Theology Confused: Studying the plain text

Monday, October 24, 2022

"Contradictions" The Crucifixion

Of the series of supposed Biblical contradictions that were presented to me, this one was the most challenging. There certainly are some obvious variants in the book of John as opposed to the synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke concerning the crucifixion of Jesus.

First, let me say a few words about supposed contradictions. To the average reader, they generally go by unnoticed. They are so insignificant the reader passes over them and the message of the Gospel is transmitted and carried by the pages of the Bible generating hope and trust in God's people and calling the sinner to repentance. However, the Bibles we are reading come to us through the great effort of gathering and observing many different manuscripts, many of which are very old going back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. All of these manuscripts have variant readings and it is the job of the translators to render those variant readings into the most likely one. Many of these variant readings are simply punctuation errors and misspelled words. For the more serious variant readings, meticulous work is done by the translators in comparing the text and associating them with other sources. We have over 5,000 manuscripts to compare, so we have a lot of information to work with to ensure accuracy. As a result, we have a very reliable reading of the Old and New Testament texts. All this work and source material are made public and their efforts and work are all verifiable.

You also have cultural practices, language usage, as well as ancient customs all to bring into consideration. Doing all of this and bringing it all from ancient languages into our modern English or any current world language as you can imagine is no easy task. So when the critics go to their work and start combing the pages for something to critique, they are certain to find something. And that is not to disparage the critics, as a matter of fact, they are a great asset to the work itself. They keep driving us back to the pages of the Bible to see what's up with that. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who go to the text for the sole purpose of trying to break it down.

Having said that, let's take a look at the Crucifixion, since the synoptic Gospels agree, I will use just one synoptic to compare with John's Gospel so we can see where they seem to contradict. According to the synoptic Gospels, before His crucifixion, Jesus sent his disciples to prepare the Passover meal, killing the Passover lamb. They note that this task was completed on “the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread,” the 14th of Nisan on the Jewish calendar, the day before Jesus’ crucifixion (cf. Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7).

Matthew 26:17 KJV (17) Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?

John, however, seems to indicate that Jesus’ crucifixion actually took place before the Passover even began.

John 13:1-2 KJV (1) Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

(2) And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

The Synoptics Gospels present the Last Supper as being the Passover meal but in John’s Gospel, the Last Supper does not appear to be the Passover meal. A straightforward reading of this passage leaves the impression that the last supper that the disciples ate with Jesus was not the Passover meal, but actually “before the feast of the Passover,” as though the Passover began the next day. One could say Jesus knowing the coming events simply ate the Passover meal early with his disciples. However, for Jesus to fulfill all prophecies he had to keep the law perfectly and that would include keeping the Passover on the correct day. If we are going to make the claim that the Bible is accurate in all accounts, this is a very serious issue. There are a number of ways to solve the issue of the phrase, "Now before the feast of the Passover" stated by John. It seems to me the most likely one exists in the way the culture reckoned time. The Jewish day began at 6 PM in the evening and ended at 6 PM the next evening. Jesus and his disciples could have eaten the Passover meal anytime in the evening after 6 PM before the Crucifixion while others ate the Passover the evening of the next day before 6 PM during or after the Crucifixion and both be said to have eaten the Passover on the 14th of Nisan. Also, the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were two different events sometimes viewed as one. Passover was technically only a 24-hour event, with the Feast extending seven days after Passover. But sometimes, because the two holidays were related, they were viewed and spoken of as one event. For instance, listen to Luke 22:1 “Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover.” Because of this blending of the two holidays, it could be that Jesus and the disciples ate the Passover meal together, and we can still talk of other meals as being “the Passover meal” later on in the weekend or the following week.

But then you have John 18:28 KJV (28) 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.

This verse seems to indicate that the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover meal, which again leaves the impression that either the Passover had not yet begun, or that the Jews had failed to eat the meal at the proper time, which seems very unlikely. What must be understood here is that the Passover festival lasted seven days, not merely the one night when the lamb was slain and eaten (Exodus 12:6-20). The Passover week had begun the night before with a feast and Jesus would have eaten the last supper with his disciples and events would continue over the following days with more feasting. The Jews, therefore, did not want to become defiled before the next unleavened meal of the Passover week.

But we're not done yet, John 19:13-15 KJV (13) When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

(14) And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

(15) 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.

Verse 14 suggests that Jesus was crucified on the day before Passover began, the Preparation Day of the Passover. Again, this would imply that the supper that Jesus ate the night before with His disciples was not actually the Passover meal and the Synoptics are wrong.

However, the phrase “Preparation Day of the Passover” is referring to the Sabbath Preparation Day that occurs during the Passover week on Friday. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in unison clearly portray Jesus as being arrested and crucified after the Passover meal, all also state that the “Day of Preparation” was the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. They simply make it clear in context that they apply that description to the Sabbath Preparation Day, not the Passover meal. All of the supposed contradictions in this account between the Synoptics Gospels and John's Gospel are easily solved when the text is understood correctly.

We need not get bogged down answering everything the critics throw at us. Look at what they have to say, and if it is a legitimate concern, try to give them a satisfactory answer. You may hear accusations like "Matthew says Jesus rode two donkeys at once when the other Gospels say only one." Then make sport of how silly that must have looked trying to ride two donkeys at the same time! All to suggest Matthew contradicts the other Gospels which only mention one. Everyone knows of course Jesus rode on only one donkey. Even as a young boy reading I understood Jesus rode on one donkey, I just understood from Matthew there was two present. That is oblivious from the quote Matthew gives from Zechariah.

Zechariah 9:9 ESV

(9) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Zechariah’s text appears as poetry, and the primary characteristic of biblical Hebrew poetry is parallelism. In its purest form, one line is followed by another that repeats itself. However, sometimes the parallelism is integrated into a sort of stepped structure that builds with repetition. That’s true in Zechariah 9:9, which gets rendered in the KJV "riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass." In Hebrew, it is only parallelism, which in translation can easily become plural in structure. For instance, the ASV catches this and renders it,

Matthew 21:6-7 ASV

(6) And the disciples went, and did even as Jesus appointed them,

(7) and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon.

Matthew was most likely quoting from the Septuagint, which was the Hebrew scriptures in Greek. His wording became rendered in a plurality instead of reflecting the parallelism. The critics try to point to such like phases as contradictions and make issues of them, yet, when reading the other Gospels, it becomes obvious to the reader how many donkeys Jesus road. This is not something one should spend a lot of time fretting over.

Listen, folks, don't be dismayed by the critics, they are there to serve their purpose. Sadly, for many, their purpose is not to discover the truth but simply to disparage the integrity of the scriptures. This is obvious when after presenting a solution to their query, it is rejected and they continue to promote their findings as if they have gone unanswered. Of all the contradictions I have discovered over the years there remains none I have been unable to satisfactory solve, sometimes with multiple possible solutions. The tools we have available to us today make it remarkably easy to find answers to our questions. The issues presented in this blog post demonstrate how easy it is to make a mountain out of a molehill. If I were to come across a contradiction I seemingly couldn't solve, it wouldn't be a huge issue to me, for I can see how easy the truth can hide from our sight. Phrases and words from an ancient text because of our lack of understanding of their cultural usage and customs of the day can present themselves to us in a way it can appear to be a contradiction. There will always be hard sayings and riddles to solve, and it is our joy and pleasure to solve them as Christians.

I should probably say a few words concerning inerrancy. Generally speaking, absolute inerrancy is attributed only to the original articles which we no longer have. However, you will still hear the term inerrancy applied to the Bible today. Generally speaking, that is not intended to mean free from grammatical errors that have occurred over the centuries through handwritten copies. Even the English Bibles themselves have undergone multiple revisions to correct grammatical and translation errors. Inerrancy as applied to our English Bibles would imply it is free from error in all manner of doctrines and practices of worship. It would state a belief in the accurate transmission of God's words in a reliable text through God's providence of many handwritten copies. The Chicago Statement contains wording like, "We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations." What is to be understood when inerrancy is applied to our English Bibles is all that was contained in the original autographs has been faithfully transmitted to us today.

The truly amazing thing to consider is that the Bible is a collection of sixty-six books composed and compiled over 2,000 years by forty authors on three continents. Despite the impressive diversity of authors, genres from history to poetry, from prophecy to personal accounts and languages, the Bible displays an irrefutable unity of purpose, undivided harmony of thought, and an unfolding narrative that is both unified and progressive. It has one ultimate purpose beaming from its pages, Psalms 40:7 ESV

(7) Then I said, “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me:

Hebrews 10:7 ESV

(7) Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”

John 5:39-40 ESV

(39) You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me,

(40) yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

You will hear things from the critics like, "Jesus was just a Legend that developed over time" or "The scriptures can't be trusted, we have no way of knowing if they are even what was supposedly written in the beginning" and many similar things to try and discredit the Bible. None of it has any reasonable validity, all is but hype and smoke.

For instance, you will hear the cry made that we don't have any original documents to compare our scriptures to, suggesting we can't know for sure we are even reading the true text. The hard facts are we have over 5,000 Greek texts of the New Testament alone in the original language to compare our English bible to. Codex Vaticanus is one of the near complete copies of both the Old and New Testaments dated to the 4th Century. It is currently online for anyone to read or download and examine to your satisfaction. It is one of the resources that is used in today's newer English translations. The critics' charge is, it is a 400-year-old copy, there is no way to know if it is accurate without the originals.

Consider the book shown to the left, it is a 1562 printed edition of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. It can be seen at Bridwell Library Southern Methodist University Dallas TX. I am currently reading Calvin's 1541 French edition recently translated into English in 2014. According to the reasoning of the critics, there is no way I can know if I am actually reading Calvin's Institutes unless I can compare it to the 1562 copy in Texas. The one I am reading was printed over 400 years after it and written in French and then translated into English. That would be absurd, of course, I know I am reading Calvin's Institutes. The wording, phraseology, and punctuation may vary in the 1562 edition and my 2014 copy, but they are the same Institutes of Calvin. The wide distribution and acceptance of the institutes over the years would not allow major changes to be made in his writings. The same would apply to what we call the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th Century. It would not be outrageous to suggest there possibly could have existed original copies or even the originals themselves when the Codex Vaticanus was assembled. The wide distribution and acceptance of the scriptures would not have allowed major changes in the Vaticanus or other works during that time period. How amazing is it that we can go back to such documents and compare what we have today to what they had then? Absolutely amazing!

Just remember, the Gospel is clear and concise, salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone. Recognizing your inability to answer the demands of God's perfection, laying aside all attempts to do so, repenting of your previous sins, and putting your trust in the complete work of Christ on the cross to redeem you and place you within his elect people. The work of understanding the deep mysteries of who God is and how salvation works itself out in our lives can be a lifelong journey if we desire to dig into the text. You can read the Gospel as presented by Paul below in the Modern ESV English translation, or you can read it in Greek from a 1,900-year-old copy, or you can go online and read it in the Codex Vaticanus, you will find the same Gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 ESV

(1) Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,

(2) and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

(3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

(4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

(5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

(7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

(8) Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

(9) For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

(10) But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

(11) Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

May the grace of God be with each of you,

David

Saturday, October 22, 2022

"Contradictions" The Genealogy of Jesus

It has been suggested to me that the genealogy given of Jesus in the Bible contains numerous contradictions and errors. So I thought we would look at it for another blog post, let's examine some of these suggested contradictions and see if we can unravel the mystery. The first point that was brought to my attention was that two different fathers were listed for Joseph. If you read the accounts in Matthew and then the one in Luke, they do indeed list two different fathers and obviously, you can't have two. So one or both accounts must be wrong was the charge being brought.

Our first task is to apply some hermeneutics, for a brief explanation of hermeneutics see Hermeneutics.

We need to pay close attention to the wording we are given in the text itself. Matthew says: {Matthew 1:16 KJV(16) And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. And Luke says: Luke 3:23 KJV(23) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,}

Matthew specifically says that Jacob begat Joseph, no ambiguity there. But notice how Luke puts it, he does not use the word begat (ἀναγεννάω) which means son, but simply Heli. The phrase "which was the son of " is not there in the original language. The phrase "which was the son of" was added by the translators to make it read more smoothly in English. Luke's account is of the lineage of Mary, so the language and customer of the time would place Heli the father-in-law in the list, not Jacob. To say that Luke's genealogy is overtly stating it is tracing Joseph is simply not supported by the text. With a little work one can clear up what appears to be a contradiction is really an accurate account of the genealogy.

It was pointed out that Matthew's account lists 25 names while Luke's account has 40. This is somehow supposed to invalidate the genealogical account. The list is two different lists of two different genealogical lines by two different writers. Nothing suggests or would one expect them to be the same in number. If it is the margin of difference that is being pointed to, that suggests nothing out of the ordinary either. It was common in Jewish tradition to refer to the grandson as the son of the grandfather. Jesus was said to be the son of David, which was a huge generational skip, but keeping with the cultural norm the meaning was understood and accurate. This practice would naturally make one list longer than the other depending on how the writer chose to establish his account. This charge of contradiction has no merit and is a straw argument.

It is then pointed out that both genealogies contain a couple of the same names. I have to ask, "are you serious?" How do both genealogies having some of the same names discredit anything? In my family, there are 5 Johns in two different lines. I must assume this statement was made out of absurd ignorance or a direct attempt to embellish his argument deceitfully. This really shouldn't require any attention or explanation, so we will quickly move on.

The charge is then made that the Bible can't even get simply arithmetic correct. He states that Matthew contradicts himself by claiming 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, but when you count the names you only have 41. Again, I am suspicious of deceit, for the Bible does not claim 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus, which is stated nowhere in the text. Here is the full text from Matthew in question.

Matthew 1:17 KJV

(17) So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

If you simply read the text you can see that 42 generations are never mentioned. What is mentioned in verse 17 is three different lists with each list containing 14 generations. If you count each list, you will discover each has 14 names for each different time period addressed just as Matthew stated in the text. Since David appears in two of the three lists, when you count a straight count you have 41 names, however, when you divide the single list into three separate lists as Matthew did in verse 17, and count them separately with David's name appearing in two of the three you have 42 names, why that makes a contradiction escapes one's imagination. There is no contradiction in the text and the count is accurate. The supposed contradiction is simply a sleight of hand deception taking a list of names from two different categories of thought and creating one.

The Bible provides us with two lengthy genealogies of Christ. Matthew traces the legal line from Abraham through David, then Solomon and the royal line, to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17) and the husband of Mary. Luke traces the bloodline from Adam and once Luke gets to Abraham, the genealogy is identical to Matthew’s up to the House of David. Then Luke goes from David, through Nathan (a different son of David) to Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38).

It was also suggested the list in Matthew does not match the list in the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 3:11-12. There were 4 names left out by Matthew, this however presents no problem since we have already established previously the custom of skipping generations when creating lists. I only mention it because he used it to embellish his argument again.

His next charge was to suggest the Bible contradicts itself by saying that Jesus would be the son of David and from his loins while holding that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit and not Joseph. Therefore, Joseph not being his father Jesus could not be of the lineage of David, and the Prophecies therefore wrong. Why he would attempt to make an argument of point here I am quite surprised. It seems that making a real argument is not the main overlying motivation driving his discussion. Embellishing his arguments with statements that hold no merit knowing most of his listeners will simply believe what he is saying. The genealogy of Mary is traced back to David through Nathan, Jesus being born physically of Mary connects Jesus to David in the natural line of the human lineage. There was not a single contradiction in any of his arguments whatsoever, they were all straw man arguments presented to hold his audience at bay.

Remember, the Gospel is clear and concise, salvation is found in Christ and Christ alone. Recognizing your inability to answer the demands of God's perfection, laying aside all attempts to do so, and putting your trust in the complete work of Christ on the cross to redeem you and place you within his elect people. The work of understanding the deep mysteries of who God is and how this all works itself out in your life is a wonderful journey the Christian then has the pleasure of enjoying for the rest of their lives.

1 Corinthians 15:1-11 ESV