BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS: JESUS' LATER MINISTRY AND DEATH

A woman of Canaan besought Jesus. (Matthew 15:22)

It was a Greek woman. (Mark 7:26)

The complete opening of Mark 7:26 actually says, “The woman was a Greek, a Syro-phoenician by nation.” In other words, she was Greek by parentage but her place of abode was in Canaan. (Kistemaker)    NRSV, however, translates “Greek” as a generic term just meaning “Gentile.” Using either line of reasoning, the contradiction disappears.

Two blind men besought Jesus. (Matthew 20:30)

Only one blind man did. (Luke 18:35,38)

First, I should mention that Mark 10 reports the same incident and has only one blind man. Robertson's Harmony of the Gospels gives as an explanation the possibility that Mark and Luke only bother mentioning the most prominent beggar. On the other hand, Matthew stresses the Jewish law throughout his account, and the necessity of having two witnesses to an event means that Matthew needs to mention both of them, as explained by F. F. Bruce. Bruce also notes that This same “discrepancy” between one and two people being healed also appears between Mark 5:2 / Luke 8:27 and Matthew 8:28.

Christ was crucified at the third hour. (Mark 15:25)

He was crucified at the sixth hour. (John 19:14-15)

1. Metzger notes that although the majority of manuscripts read “third” in Mark and “sixth” in John, there are some manuscripts that have switched one number or the other. This is either because scribes tried to purposely harmonize the two accounts or did it accidentally due to the great similarity in  appearance between the Greek numerals for 3 and 6.

2. Marcus notes that John's account is probably the most likely for the actual hour and that Mark chose the time of “third hour” for literary reasons since it forms a regular series with the sixth and ninth hours given in Mark 15:33-34. He explains that this scheme “probably reflects the theological conception that the precise progression of events testifies to the purposefulness of divine providence in bringing about Jesus' death.”

3. Mann states that “we must be aware of imposing on the world of the first century our own clock-dominated sense of time. The note of time here...is an approximation at best and a wild guess at worst. To attempt an reconciliation of this note of time with John 19:14 is in many ways a fruitless exercise.”

4. Several commentators have noted the strange fact that Mark 15:25 repeats the statement in the previous verse that “they crucified him.” Therefore one extreme approach to the problem is to simply excise verse 25 as a later addition to the text or completely reword it as in the Western Text. While this is possible, there is only minimal manuscript evidence to support it.

The two thieves reviled Christ. (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32)

Only one of them did. (Luke 23:39-40)

Geldenhuys mentions the obvious solution to this problem: both of the thieves reviled Jesus at first, but later one of them had a change of mind due to “the Saviour's demeanour even on the cross.”

Satan entered into Judas while at supper. (John 13:27)

It happened before supper. (Luke 22:3,4,7)

The unwarranted assumption behind this contradiction is that Satan could have entered into Judas only once. In fact, it happened twice – first when Judas decided to contact the religious authorities and agreed to find a suitable time and place for them to arrest him (Luke 22) and later during supper when he went off to notify them that the time was ripe (John 13). Most harmonies of the gospels will reflect that scenario.

It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death. (John 19:7)

It was not lawful for them to do so. (John 18:31)

This contradiction is hardly worth discussing, but for those who are disturbed by it:

John 18: Pilate tries to hand Jesus back to the Jews, but they correctly state that under Roman law they are not allowed to carry out the death penalty.

John 19: When the people also demand Jesus' death, Pilate tries to hand the problem back to them again by sarcastically saying, “Crucify him yourself.” Here is how Raymond Brown expresses it: “John could scarcely mean that Pilate thought the Jewish leaders would carry out a crucifixion, for this form of punishment was not acceptable among the Jews...The statement is simply an expression of Pilate's exasperation; Pilate is rebuffing 'the Jews' and refusing to have anything to do with crucifying Jesus by telling them to do what both parties knew was impossible. We note that 'the Jews' understood that he was not serious for they did not hasten to seize Jesus and execute him themselves.”

Judas committed suicide by hanging. (Matthew 27:5)

He died another way. (Acts 1:18 – falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and his bowels burst out)

John Stott sees no real contradiction since Judas could have hung himself and then fallen from the tree either (a) when the limb broke or (b) after his dead body had begun to suffer extensive decomposition.

Here are several ancient traditions quoted by F. F. Bruce that are probably just folklore:

Apollinarius: “Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on having been cut down before he was suffocated.”

Papias: “Judas walked about in this world, a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent......[he was struck with a wagon and he burst in the middle]”

Latin Vulgate: “having hanged himself, he burst asunder in the middle”

St. Augustine: “he fastened a rope around his neck, and falling on his face, burst asunder”

The potter's field was purchased by Judas. (Acts 1:18)

It was purchased by the chief priests. (Matthew 27:6-7)

The standard harmonization of these two passages is that after Judas threw the money at the chief priest, they purchased the field in his name since they wanted nothing more to do with his ill-gotten gains.