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.
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.
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.
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).
1. the argument you present assumes that the genealogies in matthew and luke were written as modern registries intended to provide exhaustive biological lineages. that assumption is questionable. in the literary and theological context of the first century, genealogies were often selective, symbolic, and thematic rather than strictly comprehensive. omissions or compression of generations are a standard feature of jewish genealogical writing (e.g., compare ezra 7:1-5 to 1 chronicles 6:3-15).
ReplyDeleteregarding matthew’s structure of “three sets of fourteen,” the arrangement is deliberate rather than a mathematical oversight. the number fourteen echoes the numerical value of david’s name in hebrew (d=4, v=6, d=4). this is a theological pattern emphasizing jesus’ davidic role rather than an attempt to record every generation without omission. the inclusion or exclusion of names to fit a symmetrical structure is a known rabbinic literary technique, not an error.
the differences between the two genealogies have been explained historically as follows: matthew traces the legal/royal line through solomon, establishing jesus’ right to david’s throne, while luke traces the biological line through nathan, another son of david. in a patrilineal culture, luke could give mary’s ancestry under joseph’s name (“as was supposed,” luke 3:23) because genealogical lines were always recorded through male representatives. thus, the two genealogies serve different purposes: one showing legal succession, the other biological descent.
the so-called “curse” of jeconiah (jer. 22:24-30) referred specifically to his immediate offspring reigning, not to all descendants permanently. post-exilic writings (e.g., haggai 2:23) are widely interpreted in jewish tradition as a reversal or limitation of that curse.
as for the variant traditions regarding shealtiel, zerubbabel, and others, even old testament genealogies show complexities due to levirate marriage, adoption, and dynastic considerations. ancient genealogical conventions do not map directly to modern expectations of strict biological record-keeping.
in sum, the differences you highlight arise from different theological intentions and literary conventions, not from factual contradictions in the sense understood today. each genealogy makes a distinct theological claim within the norms of first-century jewish historiography rather than attempting to produce a modern forensic ancestry chart.
2. this objection treats the two narratives as if they describe the same moment, but the details in john and mark (and therefore matthew) make more sense if read as two separate encounters: an initial introduction of andrew to jesus (john 1) and a later formal calling into discipleship (mark 1).
ReplyDeletein john 1:35–42, andrew first meets jesus while still following john the baptist. there’s no mention of abandoning work, only of spending a day with jesus and then bringing his brother simon to meet him. nothing in the text suggests this was the final, definitive moment of discipleship; it functions as a first meeting. john explicitly places this before john the baptist’s imprisonment.
by contrast, mark 1:16–20 (paralleled in matthew) describes a later decisive summons, after john the baptist’s arrest (mark 1:14). this second episode occurs by the sea of galilee, involves the brothers at their fishing trade, and results in their immediate commitment. the emphasis in mark is on their abandonment of occupation and permanent following, which is a stronger action than simply meeting jesus.
understood this way, there is no contradiction: john gives a preliminary episode, mark describes a subsequent calling to a new vocation. the shift in location and circumstances follows naturally. similar multi-stage callings are common in ancient narratives (compare elisha’s repeated contacts with elijah before committing).
apparent differences in sequence (whether peter was present at first meeting, whether john was imprisoned) are resolved by recognizing the episodes as distinct stages: initial acquaintance, followed later by an official calling.
3. the phrase “in the time of abiathar the high priest” (mark 2:26) does not claim that abiathar personally handed david the bread. the greek expression epi abiathar archiereōs functions as a temporal reference, meaning “in the days of abiathar the high priest,” placing the event within the general period associated with abiathar. at the time david took the bread, ahimelech officiated, but abiathar was present and became the dominant priest in the aftermath, surviving saul’s massacre and serving david for decades. thus the reference to abiathar would have been the most recognizable way for jesus’ hearers to situate the narrative.
ReplyDeleteancient usage frequently refers to a well‑known figure associated with a period rather than the immediate officeholder; similar formulae occur in the old testament itself, where figures are identified by their period even if not yet in office at the moment of the described event. rabbinic parallels also use the name of a later, more famous priest to locate an earlier event.
the textual alternations between “ahimelech son of abiathar” and “abiathar son of ahimelech” in samuel and chronicles are well documented as copyist transpositions. the dominant and consistent account is that abiathar was the son of ahimelech and escaped the slaughter at nob (1 sam. 22:20). the appearance of “ahimelech son of abiathar” in 2 sam. 8:17 and 1 chron. 18:16 is explained by textual criticism as a reversal introduced during transmission; it does not change the narrative sequence that ahimelech served first and abiathar succeeded him.
jesus’ citation in mark, therefore, is accurate in its intent: the episode occurred during the period associated with abiathar, even though ahimelech was the priest who directly gave david the bread. the phrase serves as a period marker, not as a contradiction of the 1 samuel account.
4. mark’s account emphasizes the girl’s critical condition “at the point of death” when jairus first appeals to jesus, highlighting the immediacy of the crisis and jesus’ subsequent journey. the interruption by the woman with the flow of blood delays jesus, during which time the girl dies, as confirmed by the messengers in mark 5:35. this creates a narrative arc of suspense and deepens the miracle’s significance.
matthew, by contrast, condenses the timeline for narrative brevity, beginning with the report that the daughter “has just died” (matt. 9:18). his version assumes the girl’s death at the moment of initial contact, omitting the delay caused by the woman’s healing episode and the messengers’ arrival.
these differences reflect the evangelists’ distinct narrative and theological intentions rather than factual contradictions. mark’s detailed sequence emphasizes human urgency and divine intervention amid apparent delay, while matthew presents a more streamlined account focusing on jesus’ power over death itself.
both accounts agree on the ultimate miracle: the daughter’s restoration to life. thus, the variation in timing is a difference in storytelling emphasis and compression common in ancient biographies rather than an irreconcilable discrepancy.
Hello Alexander, thank you for your many thoughtful comments. It would take me a great deal of time to go through all of your suggested harmonizations, and they have already been considered in the academic literature, so I will confine myself to a few comments.
DeleteIf a book really seems to have contradictions, then it probably does. If many scholars of that book say it has contradictions, then it very probably does. To criticize the Bible is not to criticize God, it is to criticize what people say about God.
I do not claim that Matthew the Evangelist's use of gematria is itself an error, merely that it leads him into one.
Since the first exegetical schools were founded in Alexandria many Christian theologians have acknowledged there were various contradictions in the Biblical text. The only reason that anyone would go through great lengths to try and "fix" them all or "reconcile" them is if they have a particular doctrine of "divine inspiration" which they wish to defend. I suspect that is the case here.
If I am correct in that assumption, then it seems better to talk directly about that matter if you wish to engage in a written discussion on this issue. Why do you hold to this doctrine of inspiration? A collection of Bible verses? Can you demonstrate your doctrine of Biblical inspiration is true with a non-circular argument that has defensible premises?
The apostles were either commanded to take a staff or not. This is a very simple contradiction. You suggest it may be due to manuscript corruption.
If God prevented the original authors from ever contradicting one another on any matter of fact, why did he not preserve the copies from such corruptions? What is the underlying motive? How do you know God did not inspire the contradictions and textual variants? How do you know God does not have some hidden meaning in the contradictions? How do you know which books are inspired and which are not? Are there levels of inspiration, what are they, and how do you know? Did God tell you?
In the answers to all such questions, one will delve into the realm of divine psychology, trying to judge the motivations, purposes, and desires of an omniscient being.
Why should we think that your conclusions about divine psychology are correct? "God would never inspire this or that," is a claim about the intentions of an infinite being. Is it not presumptuous to claim to know the mind of a being whose thoughts are "higher than our thoughts?" How do you have access to such knowledge? Did you glean this information from the book about which we are disputing or directly from the Holy Ghost? If you are convinced the Holy Ghost himself is giving you this information, then I certainly cannot persuade you but it would make sense of much.
5. mark’s “except a staff” and luke’s “no staff” do appear contradictory on the surface, but the difference can be explained by nuances in translation and textual transmission. leaney’s proposal that mark misread an aramaic negative particle la or wela (“neither… nor”) as illa (“except”) is plausible given the close phonetic similarity and the early gospel context where aramaic underlay greek texts.
ReplyDeletefurthermore, a staff could serve multiple purposes: as a walking aid, a sign of authority, or even a defensive tool. some interpreters argue that mark’s allowance for a staff reflects a practical concession to travel conditions, while luke and matthew present a stricter ideal of total dependence on divine provision.
textually, matthew’s stricter instruction (“no staff”) aligns with luke, reinforcing the possibility that mark’s “except a staff” is a variant reading or interpretive gloss.
thus, the apparent contradiction is reconcilable through textual criticism and understanding of ancient linguistic subtleties rather than a factual inconsistency. the difference more likely reflects variant traditions or scribal transmission than opposing historical facts.
6. mark and matthew’s “six days later” aligns exactly, suggesting a shared tradition. luke’s “eight days” can be harmonized by recognizing ancient jewish inclusive counting conventions: luke’s “eight days” counts both the starting day and the day of the event, whereas mark and matthew’s “six days” count only the full intervening days.
in other words, luke includes both endpoints in the total, making six full days plus the partial days before and after add up to eight calendar days. this counting difference is a known feature of biblical chronology and is consistent with other scriptural time reckoning.
therefore, all three gospels preserve the same historical timeline without contradiction, which reflects complementary counting methods.
bonus:
the supposed contradiction about where the apostles were after the resurrection is really about timing. the gospels show different parts of the story, not the same moment.
john and acts say the apostles stayed in jerusalem until pentecost, waiting as jesus told them. matthew shows jesus appearing to them in galilee sometime after the resurrection but before pentecost.
so the apostles first stayed in jerusalem, then went to galilee, and later returned to jerusalem. there’s no contradiction because these events happened in order, not all at once. the confusion comes from treating different parts of the timeline as if they happened simultaneously.