CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN MATTHEW AND THE OTHER GOSPELS

One favorite ploy used by atheists is to point out tiny differences in wording and minor contradictions between the four Gospel in order to discredit their historicity. Thus, below are two examples provided by Jim Goad in his “30 Contradictions in the Bible.”

Matthew 17:1 vs. Luke 9:28

These two parallel verses are part of the description of the Transfiguration. Matthew's version reads, “Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves.” By the way, Mark's wording is identical here.

By contrast, we read in Luke 9:28, “Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took...etc., etc.”

The apparent two-day discrepancy between these accounts is hardly enough basis to throw away your Bibles in disgust, but apparently Goad feels it provides powerful evidence against the historical accuracy of the Gospels. Here is how various scholars respond to this contradiction, beginning with various commentators on Matthew and Mark.

“'After six days' stands out as a more precise temporal connection than Matthew provides elsewhere. In view of the themes of mountain, glory, and cloud which will follow, it is possible that it is intended to reflect the 'six days' during which the cloud of God's glory covered Mount Sinai in Exod 4:16...Several features of this pericope recall Moses' ascent of Mount Sinai.” (France) This explanation would fit in well with the known theme of Matthew picturing Jesus as the new Moses.

Alternatively, France notes, “It is more likely that this period of roughly a week (Luke says 'about eight days') is mentioned to show that the experience on the mountain followed closely after Jesus' prediction about seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingship...”

And as Blomberg simply notes: “'After six days' and 'about eight days' (Luke 9:28) both refer to a week later.” Similarly, D. Hill says that 'after six days' is the same as saying 'on the seventh day.'” Hill also cites Bonnard as claiming “that the allusion is to the six days which separated the Day of Atonement from the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles...There is another allusion to Tabernacles in verse 4.”

“The expression 'six days later' is not in conflict with Luke 9:28, 'about eight days after these sayings.' Luke may have included both the day of Peter's confession and that of Christ's transfiguration when he wrote as he did; besides, he does not intend to be precise, for he says 'about eight days.' Matthew and Mark may have used the exclusive method of time computation, referring only to the six intervening days.”

Then, Marcus in commenting on Mark 9:2 states: “Origen links our phrase with the Genesis account of the creation of the world in six days, culminating with the Sabbath on the seventh.” If that is so, then perhaps Peter's comment (“It is good for us to be here”) in Mark 9:5 is an echo of God's comment on the sixth day as recorded in Gen. 1:31 (“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good”).

Turning to Luke's account, we have the following comments:

“About 8 days may merely indicate the passage of a week, but in the early church 'the eighth day' became a designation for both the Lord's day and the day of Jesus' resurrection, the first day of a new creation.” (Soards)

“The 'eight days' may be nothing more than a rounded-off way of saying,'about a week later.' It is scarcely likely that Luke 2:21 has anything to do with this dating. On the other hand, we cannot exclude an allusion to Lev 23:36, the passage that tells how the Feast of Booths should be celebrated and its indication of time; for an allusion to this feast see v. 33.” (Fitzmyer)

Matthew 27:13-14 vs. John 18:33-34

Our critic Jim Goad next turns to the supposed contradiction between these two accounts of Jesus' trial. The apparent problem is that Matthew states that Jesus didn't defend himself against the charges brought against him while John records a rather lengthy exchange between Him and Pilate on the subject. This sort of accusation against the veracity of the biblical narratives pops up all the time in pitting one Gospel account against another. But often, as in this case, the solution can be easily seen with the use of a Harmony of the Gospels which lists in parallel columns the four narratives so that they can be compared against one another more easily.

Of course, a certain amount of judgment goes into the compiling such harmonies, and they do not all agree with one another 100%. Nevertheless, they can be quite valuable in providing a stereoscopic view of the narrative's flow in order to answer such uninformed comments as Goad's regarding the order of events. Below is a reconstructed chronological view of the pertinent events taking place during Jesus' trial, based on Robertson's popular Harmony of the Gospels.

    Pilate asks Jesus whether he is the King of the Jews.

        (Matt. 27:11a; Mark 15:2a; Luke 23:3a; John 18:33)

    Jesus replies to Pilate.

        (Matt. 27:11b; Mark 15:2b; Luke 23:3b; John 18:34-37)

    Pilate announces that he finds no fault with Jesus.

        (Luke 23:4; John 18:38)

    The Jewish leaders then accuse Jesus of many things.

        (Matt 27:12a; Mark 15:3)

    Jesus makes no reply to such charges.

        (Matt 27:12b-14; Mark 15:4-5)

You will note that although not all of the information is provided in all four accounts, when the information is present it is given in the same chronological order with absolutely no contradiction. Goad's problem was in mistakenly stating that Jesus could not have been unresponsive to all the charges (as in Matthew 27:12b-14 and Mark 15:4-5) when that statement only referred to the later accusations made by the Jewish leaders, and not at all to Pilate's earlier questioning of Him.

Actually, if Goad had only cited Mark 15:4-5 instead of Matthew 27:12b-14, that “contradiction” could have been cleared up before it was even presented since that former passage clearly reads, “But Jesus made no further answer.” I somehow doubt that this omission was accidental on Goad's part.