Matthew vs. Luke: Disentangling the Gospel Contradictions
Tuesday December 23, 2008
December is a time of the year when many people think about the nativity stories about Jesus - but do they think very closely and carefully? If they do, they will notice that only two of the four gospels say anything about the nativity (odd, if it's really important) and those two accounts are very different. The popular nativity scenes most people think of are a blend of the two gospel stories.
In the December 2004 / January 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Tom Flynn describes some of the basic differences:
The popular image of shepherds and wise men side by side before the cradle? Matthew says wise men. Luke says shepherds. Neither says both. The star in the East? Only in Matthew. “Hark, the herald angels sing” ... but only in Luke. Matthew never heard of them.
But then, only Matthew heard of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents ... That’s right, the indiscriminate killing of every male baby in Judea — with one significant exception — did not merit Luke’s attention. On the other hand, no Roman historian chronicles this atrocity either, not even Flavius Josephus. Josephus reviled Herod and took care to lay at his feet every crime for which even a shred of evidence existed. Had Herod really slaughtered those innocents, it is almost unimaginable that Josephus would have failed to chronicle it.
Matthew says Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem, moving to Nazareth after their flight into Egypt ... But Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth all along; Jesus was born in Bethlehem only because Joseph and Mary had traveled there to enroll in the census... Roman records mention no such census; in fact, Roman history records no census in which each man was required to return to the city where his ancestral line originated. That’s not how the Romans did things.
It’s not possible for both accounts of the nativity to be right. At least some important details of one or the other must be incorrect — and if such important details are mistaken, the rest of that account must be treated more skeptically as well. More serious, however, is the fact that so few people even recognize these problems. They combine elements of both stories into a single narrative as if they were all fully compatible. No one pays serious attention to just one account or the other. There’s something very wrong when defenders of Christmas fail to take their own stories very seriously.
Read More:
Comments
In recounting the conflicts in the Nativity stories of the Gospels, you observe: “More serious, however, is the fact that so few people even recognize these problems.”
A plot of the church, no doubt…! Why, right in the front of my Sunday missal, the same one used by millions of Catholics every week and bearing an official imprimatur, is *hidden* this commentary: “A wealth of symbolism is used in the prayers and Bible readings of this [Christmas] season to shed some light on this tremendous fact: that God wants to share our human condition… We have no evidence of Christmas earlier than approximately 330 AD, and it appears to have been determined not primarily by our Lord’s birth date, which is unknown, but rather by the pagan festivals of the winter solstice, when worshippers of the Sun celebrated the return of light after the shortest day. At Christmas, Christians celebrate the dawn of God’s light shining upon human beings…”
So you see, your sophomoric *bombshell* hardly deconstructs the faith of those familiar with even the most rudimentary Scripture scholarship.
Is a quote which says nothing about the internal contradictions or the contradictions between the text and known history. So, you see, your “*bombshell*” hardly rebuts what I said.
You completely miss the point. In brief: The claim that differences in the Gospel accounts automatically disprove all of the events therein is an unsophisticated but common fallacy amongst atheists and agnostics.
To use an illustration to which everyone, whatever their *faith* or lack of, can relate: Interview three witnesses to an auto accident, and you will likely get three different versions of how it happened. Does that mean the accident didn’t ever happen? Of course not; the differences are attributable to perception.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “In order to discover the sacred authors’ intentions, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current.” This means, as is commonly accepted of historians like Josephus, Tactitus, Herodotus, etc., that they *did* history as the ancients did, and that differences can be attributed to symbolic purposes without losing the spiritual and moral truth of the overriding narrative.
The whole point of the Gospel stories is, again, that God wanted to share the human condition. That meta-reality is not somehow rendered entirely moot by a handful of textual conflicts. Were these texts not making moral claims upon humanity, the objections would doubtless be few. But when people are called to act against their nature–to reject greed, narcissism, immorality, and a host of other nasty human inclinations–the desire to repudiate rather than change is understandable.
I find it curious that you don’t really address what I wrote. You posted a comment purporting to rebut something I said and I pointed out that your comment - and quote - did nothing of the sort. In response, you… bring up an entirely different issue, as if you’re trying to direct people’s attention away from your error. You accuse me of offering a “sophomoric *bombshell*” and, when it turns out you’re wrong, you act like nothing happened.
Where do I make this claim?
If we don’t have any independent evidence of the accident, these divergent stories are a legitimate reason to question the claim that an accident did happen.
It’s difficult to claim to have reliable knowledge about what the purpose of a text is without the text itself being reliable in what it says.
What is the basis of this “meta-reality” if we don’t assume the accuracy of the reality-claims in the text itself?
>>>>
Let me try one last time, because I don’t know why, even if you disagree with it, you fail to see that what I wrote is indeed a relevant reply to your argument–i.e., that, if there are contradictions in the Gospel texts, their veracity can/should/must be doubted.
In response I pointed out twice that Biblical language can often be symbolic; if it is symbolic, then it follows that different Gospel writers might present certain details differently. (However, the differences in these details do not extend to the fundamentals; i.e., you won’t find one Gospel writer claiming that Jesus said it’s OK to kill your enemies while another one reports that he advises to turn the other cheek.)
This then leads to the question of what is the basis for belief if, as you say, “we don’t assume the accuracy of the reality-claims in the text itself.” The problem here is a confusion of genres; there are those who would tell us that if something contains even the slightest elements of myth, it automatically contains no truth, or is somehow equivalent to a falsehood. I by no means regard the Biblical stories as purely mythological, but if they are not “history” in our modern sense, that doesn’t mean they do not still contain universal human truths. That was my basic point, which I hope is now clearer.
I wish you would be accurate in describing my position. Earlier you described it as that “differences in the Gospel accounts automatically disprove all of the events,” and when asked where I say this you don’t respond. You offer no citations and you don’t withdraw the assertion.
So let’s be clear: gospel contradictions, both internal and with the historical record, are a reason to call all of their empirical claims into question. If we have no independent verification of those claims, then we have no good basis upon which we can build rational belief.
No amount of descriptions about “symbolic” language has any bearing on this.
Unless there are independent reasons for saying that one reference in one gospel is symbolic while another reference to the same thing in a second gospel is not, then this is just a Special Pleading fallacy.
Why not say that this is symbolic as well? You need to show that “symbolic” isn’t a rationalization to avoid things you don’t like.
You are the one who tried to draw an analogy with a different genre, thus the confusion is yours.
Really? Please cite references to these people. I don’t think they exist.
Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. They aren’t the subject of this short piece and thus their possible presence has no bearing on what I wrote. My point was only about the empirical claims about empirical reality. Whether they are “universal human truths” expressed in “symbolic language” is irrelevant to this.
I would also like to point out the first census of Judea took place 10 years after Herod’s death
Compos mentis: (if you’re still here)
Do you believe that the contradictions in the Koran in no way detract from the claim that it is the word of god?
Witnesses to auto accidents to my knowledge tend not to claim that their testimony is the “word of god”.
Why did it take the Catholic Church almost 2,000 years to notice the symbolism and different genres?
And to return to the original article, it reminded me of my (then) six year old daughter’s prize winning Christmas card design she did at school. It was a hilarious mix of Santa Claus, Christmas trees with presents underneath, flashing lights, a Manger with the holy family, wise men, Shepherds, angels…
hey did you guys all hear about what happened in oakville?
You talk about agnostic and atheist ideas and have advertisements that are christian. All sites have to put up with that holiday no matter what. The USA was built on the christians killing all who would not convert no by good values. Thanks-giving is where the Indians gave the christians a way to live, grow, and survive and than killed all the Indians and their families. That is the good christian value and it continues with all the hate. The mulims want to kill like the christians and become respect or feared like the christians. I have no respect for such groups. If you feel like claiming I am wrong than do your homework first. christianity breeds hate to all who do not convert. If the religion is so great than why would would you encourage so much hate and killing so many innocent people in the name of your leader? In no way is that protecting any community. It makes me sick. We should all be looking for ways to get along and helping everyone and not just the ones that believe as you do. Force feeding your religion is wrong in so many ways. If you have a good religion you do not need such behavior. When you know you belong to a religion that breeds hate you go to your death with that hate over hour soul. If there is a higher being who’s side do you really think that being will take?
If contradictions exist in the bible then the bible is not inerrant and therefore not the word of god. End of story. Period.
Now if god exists in the manner that the Christians claim, then why has god only chosen to speak to people in the distant past in a way that could never be verified by humans as they advanced scientifically and moved further away from “biblical” times? To expect all humans of all future generations on earth to believe in someone else’s revelation is outrageous and illogical. If that was the case, then how would humans know who was telling the truth and who is lying. For instance, anyone heard of Mormonism? So the bottom line is that if god(s) exist it/there presence should be made clear to ALL humans on earth in no uncertain terms. Not a “sign,” but a voice that was loud and clear and that EVERYONE heard all at once. And all religious people know very well that is not about to happen. So it’s easy for them to continue on and on about their faith, knowing full well that it will never be resolved. And if that voice did speak up and didn’t reveal Chrisitianity as the truth, do you know what the Christians would say? It’s a trick, it’s the devil trying to trick us. Just like I’ve read they do about dinosaur bones. Pathetic.
not it should be noted that ti was white people who killed all those native americans. white people who decided to call the crusades. white people who decided to enslave the africans (even tho christianity was there before them). White people took fireworks and invented guns. white people who decided to kill untold amount of jewish in gas chambers. white people who committed atrocities to the polish and romanians who looked for them for help.
oh wait but its the Christians fault right? even tho there are non-white christians in the world.
Randomguy:
Are you really claiming that whiteness and not idealogy was the cause of all this horror?
what idealogy required that fireworks be turned into guns? if it was the ideologies that caused the enslavement of blacks why did not the early chrisitans who were once jews go and enslave the blacks? if it was ideology why did the early christians (isrealites) not burn and kill the other jews? maybe its because the old white christians were wrong in their beliefs and adopted the religion in order to further their goals. as can be seen throughout out history that many people have used christianity as a crutch to further their own beliefs. the medici family and their greed and gluttony. constantine adopted christianity as the religion of the land in order to gain favour.
and the comments that i posted was something one of my white friends said. both christians and white people do not back-up these people who committed the horrendous acts. however if we will blame christians for it it would be logical to also blame white people no? and another thing a lot of north americans do not note is that a majority of the world does not actually like white people. i was having a conversation with one of my muslim friends and he was explaining to me why the middle-easterns do not like america and the rest of the western world. they automatically say “christians” however it is because they associate white people with christianity. even if they white people are not christian. to their minds they believe that the white people to blame and they do not consider the ideologies. and as we know it christianity is not exclusive to white people.
you can easily throw around figures stating how many christians do this horrible act or how many other christians commit this other horrible act. however it can easily be turned around and said how many white people do this or how many white people do that. there are a lot of good christians who (both white and non-white) do good in this world. and there are a lot of white people i know who are not christian who do a lot of good in this world. however, it seems that all every1 does on this forum is pick out the acts by “chrisitans” (who some argue are not true christians) and equate it to the rest of christianity. and that is not only ignorant but discriminatory. and i am not saying every1 here does it however it does happen. and just as it is wrong for christians to rave about those godless-atheist who grow up serial killers. it is also wrong for atheist to go on about those baby murdering christians.
I haven’t seen anyone blaming “Christians,” except for those Christians responsible. People do, however, hold Christianity at least partially responsible for some horrendous acts because of the degree to which people rely upon Christianity to explain, justify, or promote those acts.
Insofar as white people explain, justify, or promote horrendous acts with a White Nationalist ideology, it would be fair to hold that ideology responsible for those acts as well.
What do you mean by “the rest of Christianity”? I can’t make sense of this accusation, or most of your accusations, so can’t really respond to them.
>The claim that differences in the Gospel accounts automatically disprove all of the events therein is an unsophisticated but common fallacy amongst atheists and agnostics.
Sorry to chime in late, but I HAVE to comment on this. I spent decades going to church–and it was my CHURCH who taught me that the Bible contains no errors because it’s god’s word–so any apparent contradiction has to be people not understanding it properly.
Additionally, I have argued with a great many theists who present the SAME stance. AND you can find it online. There are myriad literalists who refuse to accept there are contradictions in the Bible–and it is THEY who put forward that this internal consistency is actually PROOF the book is written by god through men.
So, it is not an atheist or agnostic assumption. It’s an atheist/agnostic RESPONSE to a theistic claim regarding the Bible that is QUITE COMMON.
>In response I pointed out twice that Biblical language can often be symbolic; if it is symbolic, then it follows that different Gospel writers might present certain details differently.
Let’s try these verses out as just an example:
Matthew 27:5: So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18: (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. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
To call these statements “symbolic” has to be a joke? They are pretty straightforward and totally contradictory accounts of (1) what Judas did with the money, and (2) how he died.
Did Judas “symbolically” throw down the money–or “symbolically” purchase a field with it?
Trying to shake off _errors_ in the content as “symbolic” is weak. There’s nothing symbolic about either of these passages. And they are NOT in agreement. In fact they are in stark disagreement about a statement of fact (not synmbol).
it seems that all every1 does on this forum is pick out the acts by “chrisitans” (who some argue are not true christians) and equate it to the rest of christianity.
What do you mean by “the rest of Christianity”? I can’t make sense of this accusation, or most of your accusations, so can’t really respond to them.
i shouldn’t say that every1 does it. however, many people assume it is ALL christianity’s fault that SOME christians decided to be violent,angry, and hurtful towards others.
People do, however, hold Christianity at least partially responsible for some horrendous acts because of the degree to which people rely upon Christianity to explain, justify, or promote those acts
i am a christian and i should not be held responsible for the actions of others who i believe misinterpreted and/or used the bible to further their own beliefs (partially or fully).
my friend (white) also said that if there had been no white people then all the world’s problems would have not occurred. and i do not agree with that statement because i won’t blame the actions of some white people to the rest of the race. i do not hold you (austin) partially responsible for the acts of the viking slave trade just because you have the same skin color as them. So why should i be partially responsible for the acts of the north american slave trade because we both label ourselves christians.
I don’t understand what you mean by “all Christianity.”
By calling yourself a Christian, you make yourself complicit in what other Christians do. You are not directly responsible for their actions, but you are complicit. In September 11: Religious Perspectives on the Causes and Consequences, edited by Ian Markham and Ibrahim Abu-Rabi’, Kelton Cobb writes:
Cobb, by the way, is a Professor of Theology and Ethics at Hartford Seminary. He’s not an atheist.
No one has said that you, personally, are responsible. You are ignoring what I wrote before. I’ll quote myself in the hopes that you’ll notice this time: “I haven’t seen anyone blaming “Christians,” except for those Christians responsible. People do, however, hold Christianity at least partially responsible for some horrendous acts because of the degree to which people rely upon Christianity to explain, justify, or promote those acts.”
Complicity is not the same as responsibility, by the way. Complicity in something means that one is involved with it, usually with respect to something immoral or illegal. When you call yourself a Christian, you cannot simply lay claim to all the good parts while denying any involvement with the bad parts. When you call yourself a Christian, you assume a degree of complicity for the whole package, good and bad.
When i claim myself as Christian i only claim the Christianity i believe is true. I do not claim a part or an involvement in the actions of those who misinterpret the bible for their own prosperity or beliefs.
You are welcome to say that, but it doesn’t change the fact that you can disown whatever parts of Christianity you don’t happen to agree with. When you claim Christianity, you are part of something that has both good and evil, positive and negative aspects. All of it make up what Christianity is and you can no more disown the inconvenient bits than you can pretend that the (hypothetical) uncle in jail isn’t really a blood relative.
Yeah, well, many of them would claim that you misinterpret the Bible and they are just as credible as you. What’s ironic is that you would disown them for picking and choosing for the sake of what they find most convenient when you are doing the exact same thing. I may personally like what you pick over what you would leave behind, but that wouldn’t change the fact that your methodology is the same as those you want to distance yourself from.
That’s a major problem with every great religion which few adherents are willing to admit to. There are so many traditions, writings, and beliefs that it’s quite easy to find whatever you’re looking for. Everyone claims that the parts they pick are the only “true” bits while what they are ignoring isn’t. None are correct. Great religions are tremendous tapestries of belief, each thread woven together in complex patterns. You can only pretend to take out particular threads that attract your eye; in reality, it’s all bound inextricably together. Little to nothing can be pulled out without damaging the whole.
That’s why laying claim to the tapestry of Christianity means laying claim to all of it, the good threads and the bad. You can’t pull out the good threads for yourself without eliminating what Chritianity is — you’ll be left with tatters and rags of no value or interest.
Unfortunately, most Christians’ understanding of their own religion — it’s history, traditions, and cultures — is far too superficial to grasp this. I find it interesting that you don’t even try to rebut what Kelton Cobb writes. You don’t make even the slightest attempt to engage his arguments and ideas. You just repeat the same things over and over again as if no one had said anything new. Weren’t you just saying elsewhere about how there are “plenty of christians that are interested and very much open to hearing your critiques so that they can have an intelligent discourse” with atheists? Well, why don’t I see any attempt at an intelligent engagement with Cobb’s ideas? If you can’t engage the critical perspective of a Christian, you can’t very well claim to be interested in doing so with the far more critical perspective of atheists.
A comment on the discrepancies between Matthew & Luke record of the birth of Christ i.e. Luke not mentioning the wisemen and flight to Egypt. I know that this won’t be satisfactory to many if any, but Luke’s lack of mentioning is not really an issue, the question is how to resolve his saying they went back to Nazareth after the dedication. A possible explanation is that they did, but then returned to Bethlehem at which time the events of Matthew took place. Why return? Perhaps because they understood from their study of the Hebrew Scriptures that he was to be from Bethlehem… so they returned only to have to flee to Egypt. Speculation sure. Possible yes. I’ll also assume that Luke had access to Matthew’s account (he did write after him) and did not see any “contradiction”. His telling of the events did not necessitate the two stories.
Austin has been very good at concisely defining what/who an atheist is, but I haven’t read anyone concisely defining what/who a Christian is. Would someone on this forum be willing to try?
On the contrary i cannot pick and choose what parts of christianity i follow. I follow the christianity as it is set out in the bible. there are verses that state that the selling of human lives is against the will of god. however, the white christian decided to ignore that verse when they set out to enslave the african people. and if the bible had promoted the slavery of black people why did not the early jewish christians not take on to them slaves? why did it suddenly become appropriate for chrisitans to take salves when the white people adopted the religion? and for a person who always bemoans the fact that christians keep defining atheism to atheist why do seem to want to define christianity for christians?
and how can you be sure that i did not have an intelligent conversation about Cobb’s ideas. i actually went and took that idea to a few seminary students and we discussed it. just because i did not write something to you does not automatically mean that no discourse occurred.
Randomguy:
I am amazed how you managed to read post 19, discuss its contents with a few seminary students, then come back and respond all in 26 minutes. I am of course assuming you read it just as it was posted. You may be even more prodigious than I am imagining!
Please tell us about this conversation. Even if you were speaking very quickly it can’t have been very long. I believe the whole point of a forum is to discuss ideas, not keep them to one’s self.
On another note, you need to learn to distinguish between “Christianity” and “Christians”. These words are not interchangeable. To say that Christianity is partially responsible for something in no way implies that each and every Christian is personally responsible. However, Christians need to come to terms with Christian history and not just brush it aside by saying that all the bad stuff had nothing to do Christianity, they weren’t real Christians.
To take an example: if you are as familiar with the Bible as you imply, you will know there are ample instances of god ordering his people to enslave other nations. There are rules on slavery as well. Jesus is silent on the matter and St. Paul gives advice on the correct treatment of slaves.
The defence of slavery in the American south was partially based on these Bible passages. How can you claim this had nothing to do with Christianity?
Another: there are anti-Semitic passages in the gospels. The early Church Fathers were often rabidly anti-Semitic. Almost 2,000 years of specifically Christian anti-Semitism was not the only cause of the Holocaust but it certainly played a part.
Were the writers of the Gospels and the Church Fathers not real Christians?
Yes, you do, because there is more to Christianity than what is in the Bible.
Please cite the verses that condemn slavery, then explain how they override the verses that accept slavery as legitimate.
Christians did believe that the Bible taught the inferiority of black people. Since you are ignorant of how white Christians justified slavery on the basis of the Bible, you are certainly in no position to declare their position wrong.
Suddenly? Christianity never completely rejected slavery. Paul even accepted it as legitiamte.
I don’t define Christianity for Christians; I’m simply pointing out that you cannot narrow the definition and exclude everything you dislike.
I notice that you still refuse to engage Cobb’s ideas. I don’t blame you because I realize you can’t, but trying would reveal this and thus reveal that he’s right.
Because you refuse to engage his ideas here and now. If you are unwilling and unable to have an intelligent discourse about critical ideas with the people who are actually doing the criticizing, then you are necessarily avoiding critical, intelligent discourse.
So, you are interested in “intelligent discourse,” just not with anyone here. If you find something interesting, you’ll turn you back on the people who present you with the ideas and who are likely to be most critical in favor of finding unidentified “seminary students” to have “discourse” about those ideas. But still, we are supposed to believe that you really are interested in “intelligent discourse” with atheists, otherwise you wouldn’t be here picking up ideas for conversations with others?
That’s a pretty twisted and convoluted excuse. Somehow, I just don’t find it credible. For someone allegedly interested in “intelligent discourse” and here for that purpose, you’ve done a good job at avoiding any while here.
I think Cobb has great insight. Evil is a distortion of good, and Christianity has indeed picked up distortions along the way. Yet I don’t agree with his final conclusion. The Apostle Paul, in Acts 20 speaking to the leaders in the church of Ephesus said, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.”
People will distort truth either purposely or ignorantly, but that doesn’t negate the truth nor does it make the truth giver or truth believer complicit in the error or the wrong behavior or beliefs which spring from the truth that may have been twisted by others.
Along that same line, to me many of the atheist and agnostics who write in this forum seem to be kind, gracious, generous and peace loving people, but it is also true that there are atheists and agnostics who, because they believe that there is no God and are not answerable in the next life to him, believe they are therefore free to live as they please. This belief which springs from their atheism leads them to be less than kind, gracious, generous, and peace loving, but it does not make the forum writers complicit in the behavior nor are they answerable for the sins of their fellow atheists.
However, it would be nice for atheists to admit that they see how a belief that there is no God and that there is no ultimate eternal accountability and justice could led people to such wrongful behavior.
Yes, you do, because there is more to Christianity than what is in the Bible.
yet again you try to define christianity to christians.
Revelations 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
frankly that states that one cannot divert from the passages from the bible.
Christians did believe that the Bible taught the inferiority of black people. Since you are ignorant of how white Christians justified slavery on the basis of the Bible, you are certainly in no position to declare their position wrong.Suddenly? Christianity never completely rejected slavery. Paul even accepted it as legitiamte.
have you ever actually read a commentary by a christian scholar on the book of philemon? then you might actually understand that paul never promoted slavery.
I don’t define Christianity for Christians; I’m simply pointing out that you cannot narrow the definition and exclude everything you dislike.
i am narrowing down the definitions based on many years of study done many people concerning the bible.
Because you refuse to engage his ideas here and now. If you are unwilling and unable to have an intelligent discourse about critical ideas with the people who are actually doing the criticizing, then you are necessarily avoiding critical, intelligent discourse.
i went and discussed it with the so called seminary students because i was going to church on that day to begin with. and Simon i did that between my last post and my return which left many hours to do it in. and Austin i decided to talk to them because it concerned us as Christians. and the only reason i didn’t post their ideas is because i do not want to misinterpret what they said. and there were a lot of differing views agree and disagree. and austin you keep berating me me why i won’t have intelligent discourse with you however you will not even answer the questions i ask you.
I don’t define Christianity for Christians….Yes, you do, because there is more to Christianity than what is in the Bible.
i also love the fact that you keep stating you are not defining Christianity. however, you will also say there is more to Christianity then the bible. shouldn’t you leave that up to the christians to decide.
Tracieh, is correct in what she says:
“There are myriad literalists who refuse to accept there are contradictions in the Bible–and it is THEY who put forward that this internal consistency is actually PROOF (some of us would rather use the word ‘evidence’)that the book is written by god through men.
“Trying to shake off _errors_ in the content as “symbolic” is weak.” - That may be true, but there are times in which the Scripture writers do indeed use symbolic language and it is important to understand when that is the case.
In response to the apparent “contradictions” she noted about Judas, one plausible explanation has to do with the use of language and what the writers chose to include in the telling of the story.
The money used to purchase the field was his. He got it by betraying Jesus and since the field was bought with his money it can be said that he bought it. Kind of like when we say ‘Nero rebuilt Rome after it burned.’ He didn’t nail a single board or lay a single stone. He ordered it rebuilt, raised the taxes, and paid the workers.
How did Judas die? He hung himself. After hanging there for some days his body swelled from the gases, the rope or limb on which his was hanging broke, the body fell and exploded…his intestines spilling out.
These are possible and I think plausible explanations of the seeming contradictions without hiding behind symbolic language.
Problems, randomguy. Christianity IS more than what is in the Bible. By this, we mean that it includes all of the various traditions and interpretations developed throughout history that all Christians follow today. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never known or heard of anybody who adopted Christianity in a vacuum (i.e. he/she was totally isolated from society, never heard of Christianity, found a Bible, and started believing). I would even think that such an occurence would be pretty much impossible, especially since the Bible is such an ambiguous and convoluted mess that developing a coherent and comprehensive interpretation on one’s own can’t be done (particularly in light of all of the contradictions that have been discussed).
And although you were clever to cite the passage from Revelations, this does nothing to dispel the fact that you are picking and choosing aspects of your religion, just like every Christian who as ever lived. For example, you don’t stone to death (or demand such punishment) anyone who has committed any of the many “abominations” that are specified in the Bible, do you? Not stoning people to death for those offenses is going against the Word of God as well as straying from the text itself.
Furthermore, how can you claim to follow just what is said in the Bible when exactly what constitutes the Bible is in disagreement? Catholics and Protestants have different specifications for their canons, and almost no one accepts the Gnostic Gospels nowadays. And the original canons were decided by vote. That’s truly picking and choosing; I don’t know how you can deny it. (There are also a number of Christians who don’t accept Revelations, since it’s the only book that predicts things rather than describe history.)
Oh, and Carter, the problem with your argument is that you commit the fallacy of begging the question. How are we supposed to know what was intended as symbolic language and what wasn’t? You certainly have your own opinions and interpretations, but the vast majority of Christians from all over the spectrum would disagree with you on the specifics.
And your example/analogy doesn’t work either. It’s a weak apologetic. Nero rebuilt Rome because he was directly responsible for overseeing the effort. He could’ve just as easily decided to leave Rome in shambles (and I wouldn’t put it past him, given how crazy he was). Money is created by the government and banks (very basic macroeconomic principle), so would you ever say that the government bought whatever it is that you have? Did the government buy your house? Of course, you might say something like, my new job bought me this shiny new car, but my point is that you have to be very careful when trying to sort out language. Judas received money for his betrayal, and then he returned it, so it was like he was never given money for the betrayal at all. Therefore, to say that his betrayal bought the field would not be correct.
Also, I’d like to dispute an earlier assertion of yours. Very few or no atheists do as they please because they don’t think that they accountable for their actions. Atheists are at least still accountable to society, if not to friends and family. There may be hypothetical atheists who are totally isolated from society that indeed do as they please, but they wouldn’t be here and they wouldn’t be bothering anyone anyway. Furthermore, there may be atheists in parts of the world who have not been exposed to any religious ideas and do as they please, but their behavior would certainly not be out of a “belief that there is no God.” It would be from a lack of belief, which is just what atheism is anyway.
Fei, Some of the Bible is obviously symbolic and some is not. Will everyone agree at all times on what is and what is not? of course not.
All analogies breakdown somewhere, but I think the explanation of the “contradiction” is still plausible. The religious leaders considered the money they paid Judas to betray Jesus as blood money and as such couldn’t be put into the temple treasury so they used it to buy a field to turn into a cemetery.
When I said atheists can live as they please I meant they do not feel that they must obey what God tells them to do or to refrain from doing what He says refrain from doing. The Apostle Paul said, “knowing the terror of the Lord I persuade men.” One of the things which motivated him to live as he did was the belief in a God to whom He must answer when he died. Since atheists lack such a belief they then feel that they can disregard all that people say He has said. They are then free only to please themselves or others without any concern for eternity.
Randomguy:
Austin quoted Kelton Cobb in post 19.
You responded 26 minutes later.
Austin posted 42 minutes after that where he mentioned, amongst other things, that you had made no attempt to respond to the quote he had provided.
How can you throw a wobbly over this (post 25) and then say in post 29 that the discusion took place hours later, i.e. hours after Austin’s post. Not very fair – or honest. And you still refuse to share with us the details of the alleged discussion. Are we to conclude that after discussing the Cobb quote with several seminary students, with differing points of view, you came away with nothing? That doesn’t sound like intellectual engagement to me.
Also, given your track record, I don’t think you should complain too loudly about questions that have not been answered.
And finally, “There is more to Christianity than what is in the Bible” is a statement of fact, not a definition. There is no way to arrive at Christian dogma, of whatever flavour, purely by reference to the Bible.
>The money used to purchase the field was his. He got it by betraying Jesus and since the field was bought with his money it can be said that he bought it.
Did he buy a field with it or throw it back to the priests, though? You don’t address how it is he “bought” a field with money he didn’t accept.
>How did Judas die? He hung himself. After hanging there for some days his body swelled from the gases, the rope or limb on which his was hanging broke, the body fell and exploded…his intestines spilling out.
Ha! I was told this as a Xian. It isn’t true. And it isn’t even close to plausible. When I was in Sunday school, I was told it was common practice in the provinces of Rome thereabouts that hanging suicides dropped and exploded or dropped off high cliffs. Then later, I saw someone trying to make the same ridiculous argument saying it was common in India. Here’s the problem:
There is no culture where it is common practice to let dead human bodies simply hang around or lie around until they rot open. Most especially in ROME, the civilization that was credited for the best sanitation of the time. They would let bodies sit exposed rotting? That would be common? Get real!
So, then I thought, would Jews allow their own family members hang and rot like that? Wouldn’t that be taboo or shameful? But not if suicides were denied burial rites. So, I looked up the Hebrew tradition to see if there was some taboo on handling or disposing of a suicide victim. Guess what? There’s not. They will do burial rites for a suicide. There are some restrictions, but nothing even close to “we won’t bury that person.”
So, there is no more reason to believe that the Romans or the Jews would have left a body to rot and explode.
ALSO, how many people have you ever heard of who go out and buy a bit of expensive property so they can kill themselves on it?
Really—this is what you call plausible? Why would anyone accept such a wild tale, except to deny the obvious: The stories are based on heresay that two different writers came across from different people when they went looking for the Jesus story.
Occam’s Razor.
Sorry I just read this:
>The religious leaders considered the money they paid Judas to betray Jesus as blood money and as such couldn’t be put into the temple treasury so they used it to buy a field to turn into a cemetery.
Except that you just made it all up. There’s nothing in the passage saying the priests bought the field. You’re saying it. And there’s nothing in the passage saying the field was to be used as a cemetary. It’s not even implied. You’re just making sh*t up because you HAVE to make it work.
Can anyone just make crap up and say that’s what the Bible meant–regardless of what the Bible said?
I guess if you can’t face the fact of a factual contradiction in the text, you have no other choice. But it’s either sad or funny, I’m not sure which.
Except that the “twisting” you speak of has become an integral part of what Christianity is.
Sorry, but I don’t.
I’m making an observation about the reality of worldwide Christianity.
Give me all your money.
Have you actually read what I wrote? If you do then you might actually understand that I didn’t say that Paul promoted slavery.
If you say so, but your credibility is about nonexistent here.
Christians have decided, and I’m simply noting that their actions are what say that there is more to Christanity than what is in the Bible.
Tracieh, no, I didn’t make the story up.
From Matthews Gospel chapter 27 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. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
The Jewish law taught that “cursed is a man who is hanged on a tree”.
Concerning the other issue you raised — It is possible that he was left there because he was cursed. It is also possible that no one saw him hanging there but discovered his body later. I didn’t say his body rotted. The bacteria in the GI tract can cause the belly to bloat after only a few days. The betrayal and subsequent hanging was at the time of the Passover — the great religious celebration week so it is not to difficult to see why the body might not be discovered for a few days…
Carter,
“…it is also true that there are atheists and agnostics who, because they believe that there is no God and are not answerable in the next life to him, believe they are therefore free to live as they please…”
First of all, an agnostic is someone who believes that the existence of God is unknowable. Therefore, by definition, an agnostic does not “believe there is no god.”
I know New Age practicioners who believe in a god, but don’t believe the god is involved in any rewards or punishmnets for behaviors. Atheist Buddhists believe there are supernatural rewards and punishments but that these rewards and punishments don’t involve any gods. So, the question of whether or not gods exist and the question of whether or not there are supernatural rewards and punishments are not conjoined.
The atheists I know believe that laws are not god given, but are constructs of men and that they will be enforced by men, not by gods. On the other hand, if Christians truly believe God will punish “sinners” with eternal damnation, why do they have police departments and legal systems? Why bother handing out punishment to law breakers when eternal damnation by God is bound to be much worst than anything any men can hand out?
Finally, there is no “Holy Book of Atheism” which purports to teach atheists how to live. It is possible there are atheists who have created a philosophy of life that says they can do what ever they want because there is no God to punish them, but it is also possible that there are theists who who have created a philosophy that there is a god but they can do whatever they want and god will not punish them because they are the special chosen followers of this god. Christianity, on the other hand, is a specific branch of theism that has a mythology that can be examined and critiqued.
John, One of the reasons why we should have police departments and legal systems is found in the New Testament book of Romans where Paul speaks about government.
Romans 13 “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”
Christians disagree how to apply this teaching in specific situations but broadly it teaches that God has given humankind government as his representative on earth to restrain evil and to promote the public good. Even though there is a final punishment of evil, it needs to be restrained in life for the good of non-law breakers.
Yes, theists and atheists often create personal philosophies and world-views which give them permission to do what they want to do irregardless of what others, including God, may think.
Carter,
“…theists and atheists often create personal philosophies and world-views…”
Yes, but Christian theists also have a shared Christian group mythology.
“…irregardless (sic) of what others, including God, may think.”
Well, of course the thinking of God is not involved, since there is no God.
I should also add that Christians have a shared religious heritage, as well as a mythology.
John, you are indeed correct — we Christians, despite our many differences, share a common heritage and a core of beliefs which are universal — spanning both time and culture.
Thanks for pointing out the verse in Matt.
Concerning: “The Jewish law taught that “cursed is a man who is hanged on a tree”.
Concerning the other issue you raised — It is possible that he was left there because he was cursed.”
No, it’s not. Because even though the Hebrews have issues with suicide there is not a shred of evidence that they won’t bury a suicide–and everything I found, ancient, modern, traditional or legal, indicates they WOULD bury a suicide.
Also, you have the issue of Romans being OK leaving rotting bodies around.
And, again, you’re just assuming stuff that isn’t in the book. It says Judas fell headlong in a field he bought and burst open. Period. You’re straining to make it fit together with a story that says someone else bought the field and Judas went away and hanged himself. Ironically, you also seem to think that he, but some coincidence hanged himself in the very same field the priests decided to buy–or he decided to buy? I don’t know which, because unless I go with “Carter” and not the Bible, it’s simply too muddy to make sense. Not unlike the Gospel stories. Anyone reading them side by side can’t miss the problems.
And also, there are forgeries called out in the Bible, substantial ones such as John 7:53-8:11. With people through the ages simply amending the books (in order to make work better for doctrinal purposes?)–I’m amazed some of these contradictions and problems still exist.
I recall that Xians often use the fact that Elohim is sometimes treated as plural and sometimes treated singularly is evidence it’s singular (why not evidence it’s plural?)…rather than evidence that someone tried to fix the text to make the early pantheon a monotheistic statement. Seriously, the Hebrews were monotheistic grammar confused people–or used to be polytheists, moved toward monotheism, and simply adjusted the writings moving forward, and didn’t get them all in the process.
It’s either _hard_ or _easy_. Adjusting ancient texts and hearsay of a legendary story being contradictory in nature are common and there are myriad examples.
“A god did it” is not only complicated, unproven, and just a far-fetched assertion–but there’s no reason for it. The reason “the Bible is perfect,” doesn’t fly why Carter has to fill in the blanks for the Bible to make sense.
Maybe the Romans didn’t see the body. Maybe the Jews disregarded their own laws and traditions and just left it to unsanitarily rot. Maybe “he”–referring to Judas–really meant the priests…maybe, maybe, maybe.
Maybe it’s contradicting because different people told different stories that they heard differently to different writers. Something that happens so often it’s mundane.
The funny thing is that all this is moot as “things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things.” So, the mere suggestion a god is responsible for the Bible is simply an academic exercise until someone decides to actually support the claim “god exists” in the same way we would support the claim “germs exist.”
When god manifests so much as a germ, we’ll really, then, have something to discuss. Until that time, no Xian can say there is a god or what a god would/wouldn’t do–without simply making it up.
It’s not possible for both accounts of the nativity to be right. At least some important details of one or the other must be incorrect — and if such important details are mistaken, the rest of that account must be treated more skeptically as well.
If the accounts in Matthew and Luke were intended as historical recordings, the above statement is correct. But it is my understanding that the writers of Matthew and Luke (whoever they were) wrote to specific audiences (Jews for Matthew and Greek-speaking gentiles for Luke).
Similar to political writers of today, I believe the authors of Matthew and Luke put a “spin” on their accounts that would best appeal to their intended audiences. Just as Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken may both report on a given event, it is highly unlikely their interpretations will be alike.
The bigger concern for the writers of Matthew and Luke was to present a message of the belief that God was among us as the person known as Jesus the Christ.
Was this Jesus of Nazareth the Christ? I believe so, but I cannot prove it. I can’t even prove that God exists. But all theism is based on faith, isn’t it? Theism is essentially subjective at it’s core and can never be proven.
Regarding the reference to Kelton Cobb, I think Cobb is right.
Enough preaching. Girding my loins for an anticipated battle from fellow theists who read this for my heretical views I remain
Sincerely,
OldChurchGuy
That is true. Matthew and Luke are theological document intended to convey theological ideas to specific audiences who were part of specific cultural, historical, and religious circumstances. They are not historical documents intended to convey specific empirical truths regardless of the cultural circumstances of the audience.
And that’s why the empirical claims in the documents must be treated skeptically.
Indeed. So, they accounts should be treated skeptically, just as readers several centuries in the future should read Franken and Limbaugh skeptically. Hopefully, no one tries to form a religion around the claims of Franken or Limbaugh!
But like church guy noted Matthew and Luke was to present a message of the belief that God was among us as the person known as Jesus the Christ. Also we can not without a doubt prove that God exists. But really lawyers can’t completely prove without a doubt that someone did or did not commit a crime. But we send people to prison or let them go anyway.
The standard of proof for sending someone to prison is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and claims for the existence of gods fall far, far short of that.
I may be simple, but, I lost faith in the bible as “the word of god” because it was obviously not inerrant…
… without the bible as its foundation, christianity simply disintegrates…
Other than the four gospels and Jesepheus, there is no proof that Jesus really existed. He wrote nothing and there is no way to corroborate his historical existence. Yet his existence is the very foundation of one of the world’s great religions. Suppose he was just a wise man like Socrates or Confucius?
Josephus’ small insertions have been discredited by most reputable bible scholars.