Alleged Contradictions

What you'll learn

Apply interpretive principles (genre, perspective, summary versus detail, Jewish reckoning) to apparent contradictions.
Work through four classic examples: the death of Judas, the women at the tomb, the genealogies of Jesus and Abiathar in Mark 2:26.
Respond honestly when you do not yet have an answer.

What is a contradiction?

A contradiction occurs when two statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. “Jesus was in Jerusalem on Friday” and “Jesus was not in Jerusalem on Friday” contradict. But “Peter went to the tomb” and “Peter and John went to the tomb” do not; the first simply mentions less.

Many supposed contradictions are differences: different details, emphasis or wording. Differences are exactly what we expect from independent witnesses. In a courtroom, identical testimony suggests collusion; complementary testimony with variations suggests genuine independent accounts. As Reformed believers we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture in its original manuscripts (see Lesson 3 for what that does and does not mean), and we read it with the same charity we would give any honest author.

What is the difference between a contradiction and a difference? Give an example of each.Show answer

A contradiction occurs when two statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense, such as "Jesus was in Jerusalem on Friday" and "Jesus was not in Jerusalem on Friday." A difference simply gives more or less detail, as when one account says Peter went to the tomb and another says Peter and John went. Differences are what we expect from independent witnesses, because identical testimony suggests collusion.

same time and same sense
fewer details isn't contradiction
independent witnesses vary
identical testimony suggests collusion

Principles for handling difficulties

Christians have used a handful of sound principles for centuries. Work through them before concluding that a passage contains an error.

Genre: poetry, parable, narrative, prophecy and apocalyptic use language differently. “The sun rises” is not an astronomical error; it is ordinary language.
Perspective: different writers have different purposes and audiences. Matthew writes for Jewish readers, Luke for a Gentile patron (Luke 1:3). Each selects details.
Summary versus detail: ancient writers often compressed events or summarised speeches. Matthew condenses the healing of Jairus' daughter (Matt 9:18-26) compared to Mark 5:21-43.
Jewish reckoning: Jews counted part of a day as a whole day (inclusive reckoning) and used different hours for days; “three days and three nights” (Matt 12:40) is a Jewish idiom compatible with Friday to Sunday.
Approximation and paraphrase: ancient historians, like modern ones, quoted the gist rather than a tape-recording. The Gospels often give Jesus' words in translation from Aramaic into Greek.
Text and translation: check the original language and textual variants before concluding there is an error.
A note on method: some evangelical scholars, such as Michael Licona, also appeal to conventions of ancient Greco-Roman biography, such as compressing events or moving them for effect (displacement). Some Reformed inerrantists have raised concerns about how far that goes, so use such explanations carefully.

Choose two of the principles for handling difficulties and explain how each helps.Show answer

Genre matters because poetry, parable, narrative and prophecy use language differently; saying "the sun rises" is ordinary language, not an astronomical error. Jewish reckoning counted part of a day as a whole day, so "three days and three nights" (Matt 12:40) fits Friday to Sunday. Other principles include perspective, summary versus detail, paraphrase of speeches, and checking the original language and textual variants before concluding there is an error.

genre
perspective / summary
Jewish reckoning
check text and translation

Worked example: the death of Judas

Matthew 27:5 says Judas “went and hanged himself.” Acts 1:18 says he acquired a field and, “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” Sceptics see a contradiction: did he hang or fall?

Both can be true. A body hanging for some time, perhaps after the rope or branch gave way, could fall and burst open. This was suggested as early as Augustine (Against Felix 1.4). The field question also resolves: Matthew says the chief priests used the thirty pieces of silver to buy the potter's field (27:6-7); Acts says Judas “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness.” The field was bought with his money, in his name, so it could be credited to him. Both accounts agree that the place became known as the Field of Blood (Matt 27:8; Acts 1:19).

How can Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 both be true about Judas' death and the field?Show answer

Matthew says Judas hanged himself and Acts says he fell headlong and burst open; a body that hung for some time could fall when the rope or branch gave way, a solution suggested as early as Augustine. On the field, Matthew says the chief priests bought it with the thirty pieces of silver, while Acts says Judas acquired it with his reward. Since it was bought with his money, it could be credited to him, and both accounts agree it became known as the Field of Blood.

hanging then falling
Augustine's early suggestion
bought with his money
both: Field of Blood

Worked example: the women at the tomb

Matthew names Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” (28:1); Mark adds Salome (16:1); Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and “the other women” (24:10); John names only Mary Magdalene (20:1). Contradiction? No. None of the writers says only these women came. In fact John's account hints at others: Mary says, “we do not know where they have laid him” (20:2).

On the time: John says it was “still dark,” Mark says “when the sun had risen” (16:2). The likely picture is that the women set out in the dark and arrived as the sun was rising. The differences are what we expect from independent witnesses, and the agreement on the central facts (the women, the first day of the week, the stone, the empty tomb, the presence of angels) is striking.

Why do the different lists of women at the tomb not contradict each other, and what do the accounts agree on?Show answer

None of the Gospel writers says only the women he names came, and John even hints at others when Mary says "we do not know where they have laid him" (20:2). The time difference is resolved if the women set out while it was dark and arrived as the sun was rising. The accounts agree strikingly on the central facts: the women, the first day of the week, the stone, the empty tomb and the presence of angels.

no one says 'only'
'we' in John 20:2
set out in dark, arrived at sunrise
agreement on core facts

Worked examples: genealogies and Abiathar

The genealogies. Matthew 1 traces Jesus through David's son Solomon, while Luke 3 traces him through David's son Nathan, and the names differ. Two main explanations are offered. Many hold that Luke gives Mary's line, with Joseph listed as son-in-law of Heli. Another view, recorded by Julius Africanus and preserved by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 1.7), explains the difference through levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-6), where one man could have a legal and a biological father. Note also that Matthew deliberately arranges his list in three sets of fourteen (Matt 1:17) and omits some kings, a common practice of selective, stylised genealogies; “son of” could mean descendant.

Mark 2:26. Jesus says David entered the house of God “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” and ate the bread of the presence. But 1 Samuel 21 says the priest was Ahimelech, Abiathar's father. Bart Ehrman recounts that wrestling with this verse as a student was a turning point in his doubts. Answers include: the Greek phrase epi Abiathar can mean “in the passage about Abiathar”, the same construction Mark uses in 12:26 for “in the passage about the bush”; Abiathar, a priest at Nob, was very likely there (he escaped the massacre that followed, 1 Sam 22:20) and became the more prominent high priest, so the period could be named after him, much as we might say “in the days of King David” for events before his coronation.

Explain the two main explanations for the differences between the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.Show answer

Many hold that Luke gives Mary's line, with Joseph listed as son-in-law of Heli, while Matthew gives Joseph's. Another view, recorded by Julius Africanus and preserved by Eusebius, explains the difference through levirate marriage, where a man could have both a legal and a biological father. Matthew's list is also deliberately arranged in three sets of fourteen and omits some kings, a common practice in stylised genealogies where "son of" can mean descendant.

Luke as Mary's line
levirate marriage (Africanus)
Matthew's 3 x 14 is selective
'son of' = descendant

How would you respond to the claim that Mark 2:26 wrongly names Abiathar as high priest?Show answer

The Greek phrase epi Abiathar can mean "in the passage about Abiathar", the same construction Mark uses in 12:26 for "in the passage about the bush". Also, Abiathar was very likely present at Nob, escaped the massacre (1 Sam 22:20) and became the more prominent high priest, so the period could be named after him. That is like saying "in the days of King David" for events before his coronation.

epi = 'in the passage about'
same construction in Mark 12:26
Abiathar present and more prominent
period named after him

When to say “I don't know yet”

You will meet difficulties you cannot answer on the spot, and some that scholars still debate. Honesty is a strength. Say, “That's a good question; I don't know, but I'll look into it.” Then do.

Remember three things. First, many “unsolvable” contradictions of the past have been resolved by later discoveries, for example the existence of Pontius Pilate (the Pilate Stone, found in 1961) and the Hittites. Second, a difficulty is not a demonstrated error; a demonstrated contradiction requires showing that no reasonable resolution is possible. Third, our confidence rests on God's character, “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18), and on the overwhelming record of Scripture's reliability. We hold difficulties with patience, as one would trust a proven friend while waiting for an explanation.

What should you do when you meet a difficulty you can't answer, and what three things give you patience while you look into it?Show answer

Be honest and say you don't know yet but will look into it, and then actually do. First, many supposedly unsolvable problems have later been resolved by discoveries, like the Pilate Stone (1961) and the Hittites. Second, a difficulty is not a demonstrated error, which would require showing that no reasonable resolution is possible. Third, our confidence rests on God's character, since it is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18), and on Scripture's proven reliability.

honest 'I don't know yet'
past problems resolved (Pilate, Hittites)
difficulty is not demonstrated error
God cannot lie (Heb 6:18)

Key texts

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18: The two accounts of Judas' death, a classic test case for harmonising complementary details.
John 20:1-2: Mary's “we do not know” implies other women, showing John's account is selective, not exclusive.
Mark 2:26 and 12:26: The same Greek construction (epi) can mean “in the passage about”, offering a solution to the Abiathar difficulty.
Luke 1:1-4: Luke writes as a careful investigator using eyewitness sources, setting expectations for historical reliability.
Hebrews 6:18: It is impossible for God to lie; the theological reason for patience with difficulties.
Matthew 1:17: Matthew's stylised three sets of fourteen show his genealogy is selective and structured, not exhaustive.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“If the Gospels can't even agree on how many women went to the tomb, why should I trust anything they say?”Show a response

Differences in detail are a mark of authenticity, not unreliability. Historians routinely trust sources that vary in peripheral details while agreeing on the core. Police detectives grow suspicious when witnesses give identical accounts, because it suggests they coordinated their story. Here, all four Gospels agree on the central facts: women went to the tomb early on the first day of the week, found it empty, and received news that Jesus had risen. No Gospel says only one or two women went; each simply names those relevant to its account, and John even hints at others (20:2). Selective reporting is not contradiction. If anything, the independence of these accounts strengthens the testimony to the empty tomb.

“Matthew says Judas hanged himself; Acts says he fell and burst open. That's a flat contradiction.”Show a response

It would be a contradiction only if one account excluded the other, and neither does. Matthew tells us how Judas died; Luke in Acts describes what happened to his body, with graphic detail that fits a corpse that had hung for some time and then fell, perhaps when the rope or branch broke. This harmonisation is not a modern invention; Augustine suggested it. Both accounts agree on the key points: Judas died shortly after the betrayal, his money bought a field, and the field was called the Field of Blood. Saying the priests bought the field (Matthew) and that Judas acquired it (Acts) is like saying a will bought a house that a person's estate paid for. These are complementary details.

“The Bible has thousands of contradictions. There are whole websites listing them.”Show a response

Quantity is not the same as quality. Many items on such lists depend on ignoring context, genre or ordinary language, or treat a difference in detail as a contradiction. A fair approach is to take them one at a time: pick the strongest example you think exists, and let's look at it together in context. Christians have been studying these questions for two thousand years; Augustine wrote a whole work on harmonising the Gospels around AD 400, and reference works like Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties address hundreds of examples. You may find some answers more persuasive than others, but you will rarely find a case where no reasonable resolution exists. A long list of misunderstandings is not a strong case.

“Even Bart Ehrman lost his faith over Mark 2:26. If it's a real error, inerrancy collapses.”Show a response

Ehrman says this verse was an important moment in his journey, and we should take that seriously, though he himself says it was the problem of suffering that ultimately led him to lose his faith. But there are reasonable explanations. Mark uses the same Greek construction in 12:26, “in the passage about the bush”, to point to a section of Scripture, so 2:26 may mean “in the passage about Abiathar”, who is the prominent priest in that part of 1 Samuel. Alternatively, Abiathar was probably present and became the better-known high priest, so the period could be named after him. Even if one found none of these fully satisfying, a single unresolved difficulty is not a proven error. Inerrancy rests on God's truthfulness, and the overall record of Scripture gives good reason to trust it while we continue to study.

“You can harmonise anything if you're creative enough. Explaining away every contradiction isn't honest scholarship; it's special pleading.”Show a response

That's a fair warning, and forced harmonisations do happen. But the standard I'm using is the one we apply to any honest source. A contradiction means two statements can't both be true at the same time and in the same sense. If a reasonable explanation exists, the charge of contradiction isn't proven, and that's true for Tacitus or a court witness as well as Matthew. Many of these explanations aren't modern inventions to rescue inerrancy; Augustine suggested the solution to Judas' death long ago. I also try to be careful: some proposed solutions go too far, and I'd rather say "I don't know yet" than invent something. What I won't do is treat a difficulty as a demonstrated error, because that requires showing no reasonable resolution is possible. Charity toward a text isn't dishonesty; it's how we read any author we have good reason to trust.

“Jesus said he'd be in the earth three days and three nights (Matt 12:40), but Friday evening to Sunday morning is nowhere near that. He got his own prophecy wrong.”Show a response

It looks wrong if we count like modern people, but Jews commonly used inclusive reckoning, where part of a day counted as a whole day. Friday, Saturday and the start of Sunday are three days in that idiom. We can see the same flexibility elsewhere in Scripture. Esther tells the people to fast "for three days, night or day" (Esth 4:16), yet she goes to the king "on the third day" (Esth 5:1). Matthew himself clearly saw no conflict: he records Jesus predicting he would be raised "on the third day" (Matt 16:21), and the chief priests remembering that he said "after three days" while asking for the tomb to be guarded "until the third day" (Matt 27:63-64). If Matthew and Jesus' enemies treated these phrases as equivalent, we shouldn't impose a modern stopwatch on them.

Written task

Choose one alleged contradiction not covered in this lesson (for example, the order of the temptations in Matthew 4 and Luke 4, or the inscription on the cross). In 250-400 words, state the objection fairly, apply at least two of the lesson's principles, propose a reasonable resolution, and explain how you would present it to a sceptic, including what you would say if you were unsure.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

States the alleged contradiction accurately with references.
Applies at least two interpretive principles explicitly.
Offers a resolution that is plausible and honest about uncertainty.
Distinguishes between difference in detail and true contradiction.
Shows a humble, conversational posture suitable for a sceptic.