon the throne of David, therefore the Messiah must be a son of Solomon according to the flesh, not Nathan. (2 Sam. 7:12-14; Heb. 1:5, 6) Which is to say that the entire genealogy given by Luke here would disqualify Jesus from being the Messiah. Luke names "Eliakim," which was the birth name of Jehoiakim. (2 Kin. 23:34) The brothers of Jehoiakim were Johannan, Zedekiah (Mattaniah) and Shallum (Jehoahaz). (2 Kin. 24:17; 1 Chron. 3:15) Jehoahaz, king of Judah who was born Shallum is not to be confused with king Shallum of Israel who shared the same birth name. (2 Kin. 15:10-15) Lk. 3:34-38 must have been using the genealogies of the LXX for he inserts Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah which is not done in the MT but is done in the LXX.
The two genealogies have no names in common again until we arrive at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. The third series of fourteen in Matt. 1:11-16 from Shealtiel to Christ conforms partially with the genealogy of 1Chron. 3:17-19 but the other names are not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament.
St. Matthew 1:12-16 | St. Luke 3:23-27 |
Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Sadoc, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, and Jesus. | Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Johannan, Judah, Joseph, Semei, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Helsi, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melchi, Levi, Matthat, Eli, Joseph and Jesus. |
The gospel genealogies disagree not only about the grandparents of Jesus, but about all of his immediate ancestors. Claiming that either Heli or Jacob is a step-grandfather does not solve this problem. The entire point of the genealogies is to trace the bloodline of Jesus, to prove that he is a descendant of David in his humanity so there is no reason to mention step parents at all. Even then, none of the immediate generations agree. From Zerubbabel to Joseph, all the generations are different, they cannot both be true.
Jeconiah is another name for Jehoiachin, who is also called Coniah but whom the Latin writers called Joachin. (2 Kin. 24:6; 1Chron. 3:16; Jer. 22:24, 28; 37:1) This was the king installed and later deposed by Nebuchadnezzar. Something must be said of the curse of Jeconiah because Matthew 1:12 asserts that Jesus is a descendant of Jeconiah. But Jeconiah was cursed in Jeremiah 22:24 and 22:30 that he should be childless and never have a son who would sit upon his throne. Some Rabbinic commentaries, e.g. Shir HaShirim Rabbah 8.6.2, claims that this curse was revoked in Haggai 2:23 but there is nothing said about reversing a curse in this verse.
There is confusion surrounding the father of Zerubbabel, who is often named "son of Shealtiel," but is once called a “son of Pedaiah.” (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh, 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; cf. 1 Chron. 3:17-19) Therefore, even the OT genealogies do not give a consistent account in this place. If Luke is to be believed, Zerubbabel descended from Nathan, if Matthew is to be believed then he has descended from Solomon and it cannot be both.
3. The Call of Andrew
The different versions of the call of Andrew in the gospels of Mark (1:14-20) and John (1:28-42) are so different as to be contradictory on several points. The account in Matthew (4:18-22) is taken from Mark’s version and the gospel of Luke says nothing about it.
In Mark 1:16 Simon Peter and Andrew are fishing together when Jesus calls them both to become his followers. This takes place at the sea of Galilee. “And immediately they forsook their nets and followed him.” (Mk. 1:18) John the baptizer was imprisoned before Andrew was called to be a disciple. (Mk. 1:14, 16)
However in the gospel of John, Andrew and John the Divine are called and become disciples of Jesus, on land and not on a boat. (Joh. 1:35-39) John the baptizer is still free and preaching when they are called, in fact, it is John who tells them about Jesus the very same day they are called to be his disciples. (Joh. 1:30-35) This takes place, not in the sea of Galilee, as in Mark 1:16, but “in Bethabara, beyond the Jordan.” (Joh. 1:28) John the Baptizer is still free when Andrew is called. Simon Peter is not present when Andrew is called in this version. Andrew has to leave with Jesus and find Peter, who then accepts the call. (Joh. 1:40-42)
Either Andrew is called at the sea of Galilee, or he is not. Either Peter was present with him and they both “immediately” followed Jesus, or Peter was not present and had to be found later. Either they were both fishing at the time, or they were on land. Either John the baptizer was already imprisoned, or he was not, and so on. There are numerous contradictions between these two stories in terms of chronology, location, subjects and what was said.
4. Abiathar the High Priest
The gospel of Mark records an occasion where the disciples began to pluck heads of grain and eat them on the sabbath. They are accused of violating the Sabbath and in rebuttal Jesus cites an example of David breaking the law by doing that “which is not lawful,” and suggesting the present situation is similar.
“And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?” (Mk. 2:25, 26)
The error is that Abiathar was not the high priest at this time; it was Ahimelech, his father. (1 Sam. 23:6; 1 Chron. 18:16) The high priesthood is hereditary so the son would not have the office if his father was still alive and performing priestly duties. (Exod. 29:9; Lev. 6:22) On occasion the high priest is simply referred to as “the priest” because he is the leading priest and the rest are his underpriests, as in Numbers 3:6 which mentions “Aaron the priest.” Aaron was the first high priest but is simply called “the priest.” So, who is the priest that David spoke to to get the consecrated bread? Who was leading temple services during this time? He met with Ahimelech, and it was he who gave David the showbread. (1 Sam. 21:1-6) Abiathar is not the priest in charge at the temple. He is not the one who speaks to David. It is Ahimilech who is leading the priests, he is the one who gives him permission to eat the bread, not Abiathar. The priest Abithar does not even get mentioned in this story. Therefore, in the account referenced by Mark 2:26, it is not Abiathar who is the high priest.
The reason for this contradiction may perhaps be that the Old Testament itself cannot decide whether Ahimelech was high priest first or Abiathar. The historical books sometimes claim Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar, and then they claim the reverse that Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech.
1 Sam. 22:20: “Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar.”
1 Sam. 23:5: “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.”
1 Sam. 30:7: "Abiathar the priest, the son of Ahimelech."
2 Samuel 8:17: “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar.”
1 Chron. 18:16: “Abimelech the Son of Abiathar”
The narratives in the histories portray Ahimelech as serving as the high priest then upon his death, Abiathar serves as high priest when Zadok acted as the priestly counselor of David. (1 Chron. 15:11; 18:16; 24:6; 2 Sam. 8:17) Zadok does not even appear in the first book of Samuel. Therefore, in no way was Abiathar the high priest when David was given the bread of presentation at Nob.
5. The Daughter of Jairus
Mark and Matthew record the story of a certain man named Jairus, whose daughter died and was resurrected by Christ. However, they contradict concerning the time of her death. In Mark she is alive when Jairus begs him to save her. “My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay your hands on her, so she will get well and live.” (Mk. 5:23) Jesus goes to heal her but is delayed by the crowds and by a woman who has a flow of blood. (Mk. 5:24-34) Some officials come and notify Jairus that his daughter has just died.
“While He was still speaking, they came from the house of the synagogue official, saying, “Your daughter has died; why trouble the Teacher anymore?” (Mk. 5:35)
In Matthew the daughter is already dead before Jesus departs and before he encounters the woman with a flow of blood.
“While He was saying these things to them, a synagogue official came and bowed down before Him, and said, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live.” Jesus got up and began to follow him, and so did His disciples.” (Matt. 9:18-19)
Either the girl was alive and near death when Jairus first approached Jesus, and then died later after Jesus was delayed by the woman with the flow of blood, or she was already dead before Jesus approached the woman with the flow of blood. In Mk. 5:23 she is very sick and “at the point of death” but in Matt. 9:18 “she has just died.” It cannot be both.
6. Ministry Instructions
When Christ is preparing his apostles to go preaching he gives them different instructions depending on the gospel account. In Mark 6:8-9 they are to “take nothing for the journey, except a staff.” However in Lk. 9:3 they are told to “take nothing for the journey, no staff.” And again, in Matt. 10:20 “take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals, or a staff.” Those desperate to defend inerrancy posit that two staves were implicit, or maybe a walking stick and a weapon (imagine the burden of carrying two walking sticks on a journey). Either one is to take a staff or not, and the command differs between these accounts. A. R. C. Leaney: "With these words Luke [ix. 3] is supported by Matt. x. 10 against Mark's 'except only a staff' (vi. 8). It is an attractive explanation that Mark mistranslated an Aramaic la or wela ('neither... nor') by reading it as 'illa ('except')." (The Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 160.)
7. The Transfiguration
The day of the transfiguration varies depending on the gospel. In all of the Synoptics Jesus says something like, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power,” (Mk. 9:1; Matt. 17:28; Lk. 9:27) then a set amount of days later the transfiguration occurs. But how many days after this saying does the transfiguration occur? According to Mark (9:2) “six days later,” according to Luke (9:28) “eight days after these sayings,” and again according to Matthew (17:1) “six days later.” It was either six days after the sayings or it was eight days after the sayings, it cannot be both (6 ≠ 8).