Aren't the Gospels Full of Contradictions?
One of the most frequently raised objections against the reliability of the Gospels is the claim that they are filled with contradictions. Critics argue that discrepancies between the Gospel accounts undermine their credibility and suggest they cannot be trusted as accurate historical documents. However, upon closer examination, many of these alleged contradictions are shown to be either misunderstandings or minor differences that do not impact the core message of the Gospels. In fact, a closer look at the Gospels' historical and textual evidence, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the manuscript tradition, reveals that these documents have maintained remarkable accuracy over time. We will explore why the supposed contradictions in the Gospels are often overstated and how the historical and textual evidence actually supports the reliability of the Gospels.
Understanding the Gospel Accounts
Before addressing specific allegations of contradictions, it is important to understand the nature of the Gospel accounts. The Gospels i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are ancient biographies of Jesus Christ, each written by different authors who had distinct perspectives and audiences. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to many of the events they recorded, while Mark and Luke gathered their information from eyewitnesses and other sources.
The differences between the Gospels are often a result of each author's unique perspective or intended emphasis. These differences do not necessarily indicate contradictions but rather reflect the different ways in which each Gospel presents the story of Jesus. This is a common feature of ancient historiography, where different accounts of the same events often highlight different details depending on the author's goals.
Human memory is imperfect and varied so even when people witness the exact same event, their individual perceptions, recall and how they articulate what they saw or heard will naturally differ. Nuances in language, emphasis, and detail are expected.
This is exactly what we find in the Gospels, which lends to its credibility.
The Gospels are filled with undesigned coincidences and some embarrassing details - details that fit together across texts like puzzle pieces, but which would be difficult to plan in a forgery. The documents reflect accurate 1st century cultural knowledge, local geography and authentic personal names, even though they were written after the fall of Jerusalem and under Roman pressure. These factors support their historical reliability.
This is akin to witnesses in a court room in every legal system - if every witness said exactly the same thing verbatim, it raises significant red flags. If in fact every witness gave the exact same verbatim account, it undermines their credibility and appears like a rehearsed script; perhaps they've been coached or colluded. Prosecutors, defense attorneys and the court itself would be highly suspicious of identical verbatim testimonies and would likely conduct rigorous cross-examination to uncover the reason for the uniformity. This in turn could lead to investigations into subornation of perjury or other ethical/criminal violation. while consistency on key facts is desirable; identical, verbatim testimony across multiple witnesses is almost always viewed as a sign of impropriety rather than a happy coincidence. It's a strong indicator that the testimony is not genuinely independent.
What Constitutes a Contradiction?
A contradiction in the Gospels would require that two accounts of the same event present mutually exclusive or logically incompatible details. However, most of the alleged contradictions in the Gospels are not actual contradictions but rather differences in the way events are described. These differences can often be harmonized or explained in a way that preserves the integrity of the Gospel accounts.
For example, one of the most commonly cited "contradictions" is the differing accounts of the women who visited Jesus' tomb after His resurrection. In Matthew's account, it mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt 28:1), while Mark's account adds Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke and John provide slightly different lists of women, but all agree that Mary Magdalene was one of the key witnesses. The differences in the lists are not contradictions but rather reflect the fact that different authors highlight different details or emphasize certain individuals. It is entirely plausible that multiple women visited the tomb, but each Gospel writer chose to focus on specific individuals. Even the Romans and High Priests visited the tomb, but no one argues about them!
Another example is that critics point to differences in the timeline of events such as the cleansing of the temple. The Gospel of John places the event at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (John 2:13-22), while the Synoptic Gospels
- Matthew, Mark, and Luke place it at the end (Matt. 21:12-17, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48). This can be explained through historical and literary context. While some argue that this discrepancy is a contradiction, a more plausible explanation is that Jesus likely cleansed the temple twice - once at the beginning and once at the end of His ministry. This is entirely consistent with the idea that John was presenting a thematic arrangement of events, while the Synoptic Gospels were focusing on a chronological sequence.
Another frequently cited contradiction is the difference in the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through David's son Solomon, while Luke traces it through another son, Nathan. While some call this an apparent contradiction, the truth is quite the opposite - it is not a contradiction. One genealogy represents the legal line (through Joseph) and the other represents the biological line (through Mary) - showing Jesus was both God and man simultaneously and could therefore take our place with the penalty of death and sin.
Textual Accuracy of the New Testament
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 provided a remarkable insight into the accuracy of the Old Testament and the New Testament manuscripts. Among the scrolls were fragments of nearly every book of the Hebrew Bible, including copies of Isaiah, Psalms, and other Old Testament writings. The Dead Sea Scrolls were written centuries before the birth of Jesus, and their preservation has allowed scholars to compare ancient manuscripts with modern copies of the Bible.
One of the most significant findings was the consistency of the Hebrew Bible texts over thousands of years. Scholars have noted that the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and later manuscripts are minimal, and no substantial changes have been found that affect the meaning of the texts. This suggests that the transmission of the Old Testament was highly accurate and that the Gospel manuscripts, which were copied much later, would have also been carefully preserved.
While the Dead Sea Scrolls are not directly related to the Gospels, they provide strong evidence for the accuracy of the
overall manuscript tradition that extends to the New Testament. The meticulous care with which scribes copied ancient
manuscripts is well-documented, and the consistency of the textual tradition suggests that the Gospels have been faithfully
transmitted. In fact there are over 5800 Greek manuscripts and a total of greater than 25000 copies of text to verify the
New Testament. The greatest Roman historian of that period Tacitus and his works Annals only has 20 copies, but is
taken as fact which is surprising.
No other ancient text has so many early, independent copies. The sheer volume and closeness of these manuscripts to the originals make the Bible the most historically attested document in antiquity.
Dr. Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost New Testament academic scholars says "The textual variations in the New Testament manuscripts are relatively insignificant in terms of the substance of Christian doctrine." Even Dr. Bart Ehrman, a non Christian and a New Testament scholar and well known critic of the textual scholarship of the New Testament says that he agrees with Dr. Metzger, in his book Misquoting Jesus.
If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement ... The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger's position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
The Gospel Writers Intent
Historical Accuracy
The Gospel writers were not simply creating religious narratives for later generations but were also attempting to record real historical events. This was not uncommon in ancient biography, as authors sought to provide accurate accounts of the lives of prominent figures. The Gospels are filled with historical references, such as the reign of specific Roman emperors, the names of Jewish rulers like Pontius Pilate and Herod, and even obscure details such as the location of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1-6, Luke 2:4-7). These references suggest that the Gospel writers were concerned with grounding their accounts in real historical events.
Moreover, early Christian apologists such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian often cited the Gospels as authoritative records of Jesus' life. Their emphasis on the historical reliability of the Gospels reflects the fact that the early church took the accuracy of these documents seriously. It is also worth noting that the Gospels were written within a few decades of Jesus' death and resurrection, a time when eyewitnesses were still alive and could have disputed any inaccuracies.
Oral Tradition
It is essential to understand that the Gospels were written in the context of ancient biographical literature. In ancient times, biographies often included differences in the details of events, but these differences did not necessarily imply contradiction. The focus of ancient biography was often on the overall themes, rather than precise chronological details.
Additionally, the Gospels were based on oral traditions that had been passed down by Jesus' disciples and other eyewitnesses. Oral transmission of stories was a well-established practice in the ancient world, and scholars agree that the Gospels were based on reliable oral traditions. While oral traditions are subject to variation over time, the core message of the Gospels - the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—remains consistent across all four accounts.
During the time that the New Testament was penned (and prior) people had highly developed memories and they could memorize complete books. The people of the Middle East used an oral culture and they memorized things quite well!
In today's world most people have a hard time remembering their phone number because we have technology to do it.
In Short
The Gospels are not full of contradictions. While there are differences in the way the events of Jesus' life are recorded, these differences do not amount to contradictions. Instead, they reflect the unique perspectives and emphases of the individual Gospel writers. The consistency of the textual tradition, as evidenced by discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, further supports the reliability of the Gospels. When examined in their historical and literary context, the supposed contradictions dissolve, revealing a coherent and reliable account about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
No other book has been so chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or letters of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet?
In the end, the Gospels offer us a trustworthy account of the most important events in history. Rather than being full of contradictions, they are rich, complex, and profoundly consistent in their message. It invites you to meet the person who is truth - Jesus Christ
What will you choose to do?
Suggested Additional Resources
- How can the Bible be trusted if it was written by mere men?
- Why trust the Bible when it has changed over time?
- The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
- The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus edited by Gary Habermas & Michael Licona
- Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham