Brainwash: A Glimpse on Bible Verses’ Alleged Contradictions (Part 5)

Last time, the common accusation that the Bible is "full of contradictions" and exposed how these alleged contradictions are based on unawareness, malice and miscomprehension were discussed. Every allegation to demonstrate "194 Contradictions in the New Testament debunked every single alleged contradiction and not a single one is valid. These people who publish this kind of distorted image of the Scriptural narratives are not motivated by any desire to find out what the Biblical text actually means, but rather to debunk Christianity.[2] It’s ironic that while the technology helps to have an easiest and quickest research on Biblical studies, it appears that people tend to be indolent in deepening and critical analysis on certain issues that ends up in a biased study. 

For two phrases to be contradictory, it is necessary that two things are affirmed to be mutually exclusive. For it to be a true contradiction there must be this mutual exclusivity, otherwise without it, there may be difficulties, open questions, or unproven theories, than a contradiction.

In this series of "contradictions" there is a lot which depend upon the misleading notion of the unspecified companion which basically happens when a Gospel does not mention a particular person but detailed in another Gospel, which is erroneously inferred that the person was not present. Say, in one Gospel it is stated that Jesus heals a blind man named Bartimaeus. In another Gospel, it is stated that Jesus heals two blind men. Since the former Gospel does not specifically mention that second blind man, allegation of contradiction may emerge. As long as the first Gospel does not positively deny the existence of the second blind man, allegation remains an allegation. The obvious truth is that there are two blind men. It’s just that the Gospel of Mark accounts the name of only one of them, the one who happens to speak to Jesus. Most of the contradictions presented are just a manifestation of badly-informed individuals whose accusations are based on a hyper-literal interpretation of language that no one would ever apply in any other context in real life.

So let’s find out more: 

Alleged Contradiction No. 66
Jesus says that John the Baptist is a prophet and Elijah. (Matthew 11:9; Matthew17:12-13)	John says that neither he nor Elijah is a prophet. (John1:21)
Interpretation:
The Pharisees inquires John if he is "the" Prophet. This is a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15, in which Moses promises that in the future God will send "a prophet like me” to Israel and John is not this Prophet. St. Peter tells in Acts 3:17-26 that refers to Jesus Himself. In Matthew 11, Jesus never says that John is "the" prophet, but that he is "a" prophet. Concerning Elijah, the Pharisees and subsequent Jewish tradition have looked for a kind of fleshly, physical return of Elijah. John was right in denying that he was Elijah in the physical sense. When Jesus calls John as Elijah, He did so in a metaphorical sense, the same sense in which Luke says of John: "And he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). John was not Elijah after the flesh, but he did fulfill the prophetical role of one who comes "in the spirit and power of Elijah", which is the sense in which Christ refers to him, without, however, denying a physical appearance of Elijah at the end of time (compare with Matthew 17:11).

Alleged Contradiction No. 67
Jesus says that He is meek and lowly. (Matthew 11:29)	Jesus whips and drives the moneychangers out of the temple. (Matthew 21:12; Mark11:15-16; John 2:15)
Interpretation:
To be meek and lowly is not analogous to sit idly and tolerate evil. Meekness is patience between man and man, which is related to the cardinal virtue of temperance, and is opposed to the sin of anger. Anger is a sin when it is unjustified or when it leads to other sins; righteous indignation is not synonymous to anger.  Jesus acts at the Temple are attributed to righteous zeal than unrighteous anger. (John 2:17). Besides, when Jesus says that He is meek does not preclude that He could exercise any other characteristic other than gentleness. He is still aroused by righteous indignation at profanity.

Alleged Contradiction No. 68
Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". (Luke12:1)	Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees". (Matthew 16:6,11)	Jesus says "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod". (Mark.8:15)
Interpretation:
Therefore everyone should beware of the leaven from all of them. This would not be a contradiction unless He says something like, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" but in another verse is, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees but not the Sadducees." Making a list of other persons aside from the Pharisees does not mean He is contradicting Himself.

Alleged Contradiction No. 69
Jesus establishes His church on Peter. (Matthew16:18)	Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and an obstacle. (Matthew.16:23)
Interpretation:
Jesus does not mean Peter is Satan in a substantial sense, but in opposing the will of God that Jesus will die on the cross, Peter is acting as God's opponent - the word Satan literally means "adversary." The disciples often perceived it erroneously especially that Peter and the Apostles had not yet received the Holy Spirit at the time.

Alleged Contradiction No. 70
James and John’s mother asks Jesus to favor her sons. (Matthew 20:20,21)	They ask for themselves. (Mark10:35-37)
Jesus replies that this favor is not His to give. (Matthew 20:23; Mark10:40)	Jesus says that all authority is given to Him. (Matthew 28:18; John 3:35)
Interpretation:
James and John’s mother initiates this request and approaches Jesus with the sons. The sons echo their mother's appeal and encourage Jesus to grant it. Matthew stresses the mother's role in initiating the request while Mark underscores the sons' desires. Jesus has all the authority insofar as He is Second Person of the Trinity, but in becoming Man, He lays aside much of this authority and takes the form of a servant. While He was on this earth, He did only and said only those things commanded Him by the Father (John 5:19). So while He has all authority, He does not always exercise it as man, like when He was being arrested and asserted that He has the authority to call ten legions of angels, if He chooses to but He prefers not to (Matthew 26:53). The Lord exercises this fullness of authority only after the Resurrection, which is where the quote from Matthew 28 is derived from.

Alleged Contradiction No. 71
Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. (Matthew 20:29-30)	Jesus heals one named blind man. (Mark10:46-52)
Interpretation:
Matthew prefers not to include the name of one of the blind men, while Mark accounts the name of one, which does not implies a contradiction.

Alleged Contradiction No. 72
Jesus heals all the sick. (Matthew 8:16; Luke 4:40)	Jesus heals many of the sick - but not all. (Mark1:34)
Interpretation:
First of all, St. Mark never says that He did not heal all. The word "all" and "many" are very fluid terms, words that are not used strictly in everyone’s own day to day speech. Take for example the statement, "The parish festival is fantastic; all the kids from the parish were there." By saying such a sentence does not literally mean that every single child was present. In practice, the words "all", "many", "everybody" and "everyone" are used very generally. Since this is how humans talk and since the Bible was written by humans, one should not demand precision of definition anchored to individual own language. The fact is that both Gospel writers affirm that Jesus heals tons of people; every single sick person in the region may not show up but everyone who encounters Jesus receives healing.

Alleged Contradiction No. 73
The council asks Jesus if He is the Son of God. (Luke 22:70)	The high priest asks Jesus if He is the Christ, the Son of God. (Matthew 26:63)
The high priest asks Jesus if He is the Christ the Son of the Blessed. (Mark14:61)	The high priest asks Jesus about His disciples and His doctrine. (John.18:19)
Interpretation:
Jesus was asked about His disciples and doctrine before a question about His identity as Son of God, which ended the interview. The word "Blessed" is a rabbinical word (in Greek, eulogētos) which is a synonym for "God".  It is used only to refer to God and serves as a theonym, a proper noun that refers to God but allows the speaker to refrain from saying the sacred name. The word can be translated as "blessed" or as "God" since they functionally mean the same thing. The high priest asked Jesus if He is bar barukh, translated into Greek as eulogētos. Matthew and Luke choose to translate this word as "God", while Mark prefers the more literal translation "blessed."

Alleged Contradiction No. 74
Jesus answers “You said it, not me”. (Matthew 26:64; Luke 22:70)	Jesus answers definitely, “I am”. (Mark14:62)
Interpretation:
Jesus replies the high priest’s question using an Aramaic idiomatic expression that is commonly translated as "You have said it!" Idioms are steeped in the context of a specific culture and don't always translate well especially over millennia so modern translators have had a hard time with this phrase. For example, if one is not aware of the idiom "It's the cat's ass!" he/ she may be taken aback when she/he hears about someone asking another how did she find the lunch while the other responds with this idiom.  If taken literally, that sounds gross as no one I suppose eats or prepares a cooked feline anus for a guest.  But if it’s taken correctly on the context of an idiom, this sounds a positive reception as this idiom means “I like it a lot!” With the absence of awareness about such English idiom, one could imagine how a neighborhood reacts when hearing such a phrase 2000 years from now. Similarly,  Matthew, who did his Gospel in Aramaic, uses the actual Hebrew idiom, which translates as "You say so" or "You have said it," which is similar to the English response "You got it!" or "You said it!", and ultimately means, "Yes." As St. Peter’s secretary, St. Mark was writing for a Gentile audience who would have no knowledge of the Hebrew idiom. Hence, he translates this difficult idiom as "I am", which preserves the actual meaning of Jesus' words in a manner that is comprehensible to the Gentile audience.

Alleged Contradiction No. 75
At the Mount of Olives, Jesus tells Peter he will deny Him three times. (Matthew 26:30-34)	At the Passover meal, Jesus tells Peter he will deny him three times. (Luke.22:13,14,34)
Interpretation:
As mentioned elsewhere, the Gospel is not a police report that expects a presentation of things in a chronological narrative. Just because some account is stated earlier or later in a sequence does not necessarily mean that the Gospel writer insists a particular statement occurred at that instance. In this case, the Last Supper and the trip to the Mount of Olives cropped up one after the other, and the discrepancy here probably suggests that Peter and Jesus had this conversation while they were heading from the upper room to the Mountain. Or it could be that Peter reaffirmed his devotion several times while the Lord Jesus prophesied more than once. There is no contradiction here since there are a few ways to reconcile it. That could only be a contradiction if Luke denied that Peter said this at the Last Supper, or vice versa. It is adequate from the Gospels to understand that Peter’s affirmations and Jesus' prophesy occurred sometime between the Last Supper and the going to the garden, which is a time span of only a few hours.

Alleged Contradiction No. 76
Peter would deny Jesus before the cock crowed. (Matthew.26:34; Luke 22:34; John13:38)	Peter would deny Jesus before the cock crowed twice. (Mark.14:30)
Interpretation:
Don’t complicate matters that are simple.  If the cock has crowed twice, then the cock has crowed.

Alleged Contradiction No. 77
The cock crows once. (Matthew 26:74)	The cock crows twice. Mark14:72)
Interpretation:
This is clearly a distortion of the texts.  Matthew never figures out the number of crow that the cock made, only that it crowed. If one has to say that "The dog barks," does not necessarily imply that it barks once and only once. The phrase "the dog barks" have a more general meaning that could refer to a single bark, two barks, or non-stop barks.

Alleged Contradiction No. 78
Peter makes his first denial to a maid and some others. (Matthew 26:69,70)	It is only to the maid. (Mark.14:66-68; Luke 22:56-57; John18:17)
Interpretation:
Primarily, it is the maid whom Peter speaks with, but there were many others standing around. Even John 18, which is cited above to be allegedly in contradiction with Matthew 26, says this plainly: "And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself" (John 18:18). So even if only the maid is accounted as speaking, evidently there were other people around who would have heard Peter's denial, unless all of them are with hearing impediments.

Alleged Contradiction No. 79 & 80
Peter’s second denial was to another maid. (Matthew 26:71,72)	It was to the same maid. (Mark14:69,70)
It was to a man and not a maid. (Luke 22:58)	It was to more than one person. (John18:25)
Interpretation:
Mark never denies that it was the same maid stated in Matthew. Luke does not specify who approaches Peter, but assuming it was a man and not a woman, this does not preclude both a maid and a man, and perhaps others, from all making these inquiries. John 18:25 appears to be the one affirming this, when it mentions that many were standing around Peter inquiring him if he were a disciple. If it’s stated that many were there and not just one maid, man, or whatsoever, then conclusive point is spoon fed.

Alleged Contradiction No. 81
Peter’s third denial is to several bystanders. (Matthew 26:73-74; Mark14:69-70)	It is to one person. (Luke 22:59-60)	It is to a servant. (John18:26-27)
Interpretation:
The third denial was primarily to an individual, an individual who was part of a group of bystanders witnessing the denial together. (compare with number 77)

Alleged Contradiction No. 82
The chief priests procure the field. (Matthew 27:6-7)	Judas procures the field. (Acts 1:16-19)
Interpretation:
The last passage is rather rhetorical. By saying Judas procures a field "with the rewards of his iniquity" means nothing but the money given to him was used to purchase a field. Saying "he" purchased it is a rhetorical grand gesture. For example, there’s this syndicate who hacks the Bangladesh Central Bank, amassing $81 million and launders it through opening and depositing it in Rizal Commercial Bank in the Philippines through counterparts. At some point, one of the counterparts in the name of William Go withdraws $20 million dollar and unfortunately the latter encounters an accident throwing the box of $20 million placed in his Lexus causing its content to fly uncontrollably everywhere because of the windy condition. Then a portion of the cash amounting to 2 million pesos has landed into the farmer’s land which he discovered when he goes there to plow. Now suppose the farmer uses the money to acquire brand new house from a developer.  One could say rhetorically that the syndicate acquires the property with the funds of his iniquity. Definitely, the syndicate did not build or acquire anything but through his iniquity the money came into the hands of the farmer, and he thus used it for building a house. Similarly, the money of Judas' betrayal landed into the hands of the priests, who used the money of his iniquity to procure the Field of Blood.

   

Alleged Contradiction No. 83
Judas throws down the money and leaves. (Matthew 27:5)	Judas uses the coins to procure the field. (Acts 1:18)
Interpretation:
Compare with number 80.

  

Alleged Contradiction No. 84
Judas hangs himself. (Matthew 27:5)	Judas falls headlong and bursts his head open. (Acts 1:18)
Interpretation:
Judas suicides by hanging himself, and the rope breaks so naturally he falls down and bursts open. Acts 1:18 never says that the act of falling is the instance that kills Judas; it merely notes that he falls and bursts open. This account could be well described on what happened to his body after the events shown in Matthew 27. Akeldama (the place where Judas had suicide) is a field punctuated by jagged rocky walls and precipices. Probably he hanged himself from a tree on one of these many outcroppings then the rope broke after he was already dead, and his bloated body fell and burst asunder on the ground. This is entirely in preserving with tradition and phraseology of the two narratives. Occasionally people get into trouble when something is accounted incompletely, that the author presumes everybody knew. For example on the death of Lincoln, assuming one reporter covering the events of April 14, 1865 writes that Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theater on Good Friday, which is absolutely correct. Now say another reporter, covering the events at the Peterson House, where Lincoln was taken after being shot, and assuming that the public is already aware the now famous sequence of events, writes that Lincoln died in bed at the Peterson House on the morning of April 15, 1865. Now assuming many centuries elapse, such that much concrete account about the details of the day are lost; in fact, assuming so much time passes by that these two accounts are the only information on hand about death of Lincoln. Now historians begin to hypothesize on discrepancies and contradictions in the two accounts. In the end, what has been left as accounts are: Testimony 1: Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theater on April 14, 1865. Testimony 2: Lincoln died in bed at the Peterson House, April 15, 1865. If these are all the nformation available, the narrative could appear contradictory - that is, until we realize that the two accounts are connected to each other. Testimony 1 does not disclose that Lincoln "died" on April 14th, only that he was assassinated on that date. If everybody is aware that he lingered on for some time and was taken across the street to the Peterson House, Testimony 2 corresponds completely with Testimony 1. Lincoln was shot on Friday and was taken across the street to another location, where he remained until the following morning and died in bed. In the same way, Luke assumes his audience knows Judas’ hanging, and does not mention it in Acts 1. However, he tells to what happened to his body after the fact, that the bursting of the corpse of Judas was correct given his betrayal. The passages can only be seen with contradiction if Acts 1 says that Judas not only burst, but that this bursting caused his death. But it does not say this, thus, there’s no contradiction.

Alleged Contradiction No. 85
Jesus answers any of the accusations. (Matthew 27:12-14; Luke 23:9)	Jesus answers some of the accusations. (Mark14:61-62)	Jesus answers all of the accusations. (John18:33-37)
Interpretation:
Jesus’ trials before Herod Antipas, Caiaphas and Pilate are jumbled and confused here. The Lord did not speak in any way to Herod (Luke 23:9). Before Pilate, Jesus did not answer the charges of the Jews, but that does not mean that He did not speak at all. Jesus spoke to Pilate about the nature of His kingdom, but did not enter into debate concerning particular charges. Likewise, Jesus did not argue with the Jews on the accusations against Him, but that does imply that He did not speak. When Caiaphas renounced Him, Jesus plainly proclaimed that He is the Messiah. By saying that Jesus did not "answer accusations" does not mean that He did not speak, but rather that He did not make a defense. Hence, when Caiaphas accused Him to answer whether He was the Christ, He proclaimed the truth unreservedly, but He did not make a defense or attempt to absolve Himself. The Scriptures simply tells that He made no attempts to free Himself. This is what it means to "answer accusations" in a legal context.

Alleged Contradiction No. 86
Jesus says that eternal life is given to all that are given to Him. (John11:27-29; John17:12)	Jesus releases Judas in order to keep this promise. (John18:5-9)
Interpretation:
This presentation is off-track.  Jesus did not "release" Judas. The "life" that Jesus states in John 18, refers to upholding of the disciples’ physical life, while the life in John 11 and John 17 is eternal life.

Alleged Contradiction No. 87
The chief priests and elders persuade the people. (Matthew.27:20)	Only the chief priests persuade the people. (Mark15:11)	The chief priests and the people persuade themselves. (Luke 23:13-23)
Interpretation:
The elders are among the entourage of the Chief Priests. The Bible mentioning the Chief Priest implies that his entourage is with him; like saying, "The President visits Asia", which means the President, his whole staff and entourage. Mark does not mention the entourage while Matthew does. In Luke, the Chief Priests and the entourage are lumped together with the people. This is because Luke addresses Gentiles, for whom the Chief Priests, the elders and the people are all collectively "Jews".

Alleged Contradiction No. 88
Jesus is given a scarlet robe. (Matthew 27:28)	Jesus is given a purple robe. (Mark15:17; John19:2)	Jesus is given a magnificent robe. (Luke 23:11)
Interpretation:
There is no contradiction between the color of the robe and whether or not it was magnificent.  At any rate, the robe is a deep scarlet with a purple shade; it is purple enough to convey royalty but still scarlet enough to be somewhat red. Given the location of Judea, the robe was probably Tyrian Purple, a medium between scarlet red and royal purple, and extremely common in 1st century Judea, as Tyre was only a little ways up the coast. No one would really say two witnesses were contradicting each other if one says a shirt is indigo while the other says it is purple.

Alleged Contradiction No. 89
The sign says, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”. (Mathew 27:37)	The sign says, “The King of the Jews”. (Mark15:26)
In three languages, the sign says, “This is the King of the Jews”. (Luke 23:38)	In the same three languages, the sign says, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”. (John19:19-20)
Interpretation:
Previously, it is presented how Mark recaps episodes that are given more description in the other Gospels. Since John is the only witness to the Crucifixion, his description is the fullest. The other three Gospels provide summaries. Assuming a sign in a zoo says, "Do not feed, draw near, contact, yell at, provoke or tease the bears in anyway." Then assuming, when somebody asks a person what the sign says, then that person replies, "It says leave the bears alone." From this approach, that person provides a summary of what the sign says, but does not contradict what the sign says. Similarly, John, as an eye-witness, maintains the actual text of the sign, while the other evangelists provide summaries. It is also probable that, since the sign was written in three languages, Mark, Luke and John might be quoting from different signs, Mark narrating the Aramaic, Luke the Greek, and John the Latin. At any rate, this is not a contradiction.

Alleged Contradiction No. 90
Jesus asks God, the Father, why He has forsaken Him. (Matthew 27:46)	Jesus says that He and the Father are one and the same. (John 10:30; John17:11,21,22)
Interpretation:
Jesus is one in being with the Father. He is quoting Psalm 22 in Matthew 27, a Messianic psalm which prophesies the Crucifixion. He is in effect saying, "Browse your Scriptures and realize that what you are doing to Me right now was prophesied in the Psalms.

Alleged Contradiction No. 91
The centurion says, “Truly this is the Son of God”. (Matthew 27:54)	The centurion says, “Truly this Man is the son of God”. (Mark15:39)
The centurion says, “Certainly, this is a righteous man”. (Luke 23:47)	There is no centurion. (John19:31-37)
Interpretation:
First of all, John 19 does not deny there is a centurion but rather cites the presence of soldiers - centurion is a soldier. Luke’s verse never contradicts Mark and Matthew’s verses. The centurion says that Jesus was a dikaios anthrōpos, which has a double-connotation. In Greek, faultless or innocence is synonymous to holy or blameless before the gods and was somewhat idiomatic. When the centurion pronounces Jesus dikaios, he in effect says that He is a Holy One, or a Holy Man, with innocence interpreted as holiness before the gods. Taking this phrase from Greek to Aramaic or Hebrew, it becomes "Holy One" or "Holy Man", which are comparable to the Aramaic titles for the Messiah (compare with Mark 1:24). Hence, there is some relation between the literal wording of the Greek with the Aramaic meaning. As taken up previously, there is a situation where Matthew and Mark provide the meaning of the words filtered through the idiomatic language, whereas Luke provides what is probably closer to the centurion's actual verbiage. (Compare with Number 73). Further, the centurion says both of these phrases. Writing to Gentiles, Luke records the phrase that would be best understood by them. Writing to Jews, Matthew and Mark include passage about the Messiah, which might have been lost on Gentiles not familiar with Jewish prophecy.

Alleged Contradiction No. 92
Jesus is crucified at the third hour. (Mark15:25)	Jesus is still before Pilate at the sixth hour. (John19:13-14)
Interpretation:
The Jews and Romans had distinctive systems for calculating the hours of the day. The Jewish hours were very approximate; the "third hour" of the Jewish day covered 6am-9am. According to Mark, Jesus is crucified somewhere between 6-9am. John writes in the Roman style, and the Roman hours were marked exactly as modern English hours are. Hence, for the Romans, the "sixth hour" is the sixth hour past midnight, or 6am. So in John's account, Jesus is crucified somewhere between 6-7am, which reconciles with that of Mark’s. No one also knows whether these times refer to actual nailing of Jesus on the cross or the beginning of His walk to Golgotha. Tradition views crucifixion as taking place near midday, which would mean that Mark and John are describing when Jesus was sentenced to death rather than of putting Him on actual death. John 4:52 further confirms that John uses the Roman system when he mentions a "seventh hour" – a method of calculation of time present in Roman but absent in Jewish.

Alleged Contradiction No. 93
The women look on from “afar”. (Matthew 27:55; Mark.15:40; Luke 23:49)	The women are very close. (John19:25)
Interpretation:
The women were near the Cross, as close as they could be, but they were still "afar" considering that the soldiers maintained a perimeter to prevent them from going right up to it. They were as close as they could be, closer than anyone else, but still kept "afar" behind the frontier fixed by the soldiers.

Alleged Contradiction No. 94
The last recorded words of Jesus were: “Eli, Eli …My God, My God why have you forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46)	“Eloi, Eloi…My God, My God why have you forsaken me” (Mark15:34)
“Father, into your hands I commend my spirit”. (Luke 23:46)	“It is finished” (John19:30)
Interpretation:
Just because one phrase is the last accounted in any one Gospel does not imply it is the last in an absolute sense. There is no contradiction here, unless any of the Gospels tell "and these were Jesus' last words”, or “He said nothing else after this but died immediately." None of the Gospels tell this. Jesus say many things before He died, which the Gospel writers choose to report without intending to deny that Jesus says anything more or less.

Alleged Contradiction No. 95
Guard is placed at the tomb the day after the burial. (Matthew27:65-66)	No guard is mentioned. (Mark15:44-47; Luke 23:52-56; John19:38-42)
Interpretation:
Just because there’s no guard mentioned does not mean that no guard was there. Mark, Luke and John never deny the presence of a guard but are simply silent on the matter, and silence is not a contradiction.

Alleged Contradiction No. 96
Only those who keep Jesus’ words will never see death. (John8:51)	Jesus’ disciples will be killed. (Matthew24:3-9)	All men die once. (Hebrews 9:27)
Interpretation:
John refers to eternal life, which the faithful of Christ will inherit while Matthew and Hebrews refer to physical death.

     

Alleged Contradiction No. 97
Upon their arrival, the stone is still in place. (Matthew 28:1 2)	Upon their arrival, the stone has been removed. (Mark16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)
Interpretation:
Matthew does not tell the stone is still in place but rather the stone is rolled back and there is an angel sitting on it.

Alleged Contradiction No. 98
There is an earthquake. (Matthew 28:2)	There is no earthquake. (Mark.16:5; Luke 24:2-4; John 20:12)
Interpretation:
The last three Gospels never deny there is an earthquake but simply fail to include one, and exclusion is not a contradiction (compare with Number 92)

Alleged Contradiction No. 99
The guests run to tell the disciples. (Matthew 28:8)	The guests tell the eleven and all the rest. (Luke 24:9)	The guests say nothing to anyone. (Mark16:8)
Interpretation:
There is no contradiction between the two passages, unless "the disciples" are different from "the eleven and all the rest." Mark 16 connotes that the women say nothing to anyone publicly (as for example, the Apostles did after the Resurrection), but they speak to the disciples privately, as the other Gospels affirm.

Alleged Contradiction No. 100
Jesus’ first resurrection appearance is right at the tomb. (John.20:12-14)	Jesus’ first resurrection appearance is fairly near the tomb. (Matthew 28:8-9)	Jesus’ first resurrection appearance is on the road to Emmaus. (Luke 24:13-16)
Interpretation:
The difference between "right at the tomb" and "fairly near the tomb" in the first two passages is too subjective to be meaningful. Both these Gospels affirm that the appearance happens in the vicinity of the tomb; whether right next to the door or distant from the door is immaterial, as in actual speech nobody really insists on difference that exact. The last passage never states that the appearance at Emmaus is the first one, so there is no contradiction.

Alleged Contradiction No. 101
One doubts. (John 20:24)	Some doubt. (Matthew 28:17)	All doubt. (Mark16:11; Luke 24:11,14)
Interpretation:
The following passages refer to three different times. John refers to Thomas, when all the eleven except him had witnessed the risen Lord. Matthew refers to after all had seen Him. But who doubted is not specified. It does not imply it is one of the eleven. The last two passages refer to the initial reports of the Resurrection narrated by the women, before any disciples had seen the Lord. After the Resurrection, the women tell the story to the disciples, who are predisposed not to believe them. After the Resurrection is confirmed by the empty tomb and the post-Resurrection appearances, the disciples believe, except for Thomas, who was not present but eventually believe later. Finally, all of the eleven, and the other disciples (there were hundreds), came with Jesus to the Mount of Olives. The eleven believed, but some of the other unidentified believers were skeptic.

Alleged Contradiction No. 102
Jesus says that His blood is shed for many. (Mark14:24)	Jesus says that His blood is shed for His disciples. (Luke 22:20)
Interpretation:
The "you" stated in Luke 22:20 has never been taken to refer to the disciples only but to humanity in general.

Alleged Contradiction No. 103
Simon of Cyrene is compelled to bear Jesus’ cross. (Matthew 27:32; Mark.15:21; Luke 23:26)	Jesus bears His own cross. (John19:16-17)
Interpretation:
Jesus did carry the cross for most of the way to the calvary. John simply skips mentioning Simon, probably because by the time he wrote, the story was already eminent. Omission is not a contradiction, as John never denies that anyone assisted Jesus to carry the cross at any point but simply asserts that Jesus Himself did carry it, which Matthew, Mark and Luke also assert.

Alleged Contradiction No. 104
Jesus is offered vinegar and gall to drink. (Matthew 27:34)	Jesus is offered vinegar to drink. (John 19:29-30)	Jesus is offered wine and myrrh to drink. (Mark15:23)
Interpretation:
There is some ambiguity on the word "vinegar" here. The word used in Matthew is oxos, which means "sour wine" which can also mean "vinegar." This also refers to a particular drink made of sour wine and vinegar together which the Roman soldiers were accustomed to drink, so either which is appropriate; different translations render this word differently. The word "gall" is a very vague term, cholē, which simply refers to any bitter drink. Since myrrh is so bitter, can be a sort of gall. The myrrh (smyrnizō, in Mark) would have been mixed with the oxos to give it a more agreeable blend of flavor. Jesus was given cholē, and smyrnizō refers to the sort of cholē.

Alleged Contradiction No. 105
Jesus refuses the drink offered Him. (Mark15:23.	Jesus tastes the drink offered and then refuses. (Matthew 27:34)	Jesus accepts the drink offered Him. (John19:30)
Interpretation:
Jesus drinks some of the drink, but also refuses some of it. As Matthew narrates, He drinks some, but then refuses any more. So it is right to say He drinks, but also right to say He refuses. Matthew mentions the whole episode, while Mark and John record only portions of it.

Alleged Contradiction No. 106
Both “thieves” mock Jesus on the cross. (Matthew 27:44; Mark15:32)	One “thief” sides with Jesus on the cross. (Luke 23:39-41)
Interpretation:
Just because the whole is pointed out does not mean that a part could not have opposed. For example, when it says "All the people yell, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" does not mean to deny that there are some in the crowd who are not screaming this, or who may have screaming something different. In the same way, by saying that those crucified with Him deride Him, cannot be taken as a supposition that one of the thieves may have also defended Him considering that the crucifixion lasted for several hours, making it certainly possible that both thieves mock Him at first, but that the second thief realizes in the long run, repents and changes His heart towards Jesus.

Alleged Contradiction No. 107
Joseph of Arimathaea boldly asks for Jesus’ body. (Mark15:43)	Joseph of Arimathaea secretly asks for Jesus’ body. (John19:38)
Interpretation:
In the first passage, Joseph's boldness is towards Pilate while his secrecy in the next passage is towards the Jews. Joseph courageously asks an audience with Pilate to request the body, but he goes out of his way to keep this meeting undisclosed from the Jews.

Alleged Contradiction No. 108
Jesus is laid in a nearby tomb. (Mark15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:41)	Jesus is laid in Joseph’s new tomb. Matthew 27:59-60)
Interpretation:
There’s no contradiction in mentioning that Joseph’s tomb in Matthew is nearby.

Alleged Contradiction No. 109
A great stone is rolled in front of the tomb. (Matthew 27:60; Mark15:46)	There is nothing in front of the tomb. (Luke 23:55; John 19:41)
Interpretation:
Luke’s verse says only that the woman watched Jesus placed in the tomb. Definitely there is no stone when the Lord was buried. Before the internment, the tomb was open (John 19, Luke 23). After the burial, they rolled a stone in front of the tomb (Matthew 27, Mark 15), which is a common sense because no one leaves a tomb in a disorganized appearance as everybody deserves a decent entombment – not to mention that they’re aware of Jesus’ nature as humanity’s Redeemer.

Alleged Contradiction No. 110
Nicodemus prepares the body with spices. (John19:39-40)	Failing to notice this, the women buy spices to prepare the body later. (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-56)
Interpretation:
Nicodemus’ preparation happens on the day of the crucifixion, while that of the women several days later. In Jewish tradition, it was custom to anoint the body, prepared with spices and have the linens changed for several days consecutively after death on the traditional mourning period. Thus, the women who had not been allowed to buy spices and do the work on the previous day which was a Sabbath were so anxious to get Jesus early Sunday morning.  Hence, they had missed one of the obligatory days of caring for the body. No contradiction here in so far as the passages are concerned rather ignorance of Jewish customs.

Alleged Contradiction No. 111
The body is anointed. (John19:39-40)	The body is not anointed. (Mark15:46 -16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1.
Interpretation:
Verses from Mark and Luke never deny there is anointing, they simply talk about it.

Alleged Contradiction No. 112
The women buy materials before the Sabbath. (Luke 23:56)	The women buy materials after the Sabbath. (Mark 16:1)
Interpretation:
Burial preparation needs a huge amount of spices so it’s given that procurement can be made not only once.  Thus, one should take into account to be critical on what is being read than be dependent on word for word comprehension.  Nicodemus alone donates seventy-five pounds according to John 19:39-40. Probably, the women had some on hand before the Sabbath but needed to go out to purchase more, which they could not do until after the Sabbath.

Alleged Contradiction No. 113
Jesus is first seen by Cephas, then the twelve. (1 Corinthians15:5)	Jesus is first seen by the two Marys. (Matthew 28:1,8,9)	Jesus is first seen by Mary Magdalene. (Mark16:9; John 20:1,14,15)
Jesus is first seen by Cleopas and others. (Luke 24:17-18)		Jesus is first seen by the disciples. (Acts 10:40-41)
Interpretation:
Narration in Luke never says Cleopas and the others were the first to see Jesus, it is simply the first account that Luke prefers to relate, but never says it happened first chronologically. Neither does St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:5 assert that Jesus appeared first to Cephas (Peter), only that He appeared to Peter before the rest of the Twelve. Mary Magdalene was among the two Mary's who saw the Lord on Easter Sunday, so there is no disagreement between Matthew 28 and Mark 16 or John 20. Acts 10 is extremely vague and did not mention of chronology other than pointing out that Jesus appeared to the disciples, which could have happened anytime between Easter and the Ascension. Providing a simple synopsis about the occurrence: Jesus’ first appearance was to the two Marys first, Mary Magdalene among them, who appears to have stayed behind and had more interaction with the Lord than the other. Subsequently, she related this encounter to the disciples, and sometime later that day our Lord appeared to Peter, and near evening, to Cleopas on the road to Emmaus.

Alleged Contradiction No. 114
The two Marys go to the tomb. (Matthew 28:1)	The two Marys and Salome go to the tomb. (Mark 16:1)
Several women go to the tomb. (Luke 24:10)	Only Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb. (John 20:1)
Interpretation:
Mary Magdalene was among the two Mary's.  However, John concentrated on her encounter with the risen Lord as it was more profound.  He did not deny that the other Mary was with her. The same can be assessed of Salome. Failure to mention each and every member of a party does not constitute a denial of existence. For example, assuming Irvin with his peers Ian, Kelvin and Justine initiate trekking to south.  Now assuming when conversing with a closest friend with his acquaintances, Irvin says, "Last summer Ian, Kelvin, Justine and I went trekking up south." Now assuming Irvin speaks to another friend who is not mutual acquaintances with his peers. To him, Irvin simply says, "I went trekking up south last summer." The last narration does not constitute a contradiction of the first, but rather the amount of detail Irvin prefers to include is changed based on the knowledge of the listener. With this simple fact of language it is now simple to understand. If Irvin were to say, "I went trekking up south," his friend might ask, "Were you solo?" because he understands that when Irvin says "I went trekking" it could easily mean Irvin alone or Irvin and some friends. In the same manner, the narration that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb neither affirm nor deny that she had others with her, but simply tells that she went without any further comment about anything else. In other Gospels she was not solo.

Alleged Contradiction No. 115
It is dawn when Mary goes to the tomb. (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2)	It is dark when Mary goes to the tomb. (John 20:1)
Interpretation:
Dawn is when the sun first starts to rise. Basically it still dark at dawn. J

Alleged Contradiction No. 116
An angel sits on the stone at the door of the tomb. (Matthew 28:2)	A man sits inside the tomb. (Mark 16:5)
Interpretation:
There is both an angel on the rock and in the tomb. For there to be a real contradiction, one account has to specifically refute what is asserted by the other, which evidently does not happen here. ◄You may click here to read more on Angels►

Alleged Contradiction No. 117
Two men are standing inside the tomb. (Luke 24:3-4)	Two angels are sitting inside the tomb. (John 20:12)
Interpretation:
Angels are not robotics who cannot slouch. It’s probable that       the angels change their posture during the appearance. It’s either they sit down then stand, otherwise stand then sit down. J ◄You may click here to read more on Angels►

Alleged Contradiction No. 118
Peter does not go to the tomb but stoop and look inside. (Luke 24:12)	Peter goes to the tomb and another disciple stoops and looks inside. (John 20:3-6)
Interpretation:
First verse never denies that Peter goes to the tomb, but simply says that he bends or stoops over to check the clothes. It certainly could have taken place inside the tomb as Peter stoops over the slab upon which Jesus is placed. Referring it to the text of John 20, it appears that this is exactly what came about.

Alleged Contradiction No. 119
After the resurrection, the disciples hold Jesus by the feet. (Matthew 28:9)	After the resurrection, Jesus tells Thomas to touch His side. (John 20:27)	After the resurrection, Jesus says that He is not to be touched. (John 20:17)
Interpretation:
These are three different narrations with different circumstances. Jesus never says He is not to be touched, but only tells Mary Magdalene not to touch Him at that particular instance.

Alleged Contradiction No. 120
Mary first sees Jesus at the tomb. (John 20:11-15)	Mary first sees Jesus on her way home. (Matthew 28:8-10)
Interpretation:
The tomb is in a large garden enclosure. Mary sees Jesus while leaving the grave itself to go home but while still within the garden enclosure. Therefore she is still "at the tomb" because she is still in the cemetery, so to speak, although she’s on her way out.

Alleged Contradiction No. 121
The women enter the tomb. (Mark16:5; Luke 24:3)	The women stay outside the tomb. (John 20:11)
Interpretation:
John 20 never denies Mary’s coming into the tomb but simply says that she happens to be outside the tomb weeping when Jesus appears to her. In Matthew 28, Mary is already making her way out of the garden, but the fact that she is on her way out does not deny that she is ever in. If one says, "While standing outside the mall, I made a phone call," One does not deny that he was ever at the mall, only stressing that he made a phone call while outside the mall.

Alleged Contradiction No. 122
The disciples are frightened when they see Jesus. (Luke 24:36-37)	The disciples are glad when they first see Jesus. (John 20:20)
Interpretation:
When the disciples initially see Jesus in Luke 24, they are afraid because they are not sure if it is really Him; they thought He may have been a ghost (Luke 24:37). However, after seeing convincing proofs that it is really the Lord in the flesh, they rejoice. Subsequently, their fear becomes "joy and amazement", which is also re-echoed in Luke verses 40-41). Consider also that witnessing someone you loved once risen from the dead and appears before you, no one really could easily sum up what sorts of emotions being felt at that instance - a mixture of joy and fear is most likely to occur.

Alleged Contradiction No. 123
Twelve disciples see Jesus. (1 Corinthians15:5)	Eleven disciples see Jesus. Thomas is not there. (Matthew 28:16-17; John 20:19-25.
Interpretation:
All the disciples see Jesus. The Lord appears to the eleven first, and then later to the eleven and Thomas. So no matter how one slices the occurrences, Jesus appears to all twelve ultimately, although at first only to the eleven.

Alleged Contradiction No. 124
The disciples doubt that Jesus rises from the dead. (Matthew 28:17)	The Pharisees and chief priests believe it is possible. (Matthew 27:62-66)
Interpretation:
The Pharisees did not believe Jesus is capable of rising, but fear that His disciples might steal the body.

  

Alleged Contradiction No. 125
Jesus ascends on the third day after the resurrection. (Luke 24:21,50,51)	Jesus ascends the same day as the crucifixion. (Luke 23:42-43)	Jesus ascends forty days after the resurrection. (Acts 1:3,9)
Interpretation:
This confuses the Resurrection on the third day with the Ascension on the 40th day. The passage in Luke describes only the appearance on the road to Emmaus, which is hardly the same thing as the Ascension. And it was not the third day after the Resurrection, but on the very day of the Resurrection, as narrated in verse 22, "They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find His body." The verse cited from Luke 23 refers to the Lord's words to the thief, "This day, you shall be with me in paradise," but this does not mean that Jesus ascends bodily into heaven on that day. It simply means that the thief would enter into the beatific vision that day, not that the physical body of Christ would ascend into heaven. The Resurrection takes place on the third day, but Jesus did not ascend into heaven until the 40th day, as indicated in Acts 1. The Resurrection appearance and the beatific vision promised to the thief should not be confused with the Ascension.

Alleged Contradiction No. 126
There are about 120 brethren at the time of the ascension. (Acts 1:15)	There are about 500 brethren at the time of the ascension. (1 Corinthians15:6)
Interpretation:
Acts 1 never denies there are 500 believers who see Jesus; it simply indicates that only about 120 are gathered in the upper room at that instance. Suppose one says that his basketball team has about 20 players, and then later says that he goes out to eat with his basketball team at KFC; there were about 12 of them, does the last statement contradict the first? Of course not, it simply means that not all 20 are present. The same analogy can be taken here.

Alleged Contradiction No. 127
The moneychangers incident occurs at the end of Jesus’ career. (Matthew 21:11-12)	The moneychangers incident occurs at the beginning of Jesus’ career. (John 2:11-15)
Interpretation:
Jesus actually drove the money changers out twice. The fact that the Gospels present Jesus’ life topically, not necessarily chronologically, and that no one can infer from John 2 that this is at the beginning of the Lord’s life and not at the end just because it comes earlier in the Gospel. At any rate, this is not a contradiction unless the account that places it later denies that it happens earlier and vice versa.

Alleged Contradiction No. 128
Zachariah is the son of Jehoida, the priest. (2 Chronicles 24:20)	Jesus says that Zacharias was the son of Barachias. (Matthew 23:35. (Note: The name Barachias or Barachiah never appears in the Old Testament)
Interpretation:
There is more than one Zachariah in the Bible, and that different translations spell names differently. The "Zachariah son of Barachiah" that Jesus refers to is not Zachariah son of Jehoida from 2 Chronicles, but the Prophet Zechariah, of whose father is Berekiah. The Book of Zechariah begins, "In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah..." (Zechariah 1:1). Apparently it never appears to these folks that Zacharias and Zechariah are the same name, as are Barachias and Berekiah. Zachariah son of Jehoida was indeed killed within the temple, but so was Zechariah son of Berechiah son of Iddo. This is accounted in the Targum gloss on the Book of Lamentations 2:20, which tells, "Is it right to kill priest and prophet in the Temple of the Lord, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo, the High Priest and faithful prophet in the Temple of the Lord on the Day of Atonement because he told you not to do evil before the Lord?"

pages
1	2	3	4	5	6	7