Roland

So often Christians like to say that there are no true contradictions in the Bible – that every seeming contradiction can be “solved” with a hard look at all the possible interpretations of the scriptures in question. And I must admit that I have seen more than a few Christian contortionists twist themselves into apologetic pretzels trying to explain what, on the surface, sure look like contradictions to me. The problem is that the apologists’ attempts are sometimes so absurd and so disrespectful of the original text that it is a wonder that any passage in the Bible can be taken at face value at all once these “defenders of the faith” have had a go at it.

Since Easter is fast approaching, I thought I would discuss two such “problems” related to the events on the first Easter morning.

In Matthew 28, the author clearly states that Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” come to Jesus’ tomb, find his body missing and are told by an angel that He is no longer there for He has risen. That seems clear enough.

The problem is that John tells the tale quite differently. In Chapter 23, he portrays Mary Magdalene as going into the tomb and finding the body gone, yet not only does she not encounter an angel who sets her straight as in Matthew’s account, but she actually leaves thinking that Jesus’ body has been stolen. She then races to inform the apostles of that fact.

So how do many Christians attempt to get out of this obvious dilemma of two contradictory things happening to the same person? Easy. They trash Matthew’s account by claiming that there really were more women on the scene (as in Mark and Luke’s accounts) and that Matthew simply failed to mention not only that fact, but the fact that Mary Magdalene wasn’t there when the angel spoke to them. But is it fair or logical to really assume that Matthew meant that, for clearly, as written, the author certainly INTENDS for the reader to see Mary Magdalene hearing the news from the angel. Since Matthew puts only TWO WOMEN in his scene, what other possible interpretation could there be? Read it for yourself.

The second “contradiction” involves events later that day. In Luke’s account, Thomas is clearly present when Jesus first appears to the apostles in a room in Jerusalem.

[33] And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,
[34] who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"
[35] Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.
[36] As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them.
[37] But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit.
[38] And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?
[39] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Notice that verse 33 CLEARLY states that “the eleven” were gathered together for this event. So Thomas must also have been there.

Now note John’s account of the story:

[20] When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
[21] Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
[24] Now Thomas, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.

Now how can this be? The same event is recorded here, yet Luke tells us that all eleven apostles were present, while John says Thomas was absent. Perhaps, in the middle of the scene, Thomas got up to go to the bathroom?
I believe the gospel accounts either say what they mean or they don’t. Any attempt at “harmonizing” the stories only ends up trashing the integrity and viability of each individual account – and calls into account either the truthfulness or the trustworthiness of each writer (and, perhaps, both). I believe we can only study the texts as written and if that means having to admit a contradiction between two different versions of the same story, then so be it.

JERDOG

Hey Roland,
I ran the Thomas story by one of my fundie co workers. It stupped him. He came back two days later and siad that it was two differant visits with Jesus. Seems like a cop out to me. Is there any evidence of this?

Roland

JERDOG -

I don't think that explanation holds water because both events clearly take place on Resurrection Day.

The only explanation I've heard is that Thomas, apparently, left the room sometime between verses 33 and 36 and Luke simply failed to apprise us of that fact. It's lame, I know, and makes Luke appear like pretty much of an idiot as a writer, but it's the best they can do, I guess.

A bigger problem is found in Matthew's version of Christ's appearance to the disciples. We aren't told when it happened, but we know it was on a mountain in Galillee and not in a room as Luke, Mark and John portray it. It could be a different appearance, I suppose, but then it creates problems with John 21:14, since that verse claims that Jesus appeared only three times to the disciples in the first week and a half (once on Resurrection Day, once 8 days later when Thomas was present, and once in John 21 to a number of disciples at the ocean). My question is, then, when did the Matthew appearance take place? And why after FOUR major appearances, do some of the apostles STILL not believe (Matt. 28:17)? Either they were really stupid or the appearances can't have been as impressive as the Bible accounts portray them. And, if that is the case, perhaps those of us living 2000 years after the alleged fact can be forgiven for being slightly skepitcal about the reality of all this.

JERDOG

Great post. Im sorry to see that it didn't get any response from anyone. I did shoot down my co worker (the fundie) with the mary and mary going to jesus tomb differing accounts. He's still going to ,"get back with me on that". ha.

Roland

LOL Jerdog.

Thanks for rescuing it!

But I can already tell you what your co-worker will say.

He'll look to Mark and Luke and notice that, in their accounts, more than two women went to the tomb. He'll then tell you that Mary Magdalene actually LEFT the tomb as John suggests and that THE OTHER women went in and met the angel.

The problem is that Matthew doesn't provide that "out" in his story. But since when has that ever stopped a determined literalist from making a ludicrous case?

Greg2003

I am amazed how christians justify the obvious contradictions in the different gospel accounts of easter. There has already been at least one major thread on this that I recall. The christian apologists really go out of their way to portray it as different witnesses focusing on different details to the exclusion of others. But there is an undeniable contradiction between the gospel accounts and the account in Acts were he stays forty days and then ascends from Jerusalem. Mark has him ascending or disapearing on easter sunday at an undisclosed location. Luke has him ascending the next day in the vicinity of Bethany. Matthew, John and the unadulterated Mark don't have him ascending at all. The Luke and Acts stories can't be written by the same person as they clearly contradict each other.

But, as I have tried to point out on this board before, there is a curious silence among christians about jesus' ascention, which seems curious when compared to Mohammed's ascention. In Islam's case the place of the ascention is definately known and recognized as sacred (temple mount). While in christianity the place of the ascention is ignored precisely because it is impossible from the gospels to figure out where the hell it happened, much less when it happened.

Undoubtedly, though, some apologist will try to tackle these problems with verbous evasions and accusations about how I don't know greek or something.

Roland

Greg -

Isn't the stock reply, "Jesus obviously ascended all those times, but not permanently"? "After all," they will argue, "it doesn't actually SAY that Jesus never returned."

doc58

Greg 2003,
I agree that there are plenty of differences in the stories but I think you are in error on one point.
Luke and Acts are the same as far as ascension locations.
Luke says Bethany which is a village on the Mount of Olives.
Acts 1:12 indicates that the ascension happened on the Mount of Olives since after it happened the disciples returned to Jerusalem from there.

It is interesting that Luke and Acts seem to give very different timetables even though they are supposedly written by the same person. In Luke the ascension occurs the same day unless you can find a way to separate v. 49 and 50 by 40 days.
In Acts it says he was around for 40 days.

I find it interesting to look just at the number and location and words of the angels at the tomb.
Sitting, standing, inside, outside. To me, there is no reasonable way to reconcile the accounts.

Until this thread, I had never noticed the differences in Luke and John as far as when Thomas saw Jesus. Luke says it was on Sunday with the others since he was one of the eleven mentioned in v. 33. In John, it says Thomas didn't see Jesus for 8 more days.

Greg2003

Ok, so I didn't know where bethany was. But isn't the contradiction between Luke and Acts on the timing of the ascension pretty strong evidence that Luke and Acts are not written by the same author? That's always seemed rather obvious to me, though several apologists here continue to insist the authorship is the same.

doc58

Grag,
I agree although apologists just say that there are 40 days between verses 49 and 50 in Luke 24. Convenient, huh!
Inserting the 40 days doesn't make sense.

Bethany was 2 miles east of Jerusalem.