| Factual Contradictions in the Gospels By Charles Rose Introduction As I noted in my essay The Darwin Fish, Spirituality, and Me, I was once a Christian. I became an atheist after reading about and carefully considering some philosophical issues related to faith in God. Later, I went back and studied the Bible. As an atheist I found that to be a truly liberating experience. I wrote this essay in part to show to Christians who wish to �save� me, as an alternative to tedious and usually pointless religious discussions. It will hopefully also be useful for other people who haven�t read much of or about the Bible but want to know more. You will need only an open, thoughtful mind and a Bible of your own to verify most of what I say, and I will only be discussing a few very basic issues that any serious student of the Bible will already be familiar with. The Bible that I will be quoting from is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). This is one of the more accurate translations available, and it is written in modern English for ease of comprehension. Although the King James Version (KJV) is quite popular and poetic to read, it is a less accurate translation and is not as good for serious study. There are no substantive differences between the two translations with respect to the verses that I will be referring to, however, so a KJV will be good enough for verifying my interpretations. I have inserted links to the Bible Gateway online Bible to allow you to check the context of verses online. You may also want to see The Skeptic's Annotated Bible for additional commentary. When was Jesus Crucified? Tradition has it that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus, Mark was written by the �son� of Peter, and Luke was written by the �beloved physician� of Paul. Although Mark and Luke were not actual disciples, they were nevertheless in a position to gain accurate information about the events described. Further, all four authors were supposedly inspired by God. But are there serious contradictions between their accounts nevertheless? I can accept that the Gospel writers could have told the inspired truth despite making a few errors. But if there are major discrepancies between the Gospels, then they cannot be considered reliable, and there is no reason to take the claims of the divinity of Jesus seriously. I�ll start with the question of the day on which Jesus was crucified. It is commonly believed that this was the day after the Passover supper, and indeed this is what three of the four Gospels say (Matthew 26:17,19,21; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7,15). The Book of John, however, makes it clear that the Crucifixion took place on the day before the Passover (John 13:1,2,27-29; 18:28; 19:14,16,31). Since the Passover was (and is) a major Jewish holiday, this contradiction is striking. To put it in perspective, imagine that your father were murdered on the day after Thanksgiving. Wouldn�t your last Thanksgiving supper with him before his tragic death make a strong impression on your memory? Or if he were murdered on the day before, wouldn�t you remember eating Thanksgiving supper without him as you mourned? In light of this example, doesn�t the fact that the Gospel writers couldn�t agree on whether their Messiah was crucified on the day before or after Passover seem rather strange? What Happened after the Alleged Resurrection? If the Resurrection narratives are compared to each other element by element, many discrepancies appear. For instance, each one includes some encounter with the resurrected Jesus that none of the others mention. Some have tried to resolve this problem by contending that each gospel just leaves out some parts, and they must all be read together to get the full story. The biggest problem with this is that there are logical contradictions between the accounts that show that at least some of them must be false. For instance, let us look at the book of Luke. Luke makes it clear that the first meeting with the resurrected Jesus occurred in Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection. At that meeting he told the disciples not to leave Jerusalem until the Pentecost (50 days later), when they would receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:13-16,29,31,33,36,37,49; Acts 1:4,5,8; 2:1-4. Note that Acts is a continuation of the Book of Luke by the same author). It is clearly the first meeting because the disciples were �startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost� (Luke 24:37). Such an emotional reaction would make no sense if they had met with him earlier that day. Matthew, however, states that the disciples went to Galilee after the Crucifixion and met Jesus there. The story seems to imply that this was the first meeting with the resurrected Jesus, but this is not actually stated, so it is at least conceivable that there was an earlier encounter that is not mentioned in Mark. But if the disciples followed Jesus� instructions according to Luke, then they would not have been able to go to Galilee (which is around 80 miles from Jerusalem), at least not until after Pentecost. And even if they went after Pentecost, the account in Matthew still makes no sense. In it, some of the disciples �doubted� Jesus. This would make sense if that were their first meeting with him, but if they had already seen him over the course of 40 days (Acts 1:3), witnessed him ascend twice (Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9), and been endued with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1,4), then this reaction would make no sense whatsoever. Therefore, the two accounts are mutually exclusive. No more than one of them could be true. What Happened When Jesus was Crucified? If you examine the resurrection narratives closely, you will find many other contradictions. And the accounts of the crucifixion are badly confused as well. For instance, they disagree on Jesus� last words on the cross. Matthew and Mark both agree that he said �My God, my God, Why have you forsaken me?� (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34). Luke, however, has his last words as �Father, into your hands I commend my spirit,� and John�s version is �It is finished.� While the statements in Luke and John are different, they are at least similar in theme, so the discrepancy between the two is minor. But they are radically different from the version in Matthew and Mark. Jesus� last words as he died should have made a strong impression on his followers; doesn�t it seem strange that at least two of the four Gospel writers got them completely wrong? Of course, some Christians claim that Jesus said all of the above, and the Gospel accounts are simply incomplete. But can you really believe that not one of the four Gospel writers considered his last words important enough to record in their entirety? It is also worth mentioning that Matthew states that there was an earthquake when Jesus died, and another when he rose. Also, a number of dead people rose up out of their graves and wandered through Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50-53, 28:2). These are some of the most amazing miracles recorded in the Gospels. But none of the other Gospels mention any of this. Can you honestly believe that three of the four Gospel writers considered these events to be so trivial that they were not worth mentioning? Conclusion There are many more contradictions where those came from, but hopefully I�ve pointed out enough to get my point across. The idea that the Gospels are based on divinely inspired eye witness testimony just doesn�t hold up. Some Christians argue that it is only to be expected that the disciples would misremember or forget some details, just as witnesses to an auto accident will often give contradictory reports of what happened. The problem with this argument is that an auto accident is a startling, confusing event that happens within a matter of moments. The events described in the Gospels, however, would not be experiences of that sort. They would have been clearly perceived by the disciples and the emotionally powerful, life changing nature of the events would have caused them to make an extremely bold impression on their memories. Despite this, the Gospel writers contradict each other on such basic points as whether the Crucifixion happened on the day before or after the Passover (a major Jewish holiday) and whether or not the disciples made a special trip to Galilee (about 80 miles from Jerusalem) to see the resurrected Jesus. To suppose that people actually party to such events would become confused over such basic facts simply defies belief. And then there are major miracles, such as earthquakes and the dead rising out of their graves to wander through Jerusalem, which are inexplicably mentioned in one Gospel but not another. The idea that a person could forget such events or consider them unworthy of mention is absurd. The Origins of the Gospels In reality, there is strong evidence that the Gospels were all written anonymously decades after Jesus� death by people who never knew him. The names of the authors seem to be just educated guesses made by second-century Christians. The accounts were based on popular stories that were circulating late in the first century, and are of little value as biographies of Jesus. The Book of Mark was the first of the Biblical Gospels to be written down, and the authors of Matthew and Luke clearly borrowed heavily from Mark while changing some parts for theological and artistic reasons. This is why there are such dramatic differences between the Gospels while at the same time some passages in Mark are repeated almost word-for-word in Matthew and Luke. For some examples of repeated passages, see my essay on The Second Coming of Christ. Further, the idea of a savior who is born as the son of a god, who works miracles and rises from the dead to ascend bodily into heaven, was something of a religious clich� in the Roman Empire. For instance, all of these things were said about Emperor Augustus after his death. The poet Horace even declared Augustus an incarnation of Mercury and made allusions to his inevitable future ascent into heaven while he was still alive, and before Jesus was ever born! Cliff�s Notes on the New Testament, by Charles H. Patterson, Ph.D., says this of Emperor Augustus on page 20: It was reported that his birth had been foretold by a heavenly messenger, strange phenomena had been observed in the heavens at the time of his birth, miraculous power had been manifested in many of his earthly activities, and finally he had even triumphed over death. We have the testimony of one Roman historian who claimed that eye witnesses had told of his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven. The simple fact of the matter is that, given the religious environment of the time, it is only to be expected that stories similar to those in the Gospels would have been written about any popular, beloved leader. These stories of miracles, signs, prophecies, resurrections and ascensions tell us that Jesus meant a great deal to the people who wrote the Gospels, but that is all. For more on these issues, see Basic Issues Relating To Atheism on my main atheism page. Back to My Essays |