Historical Errors and Contradictions in the New Testament
The very first verse in the New Testament (Matthew 1:1) thusly introduces a discussion of Christ’s family tree: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.” Over the next several verses, a whole list of “begats” is given from Christ’s ancestry, starting with Abraham. The list ends in verse 16, which states: “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.” Why was Joseph’s line of descent listed, when he was not supposed to be the biological father of Christ?
But here is something else disturbing about this genealogical list: Matthew 1:17 says that there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, and yet, if you read from verses 2 through 6 and count the listed generations, there are only thirteen of them. Moreover, Matthew 1:17 says that there were fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity to Christ. But if you count the generations listed from verses 12 through 16, you only get, once again, thirteen. Did someone not know how to count? Are we to assume that “divine inspiration” took a break when this genealogy was being written?
Yet another genealogical issue concerns who Joseph’s father was supposed to have been. Matthew 1:16 assures us that his name was Jacob, but Luke 3:23, disagreeing, insists it was a man named Heli.
Herod the Great, in Matthew chapter 2, is alleged to have ordered all infants murdered in Bethlehem after Christ’s birth, to be sure that Christ would be killed and thus not pose any threat to his political power. But the trouble is, there is absolutely no mention of this ruthless act anywhere outside of the New Testament. Such a grand-scale tyrannical undertaking like this would not have escaped the historical record. Why, for example, do we have no reference made to it by the contemporary historians Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, both of which were Jews who lived in the region? Josephus happened to have spent a great deal of time documenting Herod’s bloody reign of murder and terror. So the fact that he never mentioned the socalled “slaughter of the innocents” is most troubling for Bible believers. And it is quite hard to believe that Herod could even have pulled off such a stunt without inciting a massive rebellion. We must conclude, therefore, that this event never took place, which would explain why the gospel of Matthew stands alone in relating it. The author of this first of the four gospels (or a later editor thereof) simply made this tale up and decided to insert it into the text.
The census described in Luke 2:1-5 is even more—far more—incompatible with the historical record. Here is how this text reads: “Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all were proceeding to register for the census, everyone to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, in order to register, along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was pregnant.” A census “of all the inhabited earth?” Are we to conclude that a census of the entire Empire was conducted? Was this even possible? Certainly not for the poor, who were many in number and could not have afforded to make a costly journey, each “to his own city” (of origin). But we need not trifle over the logistics of this census, because, as was the case with Herod’s alleged decree to slaughter the innocents, there is no record of such a colossal-scale census ever being issued at the time of Quirinius, except for this New Testament rendering. While there was indeed a census conducted under Quirinius, it was a local one—not empire-wide, as the book of Luke indicates.
But there is a much worse dilemma with this story. As we have seen, Matthew places the birth of Christ during the reign of King Herod, which is an impossible scenario when we take Luke’s account into consideration. For there, as we have just discussed, Christ is shown to have been in his infancy during the time of the Quirinius census, which occurred in 6 AD—a full ten years after Herod had died, in 4 BC. Christ could not possibly have been in his infancy both during the reign of Herod the Great and at the time of the Quirinius census—it could only have been one or the other.
Matthew 2:1 talks about the “wise men from the east” that came to honor Christ at his birth in the manger. The next verse says that these visitors were led thither by a “star in the east.” But this presents a very big and (what should be) transparent quagmire: How could these wise men have followed a star in the east if they were coming from the east?
Regarding Christ’s baptism, Matthew 3:13, 14 has this to say: “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’” Do notice how John the Baptist immediately recognized who Christ was here, as rightly he should have, seeing that they were cousins and undoubtedly had grown up together. But the gospel of John profoundly contradicts Matthew’s rendition: “Then John [the Baptist] gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove [at Christ’s baptism] and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’” - John 1:32, 33. John is saying here that he did not know who Christ was until after he baptized him and “saw the Spirit come down and remain.” But in Matthew’s account, do not forget, John immediately knew who Christ was, on sight, before he baptized him. There is simply no way that both of these accounts can be correct.
Just when you thought the story of John the Baptist could not get any worse, take a look at what Matthew 11:2-5 says: “When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’ Jesus replied, ‘Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor….’” Recall that this same gospel, as we just saw (in chapter 3, verses 13 and 14), definitively stated that John the Baptist, at the time of Christ’s baptism, instantly recognized Jesus, not only knowing who he was as a person, but identifying him as the messiah, since he said that Christ should have been the one to baptize him, rather than the other way around. So how is it that, years later, John was asking if Christ was the messiah based on hearing about his deeds? One cannot help but notice how colossally contradictory these accounts are.
Believe it or not, the contradictions involved with the story of John the Baptist have not yet been exhausted. In Matthew 14:5 we read this account about him and Herod Antipas: “So Herod wanted to kill John. However, he was afraid of the people because they thought John was a prophet.” But now look at what Mark 6:20 says: “...Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.” Try as you may, you could not get two passages to contradict themselves more than these two do.
Still another problem exists with the John the Baptist story. It centers around the question of whether or not Jesus actually was baptized by John. We have already seen that Jesus was baptized by him, as recorded in Matthew 3. In verse 15, we find further definitive confirmation of this: “Jesus replied, ‘Let it [his baptism] be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then John consented.” But when we read Luke 3:19-22, the notion that John baptized Jesus becomes impossible, because this passage begins by describing how John was thrown in prison, and then it proceeds to discuss Christ’s baptism, not mentioning John as being present, of course, because it was just stated that he had been locked away.
We will look at one last discrepancy regarding John the Baptist. In Matthew 14:2 we are informed that Herod Antipas thought Jesus was John the Baptist coming back from the dead: “…and he [Herod] said to his attendants, ‘This [meaning Jesus] is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.’” The gospel of Mark concurs, depicting Herod as saying this about Jesus: “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” - Mark 6:16. But Luke’s account does not agree at all with what we just read from Matthew and Mark. Luke 9:7-9 says: “Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on [regarding Christ and his miracles]. And he was perplexed because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life. But Herod said, ‘I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?’ And he tried to see him.” Luke’s version has Herod denying what he boldly proclaimed in Matthew and Mark.
John 3:22 reveals that Jesus did some baptizing of his own: “After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” Verse 26 further states: “They [disciples of John the Baptist] came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, that man [Jesus] who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.’” However, at the beginning of the very next chapter, we read this: “Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John—although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.” - John 4:1, 2. So which story is correct? Did Jesus baptize or not? It is bad enough when we have one gospel contradicting another. But when there are contradictions right within the same gospel, that is an even greater dilemma.
Returning to our discussion of the baptism of Christ himself, we find another contradiction with how this event is supposed to have played out. Just after Christ came up out of the water, we are told that a voice was heard from heaven—that of God himself. But what he is alleged to have said, and whom he was addressing when he said it, differ from one gospel to the next:
- “This is my son, in whom I am well pleased.” - Matthew 3:17. Here Yahweh was speaking to the gathered crowd.
- “You are my son, in whom I am well pleased.” - Mark 1:11. Here it was Christ himself that Yahweh was addressing.
- “You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” - Luke 3:22. Again Yahweh was speaking directly to Christ here.
There seems to be a lot of turmoil in the gospels with place names. Apparently the authors thereof were not very good with geography. But before we look at some of these issues, we have to first establish an important point: On the occasion where archaeologists find an ancient city mentioned in the Bible, this by no means proves the legitimacy of the biblical text, as Bible proponents would have us believe. It proves absolutely nothing, any more than finding a reference to a modern city in a fiction novel proves that the stories in the novel are true. Nevertheless, Bible believers still get excited every time a Bible-related city is dug up somewhere in the Middle East. However, what they do not realize, or perhaps do not want others to realize, is that their “holy book” makes a lot of geographical blunders, such as naming places that will never be confirmed by archaeologists, because they never existed in the first place.
The gospel of John has its share of this problem. It lists several cities that are completely unknown in the historical and archaeological records, such as Aenon, Sychar in Samaria, and Bethsaida in Galilee.
In Matthew 2:23 it is said of Jesus: “...and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.” First of all, no such prophecy in the Old Testament exists—none. Secondly, there is no reference, outside the New Testament, anywhere, of any place called Nazareth in what is now known as Palestine during the time of Christ—the first century
In the King James Version, Mark 5:1 talks about Christ and his disciples, at the end of a boat trip, arriving at a locality on the shore of the Sea of Galilee called “the country of the Gadarenes.” But in Matthew 8:28 this same place is called “the country of the Gergesenes.” Well, which is it? In this same story, Jesus is said to have cast demons out of two possessed individuals, as recorded in Matthew 8:28, 29. But in Mark 5:1- 17 and Luke 8:26-37 there was only one demoniac that Jesus liberated.
Speaking of the Sea of Galilee, there actually is no such thing. The only body of water this reference could possibly be talking about is a river-fed lake, seven miles long and four miles wide, which was never called the “Sea of Galilee” prior to the Christian era. It was misnamed by the book of Mark as a “sea” and has been referred to as such ever since. But its real name is Lake Chinnereth.
During the same boat journey across this lake, when Jesus and the disciples went to “the country of the Gadarenes” (or Gergesenes), we are told of a great tempest that struck terror in the disciples, and how they woke Jesus up who then supposedly, through a “miracle,” calmed this storm. But there is a huge quandary with this story: Because this body of water is not a sea, but a mere lake, there are no substantial storms or winds that rage across its surface, and there never were any. This fact was brought out by the third century intellectual Porphyry, who wrote: “Experts in the truth about these places [in Galilee] report that there is no sea there, though they do refer to a small, river-fed lake at the foot of the mountain in Galilee, near the city Tiberias, a lake easily traversed in small canoes in no more than two hours and insufficiently capacious for waves or storms. So Mark greatly exaggerates the truth when he ludicrously composes this fiction of a ninehour journey and Jesus striding upon [the water] on the tenth [the tenth hour, or “the fourth watch of the night”] to find his disciples sailing on the pond. Then he calls it [a sea], not merely a sea but one beset by storms, dreadfully wild, and terrifyingly agitated by the heaving of the waves, so that from these details he could represent Christ as performing a great sign, namely, calming a mighty and violent storm and rescuing his scarcely endangered disciples from the deep and open sea.”
In Mark 7:31 we discover that Jesus left the district of Tyre and headed through Sidon and the Sea of Galilee, to reach Decapolis. But going to Sidon from Tyre would carry one in the opposite direction from the Sea of Galilee, some 25 miles further north, so that Jesus would have had to make a U-turn in order to reach Decapolis.
Leaving our discussion of geographical perplexities in the gospels, it is time to return to the previous general discourse on errors and contradictions in the story of the life of Christ and his companions.
Matthew 4:18-20 informs us that Jesus first met and recruited Peter and his brother Andrew by the sea of Galilee. This is how the passage reads: “As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. ‘Come, follow me,’ Jesus said, ‘and I will send you out to fish for people.’ At once they left their nets and followed him.” But now notice how significantly the account in the book of John differs from this one: “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John [the Baptist] had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the messiah’ (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon [Peter] son of John. You will be called Cephas’ (which, when translated, is Peter). The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee….” - John 1:40-43. The differences here are extensive. This second rendering has Peter approaching Jesus, instead of the other way around. And, also in this second rendering, Peter’s recruitment did not take place while he was fishing with Andrew, nor did it occur by the Sea of Galilee, since the last part of this passage says that Jesus did not leave for Galilee until the next day.
Reading Mark 1:21, 29 independent of the gospel of John would lead us to believe that Peter and Andrew were from Capernaum. But John 1:44—what we should expect to be a parallel account of what is found in Mark 1—brings us to the conclusion that they were from Bethsaida.
In Matthew 10:1 we hear about Jesus giving his disciples the power to “heal every disease and sickness”: “Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.” But if this truly were the case, then why are we informed, several chapters later (in Matthew 17:14-16), that the disciples were unable to heal a man’s son? Here is how this passage reads: “When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. ‘Lord, have mercy on my son,’ he said. ‘He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.’”
Just as disturbing, in John 14:12 Jesus told his disciples: “I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works…” But when we look at the record in the book of Acts—and, for that matter, the whole rest of the New Testament—we find that Christ’s disciples never did any works greater than he is said to have done.
Mixed messages are sent in the gospels regarding Jesus’ miracles. On the one hand, Jesus claimed these feats to be signs that he was sent from God. Matthew 11:2-5 says: “When John [the Baptist], who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the messiah, he sent his disciples to ask him, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’ Jesus replied, ‘Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.’” Along this same line, Mark 2:10, 11 has Jesus proclaiming: “‘But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.’ So he said to the man, ‘I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.’” In other words, to prove that he had the “power to forgive sins,” Jesus healed this man as a sign. John 3:2 sends the same message: “He [Nicodemus] came to Jesus at night and said, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.’” But, on the other hand, we uncover a disparate claim in this next passage: “He [Jesus] answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.’” - Matthew 12:39. Jesus repeated this same point four chapters later: “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah” (16:4). But did we not just read several passages where Jesus did give signs?
Matthew records the “Lord’s Prayer” as part of Christ’s “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 6:9-13). But this is not the case with Luke, who depicts this prayer as having been introduced to the disciples in private by Christ, when they asked him how to pray (Luke 11:1-4).
When Jesus met Jairus, was Jairus’ daughter already dead? Yes, insists Matthew 9:18, which quotes Jairus as saying, “My daughter has just died.” But no, demands Mark 5:23, where Jairus says, “My little daughter is at the point of death.”
We find that, when Jesus entered Capernaum, he healed the slave of a centurion. But did the centurion come personally to ask Christ for this healing? Once again, it depends on which gospel rendering is consulted. Matthew 8:5 says yes: “When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.” But Luke 7:3, 6 says otherwise: “The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant….So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: ‘Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof.’” The gospels simply cannot get their stories right.
Here are two conflicting renderings of “parallel accounts” of another “miracle” attributed to Christ: Matthew 20:30 is the first one we will consider: “Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by, they shouted, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!’” But now comes Luke’s version (Luke 18:35, 38): “As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging….He called out, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’” How many blind men were there?
As Jesus was sending his disciples out on their first missionary excursion, Mark 6:8, 9 says that he told them to go with a staff and sandals: “These were his [Christ’s] instructions: ‘Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra shirt.’” But next take note of what Matthew 10:9, 10 quotes Christ as having said at this same time: “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts—no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep.”
Matthew 12:30 has Jesus saying: “Whoever is not with me is against me.” But in Mark 9:40—Mark’s supposed parallel to this Matthew passage—Jesus instead is pictured as saying: “Whoever is not against us is for us.” These are not parallel statements.
In John 5:31 Jesus said: “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.” Just three chapters later, though, in John 8:14, Jesus is quoted as making this utterly contradictory statement: “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true.” Did Jesus contradict himself, or did his chroniclers misquote him? Either way, the Bible comes up with a losing hand once again.
Apart from Jesus, has anyone ever ascended up into heaven? Not according to what Jesus is quoted as having said in John 3:13: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man [meaning himself].” But in 2 Kings 2:11 we are told the story of Elijah supposedly being taken up into heaven.
When did the alleged “transfiguration” take place? If we inspect Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2, we get the answer of six days after Jesus foretold his death. But if we look at Luke 9:28, it places this event “about eight days” after Jesus’ prediction.
Matthew 15:22 tells us about a Canaanite woman who came to Jesus to have him cast a demon out of her daughter. But Mark’s not-so-parallel version of this story, found in Mark 7:26, says that this woman was a Greek that was born in Syrian Phoenicia.
Who asked Jesus for a place in heaven? It is affirmed in Matthew 20:20, 21 that it was the mother of Zebedee’s sons (James and John): “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. ‘What is it you want?’ he asked. She said, ‘Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.’” But this is not what happened in Mark’s rendition, as found in Mark 10:35-37: “Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we want you to do for us whatever we ask.’ ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ he asked. They replied, ‘Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.’” Here it was James and John themselves, and not their mother, who addressed this question to Christ—an entirely incompatible scenario.
In Matthew 14:17-21 the alleged miracle of the feeding of 5,000 with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish is recorded thusly: “‘We [the disciples, speaking to Jesus] have here only five loaves of bread and two fish.’…‘Bring them here to me,’ he said. And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.” But then, in the very next chapter (in Matthew 15:33), we find that the disciples were concerned about how they could feed only 4,000, after just having supposedly fed 5,000. This verse states: “His disciples answered, ‘Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?’” How could they possibly ask such a question after what they were said to have recently witnessed?
A very strange statement is assigned to Christ in John 7:22: “…Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs)…” The truth is, circumcision was introduced in the Bible under Abraham. So why did Jesus mention Moses at all in this context? And then, when he corrected himself, why did he use the vague word “patriarchs,” when in fact it was a single patriarch, Abraham? Why did he not just say Abraham? This verse suggests an error on Christ’s part that was later incompetently corrected by an editor.
Two separate statements that are declared to have been made by Jesus leave us with the unavoidable impression that he was hopelessly confused as to the timing of the preparation of the kingdom of heaven for the redeemed. In Matthew 25:34 he said to his disciples that this heavenly kingdom was “prepared for you since the creation of the world.” Yet, in John 14:2 he told them: “I am going [to heaven] to prepare a place for you…”
When Jesus cursed the fig tree, when was it noticed that it had died? The answer is “immediately” in Matthew 21:19: “ Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, ‘May you never bear fruit again!’ Immediately the tree withered.” But Mark 11:20, 21 indicates that this tree did not die right away: “In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!’”
What was the location where the woman with the alabaster box anointed Jesus? Ask Matthew (26:6, 7) and Mark (14:3), and they will tell you it was in the house of Simon the leper, in Bethany, whereas if you ask Luke (7:36-38), he will tell you that it was in a Pharisee’s house. And where is it, exactly, that this woman poured the anointing oil? Matthew 26:7 and Mark 14:3 tell us that it was poured on Christ’s head, while John 12:3 insists that it was poured on his feet, and that she wiped his feet with her hair. Another contradiction in this story pertains to who it was that criticized this anointing (with the criticism being due to the fact that the woman used very expensive oil, thus wasting a lot of money). Matthew 26:8 says that this condemnation emanated from the disciples, in general. Mark 14:4 simply says that “some of those present” did the criticizing. But then John 12:4, 5 tells us that it was specifically Judas who did it.
Still more contradictions in this tale involve where this woman was said to be positioned in reference to Christ, and as to whether she was standing or kneeling. We see these conflicts demonstrated in Luke 7:38: “As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.” She was able to do all of this “as she stood behind him”? Would she not, instead, have had to be kneeling in front of him?
When Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem, did he cleanse the temple that same day? Matthew 21:10- 12 states emphatically that it was that very day. Mark 11:1-17, on the other hand, assures us that Jesus did go into the temple after entering Jerusalem, but that he could not have done the cleansing at that time because it says, in verse 11: “Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.” Reading the next several verses plainly reveals that the temple cleansing did not occur until “the next day.” Interestingly, these accounts in Matthew and Mark, though they differ on what day it was, nevertheless agree that the temple cleansing was done shortly before the crucifixion. But the book of John places this event at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, years earlier (see John 2:13-22). Some Christian apologists argue that this is not a contradiction, asserting that Christ performed two separate temple cleansings. However, this idea is entirely untenable. Christ only started becoming this antagonistic toward the Jewish leaders at the end of his ministry. Had he done so early on, his crucifixion would have occurred much earlier, and thus he would have left no legacy.
The gospels send incongruent messages as to what type of animal (or animals) Jesus used for his ride into Jerusalem on “Palm Sunday,” and as to who it was that got the animal (or animals) for him. Matthew 21:2-6 and Luke 19:30-35 say that Christ ordered two of his disciples to go into a village and find an ass and a colt, and to bring them both to him. Mark 11:2-7 says that he ordered these two disciples to only get one colt. And finally, John 12:14 says that Jesus himself found a young ass to ride on.
In John 16:5 Jesus explained to his disciples: “…but now I am going to him [God] who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’” Reading this passage by itself, we must of necessity deduce that none of the disciples ever asked Christ where he was going. However, there are two scriptures that tell us otherwise. The first one is John 13:36: “Simon Peter asked him, ‘Lord, where are you going?’ Jesus replied, ‘Where I am going, you cannot follow now, but you will follow later.’” The second passage is John 14:5: “Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’” Please notice that all three of these citations are from the same gospel.
Toward the end of Christ’s ministry, the gospels reveal that the Jewish leaders became more determined than ever to have him put to death. In the context of describing one of their meetings where they conspired Christ’s demise, the book of John recorded what has got to be one of the strangest commentaries in the entire Bible: “Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, ‘You [other Jewish leaders] know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man [Jesus] die for the people than that the whole nation perish.’ He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life.” - John 11:49-53. Please understand that Caiaphas was later one of the key ringleaders in pushing for Christ’s execution. Yet here we are told that he “prophesied” that Christ was going to die for Israel and all the scattered children of God, and that he would unite them together as one. Did he allegedly get this prophecy from Yahweh, or did he just make a prediction? Either way, does it make any sense for him to have wanted Christ executed, after having just basically confessed him as the “savior” and unifier of all God’s children? Does this sound like a historically accurate record here?
Of all the historical inconsistencies and contradictions in the New Testament, the worst ones (for Bible believers) have got to be those found within the narrative leading up to and including Christ’s arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection, which we shall now turn our attention to. In the entire Bible, there is no section of greater importance for the Christian than this one. Thus we would expect this part to be the most devoid of errors and inconsistencies, historical or otherwise. But the Bible disappoints the Christian here as well, and miserably so.
Just prior to his crucifixion, Christ ordained what is often called the “Lord’s Supper,” or the Communion service. This is one of the most important ceremonies in all of Christendom, but few Christians realize the confusion that exists in the story of its beginnings, as found in the gospels. First of all, there is an inconsistency in the order of events. Matthew 26:26, 27 and Mark 14:22, 23 tell us that the bread was offered first, and then the wine. But Luke 22:17, 19 has this sequence in reverse.
At this ceremony, Christ is portrayed as having foretold Peter’s threefold denial of him. Mark 14:30, for example, has Jesus saying to Peter: “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times.” And sure enough, we are told that Peter did deny Christ three times. But this story is met with difficulty when read in light of this next statement that is also attributed to Christ: “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” - Matthew 10:33. We have a severe problem here: Jesus, as we are told, forgave Peter for denying him a total of three times. Why, then, did Christ say that anyone who denied him even once would be denied by him in heaven?
As you may have guessed, there are other difficulties with the story of Peter’s denials of Christ. Another one centers around the issue of who it was that he denied him before. The only versions that agree on (almost) every point are found in Matthew 26:69-74 and Mark 14:67-71. Both of them speak of three denials—the first before a maid, the second before another maid (in the case of Mark, it is the same maid a second time), and the third before a group of people. In the meantime, over in Luke it is a rather different story. While there are again three denials here, the people involved do not match up well with the Matthew and Mark portrayals. The sequence with Luke (22:56-58, 60) is as follows: the first before a maid, the second before “another” (apparently a completely different maid—agreeing with Matthew’s account), and the third before “another” (singular person). John’s account is no better of a match-up with the other gospels. This one (John 18:16-18, 25-27) also records three denials (although the last two are grouped together as having happened in rapid sequence). The first one is before a maid, the second before a group of people (“they”), and the third before one of the high priest’s servants.
Coming back to the scene of the Last Supper, we uncover still more difficulties here. Take the time that Satan presumably took hold of Judas, to inspire him to betray Christ. The John 13:27 version of this story says that this action occurred right during the Last Supper: “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, ‘What you are about to do, do quickly.’” But Luke 22:1-4, 7 places this event before the Last Supper: “Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover [which is when the Last Supper took place], was approaching, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus....Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.”
The tale of the betrayal of Christ by Judas has some other crimps in it: When did Judas bargain with the chief priests to sell Christ out for 30 pieces of silver? Before the Last Supper, says Matthew 26:14, 15, 17, 18; Mark 14:10, 11, 16; and Luke 22:3, 4, 8. After the Last Supper, says John 13:2.
Another issue with the Judas betrayal concerns the question as to whether or not he betrayed Christ with a kiss. Matthew 26:48 says that he did, but John 18:3-12 reveals that Jesus identified himself to the group sent to arrest him, and absolutely no mention is made of any betraying kiss by Judas.
What did Judas later do with the money he received for betraying Jesus? Acts 1:18 says that he bought a field. Matthew 27:5 says something entirely different—that he threw it into the temple and left. The next two verses tell us that the chief priests then picked up the coins and bought the potter’s field to use as a burial place for foreigners. Obviously this was the same field that Judas bought, instead, in Acts 1:18.
This very field, as determined from Matthew 27:6-8, was known as the “Field of Blood” because the priests bought it with Christ’s blood money. However, Acts 1:18, 19 testifies that the field earned this title because of Judas’ bloody death that took place there.
Speaking of Judas’ death, we are given two conflicting depictions of how this transpired: Matthew 27:5 says that he merely hung himself, while Acts 1:18 says: “…Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.” What? That makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, it certainly cannot be harmonized with the account of Judas hanging himself.
Jumping back to the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, we encounter another puzzling mystery: How many times did Christ move away from his disciples to pray? Three times, if we rely on Matthew 26:36-46, but only once, if we depend on Luke 22:39-47, which leaves no opening for another two times.
While in prayer just before his arrest, Jesus said: “While I was with them [the disciples] in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition [meaning Judas]; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” - John 17:12. Jesus said here that none of his disciples were lost except for Judas, and he said that this occurred in fulfillment of scripture. But now notice the disturbing editorial comment in the next chapter of John: “That the saying might be fulfilled, which he [Jesus] spake, ‘Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none’” (18:9). So did Jesus lose none but one, or did he lose none at all?
After Peter cut off the ear of a servant in Gethsemane, did Jesus heal this wound? No, says Matthew 26:51; Mark 14:47; and John 18:10. There is no mention made in any of these three recollections of a healing of this wound by Christ. This part of the story is only found in the gospel of Luke (22:50, 51). But here Peter is not mentioned as the one who inflicted this wound. It simply says “one of them” (the disciples). Likewise, Matthew’s and Mark’s versions only say “one of Jesus’ companions” or “one of them,” respectively. So the gospel of John is the only one of the four that identifies which disciple this was. Very strange.
Did Jesus appear before the Sanhedrin? Yes, says Matthew 26:59, 62; Mark 14:55, 60; and Luke 22:66, 67. But no, says John 18:13-24, which tells us that there were only private hearings before Annas and Caiaphas.
In John 18:31 we find that the Jews brought Jesus to Pilate for execution on the pretext that: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” But now look at what we read in John 19:7: “The Jewish leaders insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.’” Both of these passages are from the same book, just one chapter apart, and still they send a hopelessly mixed message.
The statement in John 18:31—“It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”—is particularly silly, as the Jewish leaders in Christ’s day did put people to death all the time, via stoning, as called for by the laws of Moses. And the Romans both knew about and permitted it. Even the gospels themselves talk about this, such as the story in John’s gospel where Jesus saved a woman from being stoned for adultery, because he told the Jewish priests, “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.” There was also the instance of Stephen, in the book of Acts, who was martyred through stoning by the Jews, because of his Christian faith. So we must ask, Why was Jesus not stoned to death by the Jews? Why was he instead killed by the Romans, via crucifixion, as the gospels allege?
To complicate matters even further, Luke 23:4, 14 has Pilate saying, twice, “I find no fault in this man.” But if that were the case, then he would have been obliged, by Roman law, to release Christ. And he certainly would not have had him crucified, for crucifixion was a Roman punishment that was reserved only for serious crimes against the Roman State. It could be argued that Christ, in admitting to being the “king of the Jews” to Pilate (since Pilate asked him if he was, and he never denied it), did indeed commit a crime against the state. But there is another problem here, as far as the gospel record is concerned. For the death sentence could only have been meted out with permission from Rome. This matter could not have been decided locally, nor could it have been administered so quickly, as the gospels indicate.
But the question that still begs an answer is, Why would Pilate say he found no fault in Christ if Christ admitted that he was a “king,” and thus a potential threat to Roman power? Here again we have a massive historical glitch in the gospels. The only way to resolve it is to conclude that Pilate never made that comment, because Josephus reports several occurrences where Pilate incited insurrections in order to bring the troublemakers out into the open and then ruthlessly purge them. In other words, Pilate was entirely intolerant of sedition. So intolerant, that he was eventually recalled to Vitellius (then the Legate of Syria) after a particularly violent attack he launched on the Samaritans in 36 AD, and was later ordered to appear in Rome to face accusations of merciless slaughter. So, again, Pilate was not one to take lightly someone claiming to be the “king of the Jews,” which is the very reverse image of Pilate that the gospels convey. Take this scene from the book of John: “From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, ‘If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.’” - John 19:12. There is positively no way that this scenario could ever have played out in the real world of Pilate.
With the foregoing in mind, we can also write off the gospel account of Pilate washing his hands at Christ’s trial, disavowing himself of responsibility for Christ’s fate. This would have been so out of character for him that it has to be relegated to the rank of bad fiction.
After washing his hands, as the story goes, Pilate then gave Christ over to the Jews, to have them handle the matter. Does this sound like a competent occupational military ruler of a strategically significant province seething with rebellion? Rest assured that the real, historical Pilate would never have acted this way, seeing that he was an arrogant, ruthless despot. Philo of Alexandria described him as “naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless.” He further said of him that he committed “acts of corruption, insults, rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims, and constant and most galling savagery.” Josephus said that he was “extremely offensive, cruel, and corrupt.”
It will serve our interest to look at one last troubling matter with the New Testament Pilate narrative. It is found in Matthew 27:19, where we read: “While he [Pilate] was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.’” Now wait just a minute. We are expected to assume, as many Bible believers do, that God gave this dream to Pilate’s wife. But why in the world would God, who allegedly sent his son to die for the sins of the world, do something like that? Are we honestly to think that he wanted to prevent Christ from accomplishing the very mission he supposedly sent him here for? This part of the story must have been clumsily inserted later on, to add more drama. But it certainly makes no theological sense.
The record in the gospels of a choice being given to the people, whether they wanted Christ or Barabbas to be released, claiming that this was in accordance with a Jewish Passover tradition, is simply not true. The Jews never had such a custom. Plus, if we accept the storyline that Pilate found no fault in Jesus, then why would he even release a murderer and a known insurrectionist over him, even if the Jews did have such a Passover policy? And how could the crowd be so easily swayed to pick this vile criminal over a humble peasant preacher whom the people apparently loved to listen to and be healed by? Just look what we read in Luke 23:27, the context of which is the very time of the crucifixion, when the crowds purportedly wanted Christ crucified: “A large number of people followed him [Jesus], including women who mourned and wailed for him.” Such a mixed message is being sent here. If Jesus had a large crowd following him at the time of his crucifixion, then where were they a short time earlier, when Christ was on trial? Look at what Luke 23:18-24 says: “But the whole crowd shouted, ‘Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!’ (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. But they kept shouting, ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!’ For the third time he spoke to them: ‘Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.’ But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand.” This rendition also flies in the face of Mark 14:2 which says that, just twelve hours or so earlier, the Jewish leaders were “very much afraid of public uproar if Jesus were to be arrested in the open.” So which is it? Were the crowds supportive of Jesus, or did they want him crucified? It cannot be both ways. Sorry, but this whole story does not add up. For nearly 2,000 years now, people have accepted the crucifixion tale as historical fact, even though it does not stand up to close scrutiny. And we have not even gotten into the worst of the troubles with it yet.
Who was it that persuaded the people to ask for the release of Barabbas? Matthew 27:20 tells us that it was the chief priests and elders. Mark 15:11 says that it was the chief priests only. Finally, Luke 23:18, 21 reveals that it was the people who decided this on their own, with no mention of the chief priests or elders.
Exactly who was it that dressed Jesus in a robe at his trial? Herod and his soldiers, says Luke 23:11; Pilate’s soldiers, says Matthew 27:27, 28; Mark 15:15-17; and John 19:1, 2. What color was this robe? Scarlet, says Matthew 27:28; purple, says Mark 15:17 and John 19:2.
Did Jesus bear his own cross on the way to Galgotha? Believing what John 19:17 says, yes. But accepting what is found in Matthew 27:31, 32, no—Simon of Cyrene did.
What was Christ given to drink while on the cross? Vinegar and gall, says Matthew 27:34; just vinegar, according to Luke 23:36; vinegar soaked in a sponge that was placed on a hyssop stalk, affirms John 19:29; wine mixed with myrrh, says Mark 15:23. To advance the confusion further, Mark 15:23 states that Jesus refused this concoction, whereas John 19:29, 30 says that he did drink it.
There is also a discrepancy pertaining to the time of day that Jesus died on the cross. Matthew 27:45, 46 and John 19:14-16 say that it was in the afternoon, while Mark 15:25 says that it took place in the morning.
Here is another chronology dilemma: Matthew 27:45, 46 and Mark 15:33, 34 place Christ on the cross at the sixth hour (noon), while John 19, 9, 13, 14 places him in the judgment hall, summoned by Pilate, at that very time.
What day was it that Christ was crucified on? Mark 14:12; 15:25 says that it was on the Passover: “And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover, his disciples said unto him, ‘Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover?’…And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.” However, John 18:28; 19:14-16 claims that it was the day before the Passover: “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover….And it was the preparation of the Passover [the day before Passover], and about the sixth hour: and he [Pilate] saith unto the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’ But they cried out, ‘Away with him, away with him, crucify him.’ Pilate saith unto them, ‘Shall I crucify your King’? The chief priests answered, ‘We have no king but Caesar.’ Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.”
What was the wording written on a piece of parchment that was nailed to Christ’s cross? Matthew 27:37 says: “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” Mark 15:26 says, simply: “The King of the Jews.” Luke 23:38 renders it as: “This is the King of the Jews.” And finally, John 19:19 has it as: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
Many people have heard the story of how one of the thieves crucified along with Christ was repentant, and how Christ promised that he would be with him in paradise. All the while, we are told, the other thief, on the other side of his cross, reviled him. This story is recorded in Luke 23:39-43. However, what most people do not realize is that Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 reveal that both thieves reviled Christ, with not even the slightest hint that either of them had any change of heart at the last minute.
Christ’s last words on the cross—what were they? We are given three different options. Luke 23:46 has: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit,” while John 19:30 yields, “It is finished,” and lastly, Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark 15:34-37 carry these words: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
When did Jesus die in relation to the curtain in the temple being torn? Accounts differ here too. In Matthew 27:50, 51 we see that he died before the curtain was rent. But in Luke 23:45, 46 we discover that, after the curtain was torn, Jesus cried out his final words: “Father, into they hands I commit my spirit.”
What did the centurion say after Christ died? Luke 23:47 quotes him as voicing these words: “Surely this man was a righteous man.” On the other hand, Mark 15:39 has him saying: “Surely this man was the son of God.”
Who placed Christ in the tomb? Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43, 46; and Luke 23:50-53 inform us that it was Joseph of Arimathea alone. But John 19:38-42 tells us that it was both Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. This discrepancy might not seem so bad until we read Acts 13:27-29, where the lack of harmony becomes exponentially magnified. For here we are told that it was neither Joseph of Arimathea nor Nicodemus, but “the people of Jerusalem and their rulers” that placed Christ in the tomb.
Was Christ’s body prepared with spices before burial? Yes, says John 19:39, 40, 42, but no, says Matthew 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; 16:1-4; and Luke 23:53-56.
Did Pilate order the guarding of Christ’s tomb? Yes, says Matthew 27:62-65; no, says Mark 15:44-47; Luke 23:52, 53, 55, 56; and John 19:38-42.
What time of day did the women go to the tomb? About dawn, declares Matthew 28:1; after sunrise, insists Mark 16:2; very early in the morning, asserts Luke 24:1; and finally, while it was still dark, claims John 20:1.
How many women came to the sepulcher? There were two (“Mary Magdalene and the other Mary”), if we believe Matthew 28:1; three (“Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome”), if Mark 16:1 is to be trusted; more than three (“Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them”), for those inclined to favor what Luke 24:10 says; and, to top it all off, only one (Mary Magdalene), for the ones who are more happy with what is proclaimed in John 20:1.
When these women arrived at the tomb (however many there were), did an earthquake occur? Yes, judging from Matthew 28:2. In fact, this verse says there was a “violent earthquake.” Meanwhile, no earthquake is mentioned at all in the other three gospel versions (Mark 16:4, 5; Luke 24:2-4; and John 20:11, 12).
How many angels were seen at the tomb? There were two seen by the women at the sepulcher, and they were standing up, says Luke 24:4. But Matthew 28:2, 5 insists that there was only one angel seen, and he was sitting down. Finally, John 20:12 tells us that there were two angels that were seated. Regarding these angels (or angel), there is another inconsistency to cope with: Matthew 28:2 declares that the (in this instance) single angel was seen outside the tomb, while Mark 16:5; Luke 24:3, 4; and John 20:11, 12 all tell us that the angel (or angels) were seen inside the tomb.
The record in the gospels is also inconsistent regarding what was supposed to have been said by the angel (or angels). Matthew 28:5-7 portrays a single angel as saying: “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him….” Luke 24:5-7, by contrast, has two angels declaring: “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified, and on the third day be raised again.’” Finally, John 20:13 has two angels simply stating: “Woman, why are you crying?”
Did the woman (or women) at the tomb tell what they had seen there? Matthew 28:8 answers yes: “So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.” But the answer from Mark 16:8 is no: “Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Luke, like Matthew, clashes with Mark in Luke 24:9: “When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others” (see also verses 22-24). And finally, John 20:18 also says that the story was told of what was seen at the tomb (in this case by only one woman, Mary Magdalene): “Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: ‘I have seen the Lord!’…”
You would think that there would be no conflicting accounts in the gospels regarding how the disciples found out about the alleged risen Christ, since we have just read (at least in some of the gospel renditions) that they were told about this by the women (or woman) who went to the tomb early Sunday morning. But, as we should come to expect by now, there are also mixed messages sent about this part of the story. Matthew 28:8, 9 says that before the disciples could be told about the resurrection, Jesus met them and they were overjoyed to see him alive again: “So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ he said. They came to him, clasped his feet, and worshipped him.” But Mark 16:11 and Luke 24:11 paint an entirely different picture. Here the disciples are depicted as finding out about the resurrection before seeing Jesus for themselves, and they did not believe what they were told.
The contrasts in the recollections of the reaction the disciples had to seeing the risen Christ are also incredibly divergent. We just saw that the disciples were overjoyed, as recorded in Matthew 28:8, 9. We find a similar claim in John 20:20. But Luke 24:37 gives this rendering: “They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.”
We have just seen, from Matthew 28:8, 9, that the first people to behold the risen Christ were “his disciples.” But Mark 16:9 and John 20:1, 14-16 say that it was Mary Magdalene. Luke’s reckoning adds even more confusion. Here we discover (24:15-31) that it was Cleopas and an unnamed companion that first saw Christ after he rose, whom they walked and talked with on the road to Emmaus. To make matters even worse, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:4, 5 that Cephas, or Peter, was the first that Christ appeared to. And notice the difference in locations where Jesus is claimed to have made his first post-resurrection appearance: Matthew 28:8, 9 says it was away from the tomb; Luke 24:13-15 says it was in Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem; and John 20:11-14 says it was at the tomb.
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know that Jesus had been resurrected? Mark 16:9-11 says yes, but John 20:2 says no: “So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!’”
It goes without saying that there are also conflicting stories about Mary Magdalene’s initial reaction to seeing her risen Lord. Matthew 28:9, as we have seen, portrays her (along with her female companion) as recognizing him and being filled with joy. However, John 20:14 conveys an entirely antagonistic portrayal: “At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.”
Within the gospel of Mark alone we find a serious discrepancy in the storyline of Christ’s resurrection, revealing that this book was a badly-assembled cut-and-paste job. Mark 16 opens with these words: “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb…” (1, 2). Here we see that these three women, one of which was Mary Magdalene, went to Christ’s tomb to anoint his body. But when they arrived, according to verse 4, “they saw that the stone [blocking the entrance to the tomb]…had been rolled away.” The women were then informed by an angel in the tomb that Jesus had risen and left the area. But now look what verse 9 says: “When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.” This cannot be fitted smoothly into the narrative of the previous eight verses—it quite clearly came from a totally different and incompatible account. For how could Christ have first appeared exclusively to Mary Magdalene “when” he arose “early” Sunday morning, since the preceding verses state that Magdalene was not alone, and that Christ had already risen when she and her two companions reached his empty tomb? We can actually nail down exactly how this confliction came about. It so happens that the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not contain verses 9 through 20. Thus they were obviously haphazardly added later on, without the contradictory portions thereof being amended to make them fit more smoothly.
In Matthew 28:9, as we have already observed, Christ, after his resurrection, had no aversion to people touching him: “Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him.” John 20:27 concurs, where Jesus told Thomas: “Then he said to Thomas, ‘Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.’” Now contrast these last two verses with what John 20:17 has Jesus saying: “Do not hold on to me [or “Touch me not,” as the King James Version puts it], for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
As per Luke 24:33-36, Jesus first appeared to the remaining eleven disciples in Jerusalem. But Matthew 28:5-7, 16, 17 reveals that he made this same appearance on a mountain in Galilee.
How long did Christ remain on earth after his resurrection? Just one day, if Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:50-52 are to be believed. John 20:26; 21:1-22, however, has it as over a week. Furthermore, Acts 1:3 says that it was 40 days.
From whence did Christ ascend? The Mount of Olives, says Acts 1:9, 12; Bethany, says Luke 24:50, 51. Here is a serious departure from both the historical record and from common sense: Matthew 27:52, 53 relates this outrageously fallacious story about something that transpired shortly after Christ’s resurrection: “The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.” Do realize that there are absolutely no extra-biblical records of this major event that would have been of monumental significance, the likes of which would have unquestionably created a massive stir all over the Roman Empire. We are told that many saints came to life and appeared to many in Jerusalem. Yet the historical record remains absolutely silent on the matter. Are you kidding? But aside from the absence of historical confirmation, does this episode not demand rejection simply on the basis of its violation of common sense reasoning? Does this tale not ooze with hyperbole in the extreme, to say nothing of it being outright supremely childish?
Leaving the gospel records, we now move on to the rest of the New Testament, to see if similar troubles exist there. The story of Paul’s conversion, which is alleged to have taken place while he was on the road to Damascus, has its own share of contradictions. For starters, Acts 26:14 tells us that, at the time of his conversion, Paul (who was originally called Saul) fell to the ground, as did his companions: “We all fell to the ground,” said Paul. But Acts 9:4, 7 says otherwise: “He [Paul] fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’…The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.” So in this version, Paul’s friends did not fall to the ground at all, but remained standing. Look also at how it says here that Paul’s attendants heard a voice at this time. But this is not what Acts 26:14 reveals. There Paul simply said, “I heard a voice.”
Reading Acts 26:16-18 persuades us that this voice that Paul heard (supposedly that of Christ himself) had given Paul instructions as to what his duties were to be: “Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” But quite a different picture emerges from Acts 22:10, which has this voice telling Paul to go to Damascus, at which time he would be informed on what his duties were to be: “Get up…and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.”
In Galatians 1:21, 22 we find that, sometime after his conversion, Paul said that he went around to various churches in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but he “was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea.” In the book of Acts (8:1-3 and 9:1, 2), however, we see that the churches Paul had mainly targeted, in his former role as a persecutor of Christians, were in Judea and Samaria. So how could he have said that he was unknown, by sight, to the churches of Judea? Either Paul was in error or the book of Acts was. Both cannot be right.
Paul tells us, in 1 Thessalonians 3:1, 2, that it was decided, while in Athens, to send Timothy to Thessalonica to strengthen the faith of the believers there. But in Acts 17:14-18:5 we encounter a completely different story that conflicts with what Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians. Here we discover that Paul and Timothy were at a church in Berea. Soon Paul found himself journeying to Athens, and instructions were given for Timothy and Silas to join him there. However, neither Timothy nor Silas met up with Paul in Athens. After doing some preaching to the Athenians, Paul, it is claimed, took off for Corinth, where Timothy and Silas later caught up with him. So Paul and Timothy were not in Athens together, as the book of 1 Thessalonians indicates. Which account, if any, is to be trusted?
If you were to survey a group of Bible believers and ask them when the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles, most of them would be quick to tell you that this occurred on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 1:8; 2:1, 4: “‘But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you [said Christ to his disciples, just prior to his ascension]; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’...When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place....All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” But this is not the story we get from reading John 20:19, 22. Here we find that the Holy Spirit was given by Christ just after his resurrection, and quite a few days before Pentecost: “On the evening of that first day of the week [Christ’s resurrection day], when the disciples were together…Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’…And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”
Acts 16:6 finds Paul being forbidden by the “Holy Ghost” to teach in Asia: “Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia.” In apparent rebellion, Paul later taught in Asia anyway: “But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” - Acts 19:9, 10. Who attempted to seize Paul in Damascus? Was it the governor under Aretas the king, as we read in 2 Corinthians 11:32, 33, or was it the Jews, as we read in Acts 9:22-25? In 1 Corinthians 15:4, 5 Paul stated that Christ, after his resurrection, appeared to “the twelve” apostles. But the point in time that Paul was referring to here was when Judas was already dead, and his replacement, Matthias, was not yet chosen (see Acts 1:20-26). So how could Paul have said that Jesus appeared at this time to the twelve apostles, when there were not twelve at that time? A very clear impression is given in Hebrews 11:27 that Moses, being an alleged great man of faith, was entirely unafraid of Egypt’s pharaoh: “By faith he [Moses] forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king.” But when we turn to the account in Exodus, we are told the very opposite: “And Moses feared, and said, ‘Surely this thing [Moses’ murder of an Egyptian] is known [by the pharaoh].’ Now, when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled before the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian….And it came to pass, in process of time, that the king of Egypt died….And the Lord said unto Moses, in Midian, ‘Go, return unto Egypt; for all the men are dead which sought thy life.’” - Exodus 2:14, 15, 23; 4:19.
Revelation 8:7 says, speaking in reference to the final days of earth’s history, that “all the green grass was burned up.” But in Revelation 9:3, 4, we hear about a voice crying afterwards from heaven, commanding the locusts not to hurt the grass. What grass? Was it not already all burned up in the previous chapter?
.jpeg)
