Vivisector

What Papias had to say regarding GMk is commonly considered a rebuttal to criticism of the GMk (though Papias seems not to refer to this work as a "gospel"); namely, that "Mark" got his material out of order. If we assume Markan Priority, then the question arises: to what text was GMk compared to and found inferior in terms of order? And what is the likelihood that Papias was referring to a non-canonical version of Mark as opposed to GMk?

Cheers,

V.

Chris Weimer

Au contraire, readings of the Gospel of the Hebrews were often compared to the modern Gospel of Matthew, which signifies that the two were very similar. Then, Amaleq, I think I must retract my doubt on logia for I do recall them comparing narrative structures as well...

show_no_mercy

Why does Paul have so much authority in the Christian tradition if he wasn't even a disciple?

Diogenes the Cynic

It's an interesting question and could pertain to Matthew as well. I don't know the answer but I have often wondered if Papias' logia was a proto-version of Q or some other sayings compilation.

I think Mark's chiastic structures preclude a redacted prior sayings compilation, though, at least in any form that would be recognizable as Mark.

andrewcriddle

There is a discussion in the footnotes here
IMVHO there is no problem of using logia to mean sayings embedded in a narrative, however there may be more difficulty about using logia to refer to our present Gospel of Matthew complete with birth narrative and passion narrative.

(As to my own guess as to what Papias meant, I think that Papias was aware of a/ something very like our Greek Gospel of Matthew b/ a 'Hebrew' (ie probably Aramaic) paraphrase/translation/version of the Greek Gospel, roughly equivalent to the 'Gospel of the Nazarenes'. I think that Papias mistakenly believed b/ to be the 'Hebrew' (Aramaic) original of a/ with problems in the text of a/ arising from bad translation from b/. IF Papias was aware of an authentic tradition in which the main source of the Greek 'Gospel of Matthew' was a sayings collection attributed to Matthew then Papias' (mis)understanding would be more plausible but this is not necessary in order for my main suggestion to be true.)

Andrew Criddle

Julian

Is it possible that Papias is refering to Q or a Q-like manuscript?

Julian

Julian

If answered within the context of a mythical Jesus then there were never any disciples and that would make the earliest and most prolific writer very influential indeed. With a historical Jesus it becomes very hard to answer for the reason you mention.

Julian

Vivisector

Q or something like it has been proposed as satisfying Papias's description. Two of the major objections have been (1) nobody has found a copy of Q and (2) Q seems to have been originally composed in Greek. The discovery of the Gospel of Thomas has answered some of the first objection, from the standpoint that Thomas indicates the circulation of at least one sayings-type gospel and has several parallels to Q. I'm not sure how to address the second objection, though it seems less insurmountable if one supposes a free translation of a Hebrew original as opposed to an attempt at a word-for-word translation.

Maybe some of those better-trained in the ancient languages can address the second point.

Cheers,

V.

Diogenes the Cynic

(Sorry this is so late. I've been battling the flu for a couple of days and dealing with a sick child as well. My time to work has been spotty but here it is anyway)


2. The Gospels contradict each other

There's really a lot I could list here if I really wanted to include all the minor contradictions and seemingly self-contradictory statements of Jesus himself but I'm just going to stick with some of the more glaring, contradictory , factual claims about Jesus. Contradictions which I submit cannot be reconciled.

Let's start with the genealogies for Jesus given in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew gives the following:
(Mtt. 1:1-16)
A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[a] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


Now let's look at Luke.

(Lk. 3:23-38)
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.


First of all let's bear in mind that these are really geneologies for Joseph, not Jesus. If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology. That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was born of a virgin and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph.

Looking at the genealogies themselves we see that Matthew starts with Abraham and counts down to Joseph, while Luke starts with Joseph and counts clear back to Adam (also note that Luke calls Adam "the son of God.")

The parts I've bolded are the parts where the genealogies diverge. Matthew claims descendancy from David through Solomon, Luke through Nathan. They are completely different after that and claim different fathers for Joseph.

Typically, this disparity has been addressed by apologists by claiming that one of the genealogies goes through Mary. There is zero support for this in the texts, though, and a matrilineal connection to David would not have been sufficient to legitimize a claim to Davidic inheritance under Jewish law anyway. The genealogies clash and that's that.


There is also a huge disparity between Matthew and Luke as to the date of birth. Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but Luke claims that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 CE) which is ten years after Herod died in 4 BCE. This is an irreconcilable gap, although many apologists have tried to contrive an earlier census there is no evidentiary support for such an event and some significant evidence against it. More on this in the errors section.


Matthew's and Luke's Nativities are quite different and each mentions things not mentioned by the others. Not every difference is a necessary contradiction but some of the differences are and it might be useful to examine them side by side.

Synopsis of Matthew's Nativity:

Joseph and Mary are engaged but they haven't had sex yet. Mary turns up pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph (understandably) wants to break up with her but then an angel comes to him in a dream and tells him that the Holy Ghost knocked her up and she's still a virgin and Joseph should marry her anyway. Somehow Joseph buys all this and agrees to stay with Mary.

Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Matthew does not have anything about a census or an inn. He just says Jesus was born in Bethlehem with the implication that Joseph and Mary already lived there).

Some "astrologers (magoi) from the East" show up at Herod's court and ask him where the new king of Judea is because they "saw his star in the East." (note: Matthew does not call them kings and does not say how many there were. The "three kings" image is an extra Biblical popular tradition)Herod gets pissed and calls the priests to ask them where the "Annointed" is supposed to be born. The priests tell him Bethlehem and quote from Micah. Herod then tells the astrologers to go to Bethlehem and find the kid and then report back to him, ostensibly so he can "pay homage" to the kid but really so he can kill him.

The astrologers go to Bethlehem and then follow the star until it stops over a house (not a stable) with Jesus in it. The astrologers give mad props to Baby Jesus and give him gold and frankincense and myrhh. Then an angel comes to them in a dream and warns them not to go back to Herod so they secretly split back to their own countries instead.

Then an angel comes to Joseph in a dream (in Matthew's Nativity it seems like everybody is constantly getting hounded by angels in their dreams) and tells him to haul ass to Egypt and bring Jesus with him. Joseph packs up his family and blows.

When Herod gets stood up by the astrologers he loses his shit and orders all male children under two years of age in and around Bethlehem to be killed.

Herod dies and Joseph gets the message (yep, you guessed it) from an angel in a dream and returns to Israel. He finds out that Herod's son, Archelaus is king of Judea so he's afraid. Joseph gets visited by an angel in yet another dream and is told to go to Galilee (which, incidentally was being ruled by another of Herod's sons, Herod Antipas, so it's not clear why Galilee would have been any safer....but to be fair, Archelaus sucked much harder than Antipas. He was so bad, in fact, that he was forcibly removed in 6 CE by the Romans, Judea was made part of the province of Syria and Quirinius was put in charge). So Joseph drags the family to Galilee and settles down in Nazareth.


Synopsis of Luke's Nativity

There is a long, boring story about the conception of John the Baptist. During the pregnancy of JBap's mother, Elizabeth, an angel come to Mary (who is already living in Nazareth) and tells her that she's going to get knocked up by the Holy Spirit. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and Elizabeth gets all excited and there's some more boring stuff and then JBap is born.

Jump to a pregnant Mary travelling to Bethlehem with Joseph to register for Quirinius' census. Jesus is born in a stable (and Luke actually intimates that it is for privacy, not because there was no room inside). Cut to a bunch of shepherds tending their flocks at night. An angel comes down and scares the crap out of them. The angel tells them to chill and informs them that the Messiah has been born and is lying in a mager in bethlehem. then a whole bunch more angels come down and start singing at the shepherds. Then all the angels disappear and the shepherds rush off to Bethlehem and find Baby Jesus and give him mad props.

Then, eight days later, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Jerusalem to the Temple to be circumcised. While they're at the Temple an old guy named Simeon comes up to them because the holy spirit told him all about Jesus. Simeon gives Baby Jesus mad props and then predicts doom and gloom for Israel. Then an old lady "prophetess" named Anna happens by and sees this and she starts telling everybody else all about it.

Then after Jesus is properly snipped, Joseph and Mary and Jesus all go back to Nazareth. There is nothing about a flight to Egypt. They go straight to Nazareth and Jesus commences to growing up "strong and wise."





It's pretty easy to see that with the exception of the place of birth and the defense of Mary's virtue these stories have virtually no relationship to each other. as I said above, not every detail in Luke is necessarily in contradiction to Matthew but whatever is not directly contradicted is pretty much incidental in contrast to the details that clash. Let's add some of them up:

Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.

Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.

Luke says nothing about Herod's slaughter of the innocents or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.

Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.

These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.

To recap the most intractable contradictions between the Nativities, we have

1. Two completely different genealogies for Joseph.
2. Luke places the date of Jesus' birth ten years later than Matthew.
3. Matthew has Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem when Jesus was born while Luke says they were living in Nazareth and travelling to Bethlehem for a census.
4. Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after the birth and moved to Nazareth only after the death of Herod. Luke says they were living in Nazareth all along and returned there immediately after Jesus was circumcised.
5. Luke knows nothing of Herod's slaughter of the innocents or of a flight to Egypt. In fact, by Luke's chronology, Herod was already dead when Jesus was born.


Moving past the Nativities and into the ministry of Jesus we have some more agreement, at least in the snoptics, since Matthew and Luke now have Mark to copy from and also share Q but there are still some contradictions. For instance, remember the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew? (5:12)

Luke says it happened on a plain (6:17)

John also omits that whole 40 days in the wilderness bit from the synoptics and just has Jesus start immediately hanging out with the disciples a couple of days after his baptism.

There is much that can be made of the seeming contradictions in Jesus' own words and rhetoric but I'm going to skip past all that and go on to some more interesting contradictions in the Passion and Resurrection narratives.

The synoptics disagree with John on the timing of the last supper and the crucifixion as they pertain to the Passover. The synoptics say that the last supper was a Passover seder (hence on the eve of the Passover) while John says that it was the night before the seder. This can get a little confusing because it uses the Jewish demarcation of days starting and ending at sunset but maybe I can make it easier saying it like this. John and the synoptics agree that Jesus was arrested on a thursday night and crucified on friday. The difference is that the synoptics say the Passover started on thursday night (making the last supper a seder) and ended on friday night. John says the passover started on friday night (after Jesus had already been crucified) and ended on saturday night.

John also disagrees with the synoptics as to the time of day that Jesus was crucifed. According to the synoptics, Jesus was nailed up at the third hour (9 AM), darkness came over the land around the 6th hour (noon) and Jesus kicked the bucket around the 9th hour (3 PM). John says that Pilate ordered Jesus taken away to be crucified at noon. The significance of John's chronology is that Pilate orders Jesus to be crucified at the same time the Pashal lambs are being slaughtered in the Temple (something which had occurred the day before according to the synoptic chronologies).


Now let's examine Jesus' alleged last words on the cross:



(Matt.27:46-50)
45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi,[c] lama sabachthani?�–which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?�[d]
47When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He's calling Elijah.�

48Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him.�

50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

(Mark says almost the same thing but renders the Psalm quote in Aramaic rather than Hebrew)

(Luke23:46)
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

(John19:30)
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


These are three distinctly contradictory claims for the last words of Jesus on the cross. No one gospel mentions the quotes from the other gospels and all of them assert their own lines as Jesus' very last words.

Irreconcilable.



Before we get to the resurrection narratives, let's look at Judas. I'm going to go outside the gospels for this one and compare Matthew to Acts, but since Acts was written by Luke it should still serve to show a contradiction between authors of the gospels.

Matthew first:


(Matt. 27:1-10)
Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor.

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."

"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.

The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."


Now Acts:

(Acts 1:18-19)
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

In Matthew, Judas throws the money back at the priests, then goes and hangs himself (Matt doesn't say where), then the priests take the money and buy a field.


In Acts, Judas buys a field himself and then he falls headlong and his guts explode.


Irreconcilable.


Now for the resurrection.



The resurrection/appearance narratives are really a mess of contradictions so I'll just write a brief synopsis of each account and then pick out the contradictions.


Synopsis of Mark's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James and Salome are walking to the tomb. As they're walking they're talking and worrying about how they can get somebody to help them move the rock. They get to the tomb and see the rock has been rolled away. They go inside and see an angel sitting in the tomb. The angel shows them that Jesus' body is gone and tells them to inform Cephas and the rest of the disciples that Jesus is risen and that they should all go to Galilee where they will be able to see him. The women run away from the tomb but they don't tell anybody because they're terrified.

Mark cuts off right there with no further visits to the tomb and no appearance narratives,


Synopsis of Matthew's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to the tomb (no mention of Salome this time). Right when they get to the tomb, there's an earthquake, an angel comes down from the sky, rolls away the rock and sits down on it. This time there are guards at the tomb and they get scared. The angel then tells the women pretty much the same thing the other angel said in Mark. he shows them that Jesus is gone and tells them to tell the disciples that Jesus wants to holler at them in Galilee. The women run away but this time they run bang into Jesus. They freak out some and Jesus tells them to chill and then tells the women to let the disciples know he would holler at them in Galilee.

Ata this point, there's an interjection in which the guards run to the priests and tell them what they saw, so then the priests bribe the guards to say that the disciples stole Jesus' body.

Back to the disciples. The eleven of them go to a mountain in Galilee and Jesus appears. They give Jesus mad props but some are still doubtful. Jesus tells them to go out and preach the message and baptize people and that he will always be with them.

And that's it for Matthew.



Synopsis of Luke's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, Joanna and "the rest of the women" go to the tomb. As in Mark, they find the stone already rolled away. They peep inside the tomb. What? No Jesus! As they're standing there trying to figure out what's going all of a sudden TWO angels appear out of thin air. The women freak, the angels tell them to chill and tell them that Jesus has risen. The women run to tell the disciples (but Luke's angels do not explicitly instruct them to do so this time). The disciples don't believe them but then Peter jumps up and runs to the tomb. He peeps in and sees that Jesus is gone. He goes home "marvelling."

Cut to "two of them" (one named Cleopas, the other unnamed) walking to Emmaus. They meet Jesus but they don't recognize him. They tell him all about Jesus and the women and the empty tomb. Jesus tells them how dumb they are for not knowing the prophecies (which didn't actually exist but that's another can of worms). They stop to have some grub and when they break bread, they recognize Jesus, then he vanishes.

Cleopas and the other dude run back to Jerusalem and find the rest of the disciples. The rets of the disciples tell them that Jesus had risen and appeared to "Simon" (who may or may not be the "Peter" who Luke says had seen the empty tomb but does not say had seen the risen Jesus. I mention this because Luke actually uses the name "Peter" in the former case and "Simon" in the latter, so this may indicate two different people).

Cleopas and the other dude start telling the disciples about seeing Jesus on the road to Emmaus and then Jesus suddenly appears while they're talking. (please note that they are still in Jerusalem and have not yet gone to Galilee) They freak, Jesus tells them to chill and he shows them all the rad holes in his hands and feet. Then Jesus asks them if they have anything to eat (I guess he hadn't eaten in three days). They give him some fish and he eats it. Then he preaches at them for a while before leading them to Bethany where he ascends into the sky. The disciples go happily back to Jerusalem, and that's the end for Luke.


Synopsis of John's Resurrection

Scene: Sunday Morning

Mary Magdalene (alone) goes to the tomb. The stone has already been rolled away. She runs and finds Simon Peter along with the "Beloved Disciple" (who will henceforth be referred to as "BD"). Mary Magdalene tells them that the body has been "taken." Peter and BD go running to the tomb. BD outruns Peter and gets there first and sees some strips of burial linens lying utside the tomb. Peter gets there and goes inside the tomb. Peter sees that Jesus is gone. BD then goes in and sees it too. Peter and BD go back home.

Mary Magdalene is left crying outside the tomb. She peeps inside the tomb and sees two angels. Then Jesus comes up behind her and she sees him but doesn't recognize him. She thinks he's the gardener and asks him if he moved the body and could he tell her where it was. Then Jesus says her name, "Mary," and she recognizes him. He tells her not to touch him but to go tell the disciples about him. She goes and finds the disciples and tells them (John doesn't say where they are). Later that night, Jesus appears to the disciples and shows them all his rad wounds. Then he breathes on them and says he's giving them some Holy Spirit and tells them that he's giving them the power to forgive sins.

Then we get the Doubting Thomas story. Thomas doubts. Thomas sticks fingers in rad nail holes. Thomas believes. Then Jesus says that people who believe without proof are more blessed than those annoying skeptics.

John really ends there. There's another emended chapter which I won't bring into the contradictions argument but just to be thorough, the emended chapter tells a weird story about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Galilee and helping them catch some fish, then he keeps asking Peter if he loves him and gives him his evangelical marching order and hints that he's going to come to a rough end. Then Peter sees the BD following them and asks Jesus about him. Jesus tells Peter it's not his business if Jesus wants to BD to hang around until he returns. Then the author says there was a rumor that the BD wasn't supposed to die before Jesus came back but Jesus didn't actually say tthat he just said "what business is it of yours if I DO want him to stay?"

End of emended John.


So how many women went to the tomb? was it Mary Madalene by herself? was she with the other Mary? The other Mary and Salome? The other Mary and Joanna and the "rest of the women?"

Was the stone already rolled away when they got there or did they see an angel come down and do it?

How many angels were there, one or two? Where were they? Were they in the tomb or sitting on the stone or did they appear out of thin air or did they descend from the sky?

Who was the first person to see Jesus? was it Mary Magdalene? If so, when did she see him? Did she crash into Jesus on her way to tell the disciples or did he come up behind her after she had returned to the tomb and was peeping in at the angels?

Where and when did Jesus appear to the disciples? Was it in Jerusalem or was it Galilee.

I would challenge anyone to resolve these stories without leaving anything out. I say they're irreconcilable.


I'm going to leave my contradictions post right here. This is by no means a complete list and I haven't even mentioned contradiction with Paul but I think I've made my case that the Gospels contradict themselves.

Coming up next: factual errors.

Ted Hoffman

You may wanna, uh, look at this.