Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible

Lesson 8 Historical Discrepancies

Rationale: The student will encounter some major attacks on the internal consistency of the Bible in matters of the historical account of the resurrection of Christ. In doing so the student will become familiar with a two step approach in dealing with such, these two steps are: 1) becoming familiar with cautionary principles against mistaken claims of contradictions in scripture. 2) Using such principles in answering the charges against the historical consistency of the resurrection narratives.

Making claims against the historical consistency of the bible is not the same thing as proving them. Many false claims against the historical accuracy of the Bible stems from the readers misunderstanding of the writer’s technique and purpose in writing.

Three basic cautionary principles with several subcategories of the principles will be presented. Every claim of an alleged historical discrepancy or contradiction should undergo the scrutiny of these principles.

I. Principle # 1 Unreasonable Expectations Do Not Necessitate Contradiction: Many critics of the Bible employ unfair expectations on the historical accounts of the Bible. Five cautions against unreasonable expectations will be offered:

1. Rule 1 of Principle 1, Selection is not denial: Authors cannot write everything! They have no choice but to be selective of what they write.

The apostle John even reports the necessity of selectivity: John 21:25 (NASB) And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

It is unreasonable to expect the gospel writers to include every single detail in historical accounts when no writer in history has attempted such.

2. Rule 2 of Principle 1, Different is not discrepant: differences between historical accounts do not necessitate an irreconcilable discrepancy. When it comes to reporting an event, writers must make many choices about what details to include and how to relate it to other events.

Consider the Temple veil being torn:Matthew 27:49-51 (NASB) 49 But the rest of them said, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him." 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. 51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

Mark 15:37-38 (NASB) 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. 38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Mathew and Mark report Jesus’ dying and then the veil of the temple being torn into, but notice Luke’s account:Luke 23:45-46 (NASB) 45 because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two. 46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last.

Luke reports the veil of the temple being torn into before Jesus died, however, this alleged discrepancy fails to point out that all three writers note that both things happened at “the ninth hour” i. e., around 3:00 pm.

The different orders in which these accounts are written does not change the fact that the accounts all report two events happening at the same time.

It is unreasonable to expect multiple to record two separate events that take place at the same time, to record the two separate concurrent events precisely the same way. Hence, different is not necessarily discrepant!

3. Rule 3 of Principle 1, Accuracy is not precision: these are not completely synonymous concepts. Precision words are words such as: “exactly” “precisely” “unerringly”, while accuracy words use words like: “on” “about” “after” “around”.

Matthew 17:1-2 (NASB) 1 Six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. Mark 9:2-3 (NASB) 2 Six days later, Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John, and *brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; 3 and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.

Luke 9:28-29 (NASB) 28 Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming.

It must be noted that the lack of precision does not disprove accuracy, and it is unreasonable to expect historical accuracy to be synonymous with historical precision.

4. Rule 4 of principle 1, Paraphrase is not quotation: in the gospel accounts there are some differences in how quotations are recorded.

Matthew 3:17 (NASB) and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."Mark 1:11 (NASB) and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." Luke 3:22 (NASB) and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

If the voice spoke in Hebrew of Aramaic (the common language of the Jews in the first century), then what we have in the New Testament are paraphrasing translations of the message into Greek. What the writers of the New Testament were concerned about was getting the message correct.

It is unreasonable to expect ancient historical writers to use exact quotations and not give truthful paraphrases when we accept truthful paraphrases from the modern media.

5. Rule 5 of principle 1, Thematic ordering is not errant: an author’s selection and ordering of events by theme and not by mere chronology does not require that the author is being dishonest.

The four gospels are largely chronological but none claims to be exactly chronological. The all begin with beginnings, but different beginnings according to their purpose. Yet they all end with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Note the differences between Matthew and Luke in reference the temptation of Jesus: Matthew 4:1-11 (read) and Luke 4:1-13 (read)

Matthew and Luke report the same temptation accounts; they place the three accounts in differing orders. Matthew lists the three temptations in order: bread making, temple jumping, and Satan worshiping. Luke lists the temptations in a different order: bread making, Satan worshiping, and temple jumping.

•Matthew and Luke report the same temptation accounts; they place the three accounts in differing orders. Matthew lists the three temptations in order: bread making, temple jumping, and Satan worshiping. Luke lists the temptations in a different order: bread making, Satan worshiping, and temple jumping.

Luke desires to end His account with a thematic emphasis on the temple in Jerusalem, thus there is no contradiction, thematic accounts are not necessarily meant to be chronological.

II. Principle # 2 Misconstrued Referents Do Not Necessitate Contradiction

•A Referent is the object or event to which a term or symbol refers.

The reader’s wrong assumptions about a writer’s intended subject matter do not necessarily involve the writer in contradiction. This confusion of referents can manifest in several different ways:

1. Rule # 1 of Principle # 2: Unrecognized Referents: Matthew 27:7-10 clearly quotes Zechariah 11:12-13 but then attributes the citation to Jeremiah:

Matthew 27:7-10 (NASB) 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10

AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS THE LORD DIRECTED ME."

Zechariah 11:12-13 (NASB) 12 I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13 Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Is this not a mistake on Matthew’s part with regard to his misconstrued referent? Not necessarily, consider: Matthew probably attributed the text to Jeremiah because Jeremiah, in many Hebrew manuscripts, headed up the collection of the prophets and his name was used to designate all in the collection. (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament,242)

2. Rule # 2 of Principle # 2: Undifferentiated Definitions: The reader’s misapplied definition to a writer’s term does not necessarily entail that the writer is in error. For example Paul’s use of the word flesh (en sarki) in Romans 8:8-9 and Galatians 2:20.

Romans 8:8-9 (NASB) 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. Galatians 2:20 (NASB) 20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

By examining these two passages in context we can easily see that in Galatians 2:20 Paul is referring to his new life in Christ that he lives in his physical body, whereas in Romans 8:8-9 Paul is clearly referring to one who is void of the Holy Spirit and thus unregenerated and one who is clearly controlled by the craving of the sinful flesh.

3. Rule # 3 of Principle # 2: Unclassified Causations: this is where a distinction between the “primary” and the “secondary” cause is overlooked or ignored. Take for example 2 Samuel 24:1- compared to 1 Chronicles 21:1:

2 Samuel 24:1 (NASB) Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." 1 Chronicles 21:1-2 (NASB) 1 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. 2

So David said to Joab and to the princes of the people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan, and bring me word that I may know their number."

Did God incite David to perform the census or did Satan incite David? This is an example of a misconstrued referent because of unclassified causations. The answer is that both are correct but in very different senses. The author of 2 Samuel refers to god as the “primary cause” where as the author of 1 Chronicles refers to Satan as the “secondary” cause, the means by which God accomplished Hid purpose, i.e., his control through the actions of others.

4. Rule # 4 of Principle # 2 Unseen Summary: we have already looked at the author’s use of the journalistic technique of selectivity, now we must look at an author’s choice to recount a long series of events in a shortened summary format. This is to say that the authors can write in summary and still be truthful; this is the principle of unseen summary.

Mark is clearly known as the shortest gospel, but he actually reports longer accounts, although he reports fewer, (unseen summary). Matthew reports more historical accounts than Mark does, however, the accounts that parallels that of Mark contains fewer details than Mark, again, unseen summary.

III. Principle # 3: Mystery does not Necessitate Contradiction: just as there are definitive facts surrounding the sinking of the Titanic, there are also some missing facts that appear to be a mystery, like wise with the Bible. Not having a definitive answer is not the same as saying that an answer does not exist.

•The New Testament accounts of the death of Judas appears to be mysterious:Matthew 27:4-5 (NASB) 4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.Acts 1:18 (NASB) 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

It may well be that Judas did indeed hang himself as per Matthew, and the rope broke so that his body fell and ruptured on the ground as per Acts. While we cannot definitively say that this is how this happened, we can that the mystery does not necessitate a contradiction.

In terms of alleged contradictions and discrepancies one should consider the words of A.T. Robertson: in explaining a difficulty, it is always to be remembered that even a possible explanation is sufficient to meet the objector. If several possible explanations are suggested, it becomes all the more unreasonable for one to contend that the discrepancy is irreconcilable.