Contradictions in the N.T.

[liamconnor]

I apologize, for I am sure this is a hackneyed topic.


Now, though discrepancies and even contradictions in the Bible do not automatically threaten my beliefs (there are some which, if they could be shown, would make me abandon Christianity) still, the mention of "contradictions in Scripture" is made so often, I have forgotten which ones we have in mind.

Let's narrow this down to the N.T. since that is an explicitly Christian compilation.

What are they. Are there ways of reconciling them?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 80 by JehovahsWitness]

Sorry, JW, shouldn't you be the one aware of the history of the religion? If you can't be sure of the validation, you should not be advocating or believing in the position in the first place, you are misrepresenting something to a body of people, calling ethics into question. What if they were written in 300? 1500?
What if they are anachronisms? If so it is completely false, is it not? Just an opiate for the masses?

[polonius]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

JW posted:

polonius.advice wrote:
Mathew wrote in about 80 AD.


Please present verifiable evidence for the above.

Thanks

JW

RESPONSE:

While it cannot be precisely dated, the split of Christianity from Judaism occurred around 85 AD. (see for example the Jewish 12th Benediction).

But noting that both Matthew’s and John’s gospel mentions “their synagogues� separating the Christians from the Jewish synagogues, we can reasonably conclude that both gospels were written after that event. This is not mentioned in Mark's gospel thought to have been written about 70 AD and from which Matthew got the majority of his material.

http://www.jcrelations.net/Matthew's+Go ... 0.html?L=3

"I am presupposing in the discussion that follows a number of tenets of modern biblical study: that Matthew most likely, is the second, rather than the first Gospel; that he was dependent on Mark’s Gospel and a collection of Sayings of Jesus, shared also by Luke; that Matthew carefully edited these sources to address his own community; that his Gospel is not a biography of Jesus’ life, but rather a narrative and theological interpretation, written from the perspective of Easter; and that the Gospel was written somewhere between 80 and 90 C.E., possibly in Antioch in Syria, by an unknown author.

"As against the strongly Jewish nature of this Gospel, there are a number of elements that may suggest an anti-Jewish reading of Matthew"s Gospel. These elements cannot be ignored in the interests of "saving" the Christian canon. We can detect five elements that reflect hostility to, or distance from, the Judaism out of which the Gospel emerged.

"We might begin with the strange use, for example, of the phrase "their synagogues" or "your synagogues", an odd expression for a Jew to use of other Jews (e.g. Matt 4:23,12:9,13:54). Here we note a sense of distance between Matthew"s community and the Jewish synagogue, reflecting already the post-70 CE split between Judaism and Christianity.

John 9.29 describes how "the Jews had agreed that if anyone confessed Jesus as the Christ or messiah they were to be excluded from the synagogue". Most scholars would now agree that this assertion probably reflects the time not of Jesus but of the writing of the Gospel, perhaps in the 90s of the first century. The verse implies that then those who confessed Jesus would find themselves excluded from membership of or participation in the life of the synagogue – however we understand that – and that it was the Jewish authorities who orchestrated this, thus, some would say, creating the split between Judaism and Christianity.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 82 by polonius.advice]

There is no evidence presented here, just hypothesising about a supposed "split between Christianity and Judaism" in 85CE (with is itself hightly questionable since Christianity obviously existed from the time of Christ whose followers did not conform to the tenets of the Jewish faith... something supported by the writings of Paul and Luke (Acts) which document the persecution of the early Jewish Christians in the first century)...

Anyway, I asked for verifiable evidence of the datings of the bible manuscripst not hypothesis about the development of the Christian church or biblical interpretation which is obviously highly subjective - especially one which is based on a presupposition of the very point I am challenging!*

Have you referenced any independent manuscripts from the period that enables you to claim the dating of Matthews gospel as you did? What are the earliest references that enable us to date the gospel? Upon what documents or manuscripts do you come to your conclusion? References appreciated.

JW

*paragraph in bold

[Willum]

[Replying to post 83 by JehovahsWitness]

You have given Polonius the impossible challenge of proving something that doesn't exist. Of course their is plenty of documentation when the Bible was really written. It should be common knowledge, especially for those who advocate it, unless, it was kept very close for a reason. Say to bury it for some reason.

Well, if it evidence you want, look to the Bible, and Jesus advocating the payment of blasphemous coins to a blasphemous empire.

As well as advocating obedience to this blasphemous empire in the thrall of Jupiter.

Even Jesus name, Ie Zeus sounds just like "Hey Zeus!"
Amazing!

[micatala]

Here is an example I think should count as a factual contradiction.

In the Synoptic gospels, Judas betrays Jesus by kissing him. After the kiss he is arrested, and we have someone getting their ear cut off.

In John, as the crowd including Judas approaches, Jesus steps forward and asks, "who are you looking for?" They reply "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus says "I am he," and at that point the crowd takes a step back and falls down. Judas was still with them. Jesus repeats his question, getting the same answer, and then says to let these others go. Then an ear is cut off. A bit later, there is the arrest.

There is no kiss in John, and not only that, Jesus identifies himself as the one to be arrested, rather than Judas, through his kiss.

Now, one might try to 'insert' the kiss into the narrative in John. I can't see where you could possibly do that and have the narrative make any sense. Once Jesus identifies himself, there is no need for a kiss. Once Judas kisses Jesus, there is no need for him to identify himself.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 85 by micatala]

An omission isn't a contradiction. You'd only have a contradiction is one account explicitly stated that Judas did NOT kiss Jesus.

- Matthew explains that Judas approached Jesus and kissed him; Jesus speaks to Judas directly
- John explains Jesus stepped forward (into the light) and addressed the mob

There is no reason why the two must be mutually exclusive or why Judas' kiss could not have preceded the second action

We don't know exactly who Judas explained the signal to, its possible (even probable) it wasn't to everyone in the mob, possibly only to the officers or leaders who may well have chosen not to put themselves at the front where they risked being killed if there was a violent confrontatin. I doubt if the footmen or the door keeper and whoever they'd scraped up from the streets at that time of night were privy to details; in any case evidently they didn't expect the person they went to hunt down would step forward and give himself up without a fight like that (which is possibly why they fell back expecting it was a trap and fearing attack)... However we choose to harmonize the accounts there is no "contradiction" because they can be reconciled and that is the point.





JW

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

However, an omission can mean that there is no truth or substance in the first place. It is easy not to remember what did not occur. Or to miss a part of a lie you were supposed to write down and didn't.

Such as, perhaps the folks who wrote down the Bible some 30 years after Jesus was preaching, didn't know that the story they were telling involved coins that decried the divinity of emperors.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 87 by Willum]

However, an omission can mean that there is no truth or substance in the first place. It is easy not to remember what did not occur. Or to miss a part of a lie you were supposed to write down and didn't.

Such as, perhaps the folks who wrote down the Bible some 30 years after Jesus was preaching, didn't know that the story they were telling involved coins that decried the divinity of emperors.

But isn't the OP about contradictions? It was not a general invitation to "Tell me why you don't believe in Christianity".

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

I'm saying that we cannot know anything about any actual "Historical Jesus" even if he did exist. We can only assume that he probably said things somewhat along the lines of what the authors of the Gospels claim he said.

this is a great point, and I am glad you brought it up!

Yes, I agree that we cannot know precisely what words he used; he most likely spoke in Aramaic, so already some "interpretation" is involved in the Greek translation (as anyone who has ever tried to translate a language knows, there are certain words that simply do not carry over easily).

Most historians agree that some of the parables were (if not verbatim, at least thematically) indicated by Jesus. But there are many things they do not think he said; and things which were edited for obvious reasons (length).

The historian who has taught me the most is E.P. Sanders, and he is rather shy of attributing to the sayings of Jesus historical value (he gives extremes as examples: to Jesus' "Why do you call me good; no one but God is good" he assigns a very high degree of probability. To Mark's statement that Jesus declared all foods clean, he assigns as low a degree of probability as can be given in historical probability: highly unlikely.

What E.P. Sanders focuses on are a) concrete historical events, like Jesus' baptism; Jesus' crucifixion; Jesus' burial; the discovery of the empty tomb, and b) general themes: like Jesus' attitude toward the law; Jesus' REPUTATION as an exorcist (Sanders believes the evidence is good that he performed things which the ancients interpreted as exorcism; but Sanders interprets these deeds as "power of suggestion over pathology) Jesus' mission etc.

A great point!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 89 by liamconnor]

The historian who has taught me the most is E.P. Sanders,

A historian? Wikipedia says of him

In 1966 he received a Th.D. from Union Seminary in NYC. In 1990 he received a D. Litt. from the University of Oxford and a Th.D. from the University of Helsinki."

Th.D is Doctor of Theology and D. Litt. is Doctor of Letters.
Neither is an academic degree on history. Has Sanders studied history? Does Sanders teach history? Is he a history professor?
No, I think not. He is a theologian, not a historian.
Now if you mean some other E.P. Sanders, or maybe what Wikipedia says about him is wrong, please divulge.
Otherwise, I cannot consider the E.P. Sanders you mention as being an historian.