Troubling Inconsistencies in the New Testament

The orthodox give a preemptive spiritual and moral authority to the books of the New Testament. But those books disagree with each other in a number of respects.

Some of the disagreements are trivial. Others, however, raise questions just how much the New Testament authors actually knew -- or even whether they were "spinning" their stories to promote some agenda.

The existence of these questions suggests that an overly-exalted view of the New Testament may not be wise.

The Disciples' Surprise at Seeing the Risen Jesus

This may be one of the most significant inconsistencies in the New Testament.

According to the Gospels, Jesus explicitly and repeatedly told his disciples that he would be put to death but would be raised on the third day (Mt. 16:21-23, 17:22-23, 20:17-19; Mk. 8:31-32; Lk. 9:21-22, 18:31-33; Jn. 14:18-20, 16:16-20). Matthew and Mark indicate that the disciples very much got the message, judging by their strong reactions to it (Mt. 16:22, 17:23; Mk. 8:33).

But after Jesus's death, the disciples certainly didn't act as though he had foretold his resurrection.

• On Easter Sunday, a handful of disciples went to Joseph of Arimathea's new tomb after the Sabbath. They were perplexed when they found the tomb empty (Mk. 16:5; Lk. 24:4; Jn. 20:2, 9).
  
• Other disciples refused to believe the first reports of resurrection sightings (Mk. 16:13; Lk. 24:11; Jn. 20:24-25).
  
• Mary Magdalene initially failed to recognize Jesus when she encountered him, as did the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Jn. 20:14; Lk. 24:16).
  
• Indeed, the disciples are described as being terrified when they saw Jesus (Lk. 24:5, 24:37; Mt. 28:10).
  

You would think at least some of the Twelve (or Eleven, depending on when Judas Iscariot killed himself) would have remembered Jesus's repeated predictions of his resurrection, but it appears none of them did.

Luke attempts to explain away this defect. He claims that the disciples "understood nothing about all these things [i.e., Jesus's predictions]; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said" (Lk. 18:34; see also 9:45). But this doesn't satisfactorily explain why the disciples failed to understand something so simple as "I will be killed, but on the third day I will be raised."

In the words of Dr. Henry Lee, testifying as a DNA forensics expert for the defense at OJ Simpson's murder trial, "something not right here."

In Whose Name Should We Baptize --
the Trinity, or Just Jesus?

The orthodox, wishing to find support in the New Tesetament for the doctrine of the Trinity, set great store by the trinitarian baptismal formula in the Great Commission. If we believe the late manuscripts of Matthew -- as opposed to the early manuscripts that apparently do not -- Jesus commands the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19). (See this discussion of the different manuscripts of Matthew containing the Great Commission.)

But in the Marcan version of the Great Commission, the reference to baptism does not mention baptizing in the name of anyone in particular (Mk. 14:16).

Moreover, in the Book of Acts -- long after the Great Commission would have taken place -- Peter and the disciples baptize in the name of Jesus only (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5).

Some scholars believe that the trinitarian formula was subsequently added to Matthew to justify a later-evolved doctrine of the Trinity. That, of course, raises another question: What else in Matthew might have been the work of later doctrinal editors?

John the Baptist's Appreciation of Jesus's Identity

In the Fourth Gospel, as Jesus approaches his relative John the Baptist, John recognizes him, proclaiming him "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). After further encomia, John declares that Jesus "is the Son of God" (Jn 1:34).

But there is no indication that John the Baptist ever became a follower of Jesus, which seems puzzling.

Even more strangely, in the Lucan version, John baptizes Jesus as seemingly just another face in the crowd, with no sign that he regards his kinsman as anything special (Lk 3:21).

And later, when John's followers report Jesus's doings to him, John sends two of his disciples to Jesus to ask, are you the one who is to come? (Lk 7:18-23)

It is difficult to reconcile these accounts. Moreover, you would think that John's parents Zechariah and Elizabeth would have told her son all about the family member of whom such great things were expected, and for whom John himself was to prepare the way (Lk. 1:17, 76). Why this discrepancy?

Jesus's Ancestry

Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 give two considerably-inconsistent genealogies for Jesus. The most obvious difficulty is Joseph's father -- was Joseph born of Jacob (says Matthew), or Heli (says Luke)?

The Holy Family's Hometown

Luke describes Joseph and Mary as residents of Nazareth (Lk 1:26). He recounts the familiar story of their journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, and their eventual return to Nazareth (Lk 2:1-39).

Matthew, on the other hand, presents us with a hair-raising tale of danger and narrow escapes. He is silent about Joseph and Mary's hometown, saying only that Jesus was born in Bethelem of Judea (Mt. 2:1). But then he has Joseph fleeing with the Holy Family to Egypt, to escape from Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents (Mt. 2:13-18). After Herod dies, according to Matthew, Joseph "went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth" (Mt. 2:19-23). Matthew thus implies that the Holy Family settled in Nazareth for the first time after the return from Egypt, directly contradicting the Lucan account.

Who is right here, Matthew or Luke? What does their disagreement say about their knowledge base, or about their authorial motivation?

Exactly When Did Jesus Die?

According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus and the disciples ate a Passover meal, following which Jesus was arrested, tried, and crucified (Mt. 26:17-21; Mk. 14: 12-18; Lk. 22:7--15).

According to the Fourth Gospel, however, Jesus was executed on the day of Preparation for the Passover (Jn. 19:31).

Some theologians speculate that the author of the Fourth Gospel wanted to portray Jesus as the Lamb sacrificed for the new Passover. Was this merely literary license?

(For other possible explanations of this discrepancy (and the problems associated therewith), see this Web site.)

Other Inconsistencies

For more inconsistencies (few of which seem to be material), see, e.g., this Web page, this one, or this one. Several of the above examples are drawn from these Web pages.

Commentary

As any lawyer can tell you, inconsistencies in documents are not uncommon. I accept that the New Testament is a reasonably reliable record of the main points of Jesus's life and death. But the aforementioned inconsistencies in the documents -- along with some equally-troubling manuscript differences and translation issues -- raise serious questions.

It seems entirely plausible that, in any number of places, the New Testament authors either didn't know the facts, and/or that they tailored their stories to fit their theological agendas.

The logical conclusion is that, while the New Testament should be given serious weight, it would be a grave mistake to put its writings on a pedestal, above all other potential sources of revelation.

* * *

To post a comment, use the blank spaces below. You don't have to leave your name or email address if you prefer not to.

--D. C.

Comments

These are the oldest and weakest arguments against Scripture. Why in the world would you reference an atheist website to prove your weak point? Is that what you are, an atheist?

[DCT]

1. If the arguments are weak, presumably there are counterarguments that we might learn from. By all means post one or more of them if you like.

2. If there's an issue of inconsistency in the New Testament, I'm not sure it's relevant who raises it. Atheists can have insights that can be useful in our search for truth.

3. We have to be ready to address challenging questions from atheists, Muslims, etc., because they're not the only ones who have such questions -- so do our kids. If we can't satisfactorily answer such questions, we damage our credibility and that of our faith.

4. No, I'm not an atheist; quite the contrary.

Thanks for the response.

--D. C.

[Jim]

I just discovered your website... I really appreciate some of your detailed and respectful analysis from a Christian perspective. I believe that we need to address challenges for another reason as well (besides what you mentioned in #3 above)....

only truth can hold up to full analysis. when you consider some of the inconsistancies and what they imply I think we learn. also, it reinforces so many commonalities between different accounts that are also validated by history and introspection.

[James]

I have totally disagree with you. I read a few of your articles on the reliabilty or unreliability of the scriptures. The Bible can never be par or equal to other books. It is either all true or all false, and should be treated accordingly. Christ himself claims that He is " the way the TRUTH and the life." We know from John's gospel that Christ is the manifestation of the word(TRUTH of the scriptures. If any part of the word is incorrect or false then Christ is to be a liar and therefore not worthy of trust. I argue that every word spoken in the scriptures is TRUE and accurate. As far as the relaibility of the writers, they were eyewitnesses of Christ His ministry and death, therefore a very relaible source, not to mention countless others who were also eyewitnesses of both His death and resurrestion. Bottom line if one part of the scriptures is false then the entire book is under questioning and should be disregarded, not equal to anyother. If it is what it claims then it is vastly superior and not equal to anyother. Either way it deserves to be on a shelf all of its own.

[D. C. Toedt III]

Thanks for visiting, James. I do wish, though, that you had addressed the points in the post, instead of changing the subject.

> The Bible .... is either all true or all false .... if one part of the scriptures is false then the entire book is under questioning and should be disregarded ....

What makes you think so? Why should we throw the baby out with the bath water?