"The
first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions
him." (Proverbs 18:17)
Muslims talk often about the many
contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on
whom you are talking to. Kairanvi's Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 numbered
contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101
contradictions. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any
religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any
contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be
consistent with itself.
The Muslims quote from the Qur'an (4:82)
which says "do they not consider the Qur'an (with care). Had it been
from any other than Allah, they would have found there-in many a
discrepancy."
A Definition of Revelation:
In order to respond to this challenge it is
important that we begin by recognizing and understanding clearly the
presupposition and thinking that underlies such a challenge. The principle of
non-contradiction has been elevated to the status of an absolute criterion,
capable of being applied by human beings in judging the authenticity of God's
word. This is not a proposition to which Christians can or should give assent.
The Christian will gladly admit that scripture is ultimately
non-self-contradictory. But the Christian cannot agree that the principle of
non-contradiction is given to men as a criterion by which they are to judge
God's word. It is this criterion which the Muslims have imposed upon the
discussion of revelation.
This is a mistake which many of us fall into;
measuring that which is unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar;
in this case measuring the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed
from the Qur'an. Their book, the Qur'an, is believed to have been 'sent down'
(Nazil or Tanzil), from heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this
belief in scripture as a revelation which has been 'sent down' which they then
impose upon the Bible as well. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the
Bible can be measured using the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur'an.
The Bible is not simply one book compiled by
one man as the Muslims claim for their Qur'an, but a compilation of 66 books,
written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason
Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of
human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages
used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author's intellects
and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author's
contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures
would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean,
however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received
their revelation by means of inspiration.
A Definition of Inspiration:
In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all
Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos
which means "God-breathed," implying that what was written had
its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were "carried
along" by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality
to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error.
The Bible speaks many times of its
inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that
what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2
and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1
Corinthians 2:13, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by
human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit." This is corroborated
in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when
referring to that which he had written says, "...you accepted it not as
the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God..." Peter
speaks of the inspiration of Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he
maintains that, "...Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God
gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters..." Earlier, in 2
Peter 1:21 Peter writes, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will
of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy
Spirit." And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John,
referring to the book of Revelation states, "...if anyone adds anything
to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone
takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his
share in the tree of life..."
Charles Wesley summarizes this high view of
inspiration brilliantly when he says, "The Bible must be the invention
either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not
written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying 'Thus saith
the Lord;' it was not written by bad men because they would not write about
doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be
written by divine inspiration" (McDowell 1990:178).
How does God inspire the writers? Does He
simply move the writers by challenging their heart to reach new heights, much
like we find in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer and Dickens, all of
which are human literary masterpieces? Or does that which He inspire contain
the words of God-along with myths, mistakes and legends, thus creating a book
in which portions of the Word of God can be found, along with those of finite
and fallible men? Or are the scriptures the infallible Word of God in their
entirety? In other words, how, Muslims will ask, is this inspiration carried
out? Does God use mechanical dictation, similar to that which we find claimed
for the Qur'an, or does He use the writers own minds and experiences?
The simple answer is that God's control was
always with them in their writings, such that the Bible is nothing more than "The
Word of God in the words of men" (McDowell 1990:176). This means that
God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that
God controls in His sovereign providence. Thus history must be treated as
history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor,
generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences
between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed:
Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were
conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must
not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When
total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no
error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being
absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its
claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated
by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal
descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of
Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not
right to set the so-called 'phenomena' of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture
about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them,
where this can be convincingly achieved (as we have attempted in this paper),
will encourage our faith. However, where for the present no convincing solution
is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His
Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that
one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
This is not a blind hope. For instance, a
century ago there were about 100 parts of the body whose function were
mysterious to doctors, and people would say "This is proof of evolution as
these are left over parts which we don't need anymore". However, because
of on-going and diligent research we are now left with only one organ in the
body which appears to be redundant. In time, perhaps we will find a use for
that organ as well. This principle can also be
seen with the Bible. So many 'discrepancies'
have also been cleared up due to greater research and understanding. Had
Shabbir been around a century or even 25 years ago his list could easily have
been 1001 contradictions. As new data is uncovered, we are continually finding
answers to many of the historical mysteries. Therefore we have every reason to
believe that, in God's time, the rest will be solved as well.
We are fully aware that the Christian
criteria for revelation is not acceptable to Muslims, as it is in seeming
conflict with their own. Yet, by simply measuring the Bible against the nazil
or Tanzil ('sent down') concept which they claim for their Qur'an,
Muslims condemn themselves of duplicity, since they demand of the New Testament
that which they do not demand of the previous revelations, the Taurat
and Zabuur, though both are revered as equally inspired revelations by
all Muslims. Muslims believe that Moses wrote the Taurat and David the Zabuur.
However, neither claimed to have received their revelations by a means of a nazil
('sent down') transmission. So why insist on such for the New Testament, especially
since the document makes no such claim itself?
The underlying reason perhaps lies in the
belief by Muslims that the Qur'an, because it is the only revelation which came
"unfettered" by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest
statement of Allah's word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations,
even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the
limitations of their human authors.
Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the
claim for a nazil revelation for the Qur'an comes from one source alone,
the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. Yet there are no
external witnesses both before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad's
testimony. Not even miracles are provided to substantiate his claims, nor are
there any known documents of such a Qur'an from the century in which it is
claimed to have been revealed (see the paper on the historicity
of the Qur'an versus the Bible.)
Even if we were to disregard the historical
problems for early Qur'ans, a further problem concerns the numerous Muslim
traditions which speak of the many differing copies of Qur'anic codices which
were prevalent during the collating of the Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an in
the mid-seventh century, and that the conflicting copies were all destroyed, so
that we cannot know today whether the Qur'an in our possession was even similar
to that which was first revealed.
What Muslims must understand is that Christians
have always maintained that the Word of God, the Bible, was indeed written by
men, but that these men were always under the direct inspiration of the Holy
Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Whereas the Qur'an is alleged to be free of
any human element, God in the Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word
through individuals who were inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word
would not only be conveyed to humanity correctly, and comprehensively but would
be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well.
This the Qur'an cannot do if it has no human element, as is generally alleged.
There are other problems with the contention
maintained by Muslims that the Bible is full of contradictions. For instance,
what then will Muslims do with the authority which their own Qur'an gives
towards the Bible?
The Qur'an gives authority to the Bible:
The Qur'an, itself, the highest authority for
all Muslims, gives authority to the Bible, assuming its authenticity at least
up to the seventh-ninth Centuries. Consider the following Suras:
Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no
difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur'an,
saying, "...the revelation given to us...and Jesus...we make no
difference between one and another of them." Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3
continues, "Allah...He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of
Jesus)...as a guide to mankind." Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther
by admonishing the Muslims to, "...Believe...and the scripture which He
sent before him." In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call
to Christians to believe in their scriptures: "...We sent Jesus, the
son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the
Gospel... Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed
therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they
are (no better than) those who rebel..." Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we
find a similar call: "People of the Book!...Stand fast by the law, the
Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the
revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD."
To embolden this idea of the New and Old
Testament's authority we find in Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer
with these scriptures if in doubt about their own, saying: "If thou
wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have
been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from
thy Lord." And as if to emphasize this point the advice is repeated in
Sura 21:7, stating, "...the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We
granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the
message."
Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are
asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians,
saying, "And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We
believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to
you."
If there is anything in these Suras which is
clear, it is that the Qur'an emphatically endorses the Torah and the
Gospel as authentic and authoritative revelations from God. This coincides with
what Christians believe, as well.
In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the
Qur'an that the former scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were
contradictory. If the Qur'an was indeed the final and complete revelation, if
it was the seal of all former revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the
author of the Qur'an would have included a warning against that which had been
corrupted in the earlier scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that
the Bible was contradictory, or indeed that it was corrupted.
There are some Muslims, however, who contend
that according to sura 2:140 the Jews and Christians had corrupted their
scriptures. This aya says (referring to the Jews), "...who is more
unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah...?"
Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews and Christians corrupted their
scriptures. It merely mentions that certain Jews have concealed "the
testimony they have from Allah." In other words the testimony is still
there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras admonish Muslims to respect
the former scriptures), though the adherents of that testimony have chosen to
conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing endorsement to the credibility of
those former scriptures, as it assumes a testimony from Allah does exist
amongst the Jewish community.
God does not change His Word
Furthermore, both the Christian scriptures
and the Muslim Qur'an hold to the premise that God does not change His word. He
does not change His revelation (despite the law of abrogation found in the
Qur'an). Sura Yunus 10:64 says, "No change can there be in the words of
Allah." This is repeated in Sura Al An'am 6:34: "There is none
that can alter the words of Allah," found also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29.
In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of
references which speak of the unchangeableness of God's word; such as,
Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation
22:18-20.
If this is the recurring theme in both the
Bible and the Qur'an, it is hardly likely that we would find a scripture with
such a multiplicity of contradictions which Muslims claim are found in the
Bible.
What then should we do with the
contradictions which the Muslims claim are there?
Contradictions analyzed:
When we look at the contradictions which
Muslims point out we find that many of these errors are not errors at all but
either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then copyist mistakes.
The former can easily be explained, while the latter need a little more
attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written
between the 17th and the 5th century BC on the only
parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather
quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old
Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was
copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and
on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.
Today many older manuscripts have been found
which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an
enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate
the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament
manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or
fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 9,300 other
early translations. In all we now have more than 24,000 manuscript copies or
portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much
more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where
there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted
as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any
defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).
Christians readily admit, however, that there
have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is
beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in
copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure
that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the
Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those
originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer
exist.
The individuals responsible for the copying
(scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well
known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One
concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names),
and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of
errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed
the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the
content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222)
What is important to remember, however, is
that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to
us alter any doctrine of the Bible. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit
has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the
text.
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant
transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic
text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential
that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips
that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The
verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to
be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with
the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in
declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact
that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be
perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph.
Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at
least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent
translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of
God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in
Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's
constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy
Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader
"wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim.
3:15)"
With that in mind let's now take a look at
the examples forwarded by Shabbir Ally in his pamphlet to better ascertain
whether or not the scriptures can stand the test of authority espoused above?
While answering the below challenges it has
proven obvious to the four of us that Shabbir made a number of errors in his
reasoning which could easily have been rectified had he simply looked at the
context. This may offer us an idea as to why Muslims in general seem so fond of
looking for, and apparently finding "contradictions" in the Bible -
most of which are very easily explained by appealing to the context. When we
look at the Qur'an we are struck with the reverse situation, for the Qur'an has
very little context as such to refer to. There is little narration, and
passages interject other passages with themes which have no connection. A
similar theme is picked up and repeated in another Sura, though with variations
and even at times contradictory material (i.e. the differing stories of Abraham
and the idols found in Suras 21:51-59 and 6:74-83; 19:41-49). It stands to
reason, then, that Muslims fail to look in their Holy Book for other passages
to derive a context. Is it no wonder that they decline to do the same with the
Bible.
On the second page of his booklet "101
Clear Contradictions in the Bible", Shabbir Ally states "Permission
Granted! Please copy this booklet and spread the truth."
We, the authors of this paper, have been
delighted to fulfil this request of Mr. Ally. Although we have not directly
copied all his words, we have reproduced his alleged contradictions in this
booklet and replied to them. Therefore, through these rebuttals we are doing
what Shabbir has asked, spreading the truth! Showing the firm foundation of the
Bible, which is the truth.
Please weigh the words of Mr. Ally against
the rebuttals found herein.
You will note that a number of the questions
contain more then one answer. This is done to show that there are different
ways to understand a seeming problem in the Biblical text.
1. Does God
incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan
(1 Chronicles 21:1)?
(Category: misunderstood how God works in
history)
This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of
course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and
David was looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the
Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and
dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his
achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in
terms of the mercies of God.
The Lord therefore decided that it was time
that David be brought to his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto
the mercy of God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out
just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would
accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's warning
against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering
was completed, God intended to chasten the nation with a disastrous plague
which would bring about an enormous loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000
Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).
What about Satan? Why would he get himself
involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already
prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were
entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1
Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.
Yet this is nothing new, for there are a
number of other occurrences in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were
involved in soul-searching testings and trials:
a. In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a
challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities.
God's purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by
means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was purely
malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his
faith in his God.
b. Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings
of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose is to
strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ
in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come
(1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8),
or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.
c. Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations
during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him
to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his
fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic
mission.
d. In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the
court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of
both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon,
Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that
your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your
brothers."
e. And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet
another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his
purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John
13:27), causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the
crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man
could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of
Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.
Thus we have five other examples where both
the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different
motives. Satan's motive in all these examples, including the census by David
was driven by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an
entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual
victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested.
In every case Satan's success was limited and transient; while in the end God's
purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially.
(Archer 1982:186-188)
2. 2 Samuel
24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1 Chronicles
21:5 says it was 1,100,000.
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context or misunderstood the author's intent)
There are a number of ways to understand not
only this problem but the next challenge as well, since they both refer to the
same passages and to the same census.
It is possible that the differences between
the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the
census (which will be discussed later), or that the book of Samuel presents
rounded numbers, particularly for Judah.
The more likely answer, however, is that one
census includes categories of men that the other excludes. It is quite
conceivable that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure included all the available men of
fighting age, whether battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account
is speaking only of those who were ready for battle. Joab's report in 2 Samuel
24 uses the word 'is hayil, which is translated as "mighty
men", or battle-seasoned troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000
veterans. It is reasonable that there were an additional 300,000 men of
military age kept in the reserves, but not yet involved in field combat. The
two groups would therefore make up the 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21
account which does not employ the Hebrew term 'is hayil to describe
them.
(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II
1992:189-190)
3. 2 Samuel
24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000
more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21:5.
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states
that Joab did not complete the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of
the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of Levi's either, due to the fact that David
came under conviction about completing the census at all. Thus the different
numbers indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in
the nation. We find another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it
states that David did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that
since Joab did not finish the census the number was not recorded in King
David's Chronicle.
The procedure for conducting the census had
been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to
the northern most tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7).
The numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin
would not be included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either.
In the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known
figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000
included the Benjamite contingent.
Observe that after the division of the United
Kingdom into the North and the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC,
most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted
(along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable
to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total figure of 500,000,
even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David
(1 Chronicles 21:5). Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces
available to David for military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel,
470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and 30,000 of Benjamin).
(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II
1992:189)
4. 2 Samuel
24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles
21:12 mentions only three.
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent, and misunderstood the wording)
There are two ways to look at this. The first
is to assume that the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period
in which the famine was to be most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel
includes the two years prior to and after this period, during which the famine
worsened and lessened respectively.
Another solution can be noticed by observing
the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will
note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that
found in a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is "shell seven
years of famine come to you?" In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative
imperative, "take for yourself either three years of famine..." From
this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the
prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years;
whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan
to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David's earnest
entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to
three years rather than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however,
David opted for God's third preference, and thereby received three days of
severe pestilence, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel.
(Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II
1992:190)
5. Was
Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over
Jerusalem?
(Category: copyist error)
Because we are dealing with accounts which
were written thousands of years ago, we would not expect to have the originals
in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated long ago. We are
therefore dependent on the copies taken from copies of those originals, which
were in turn continually copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did
the copying were prone to making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the
spelling of proper names, and the other had to do with numbers.
The two examples of numerical discrepancy
here have to do with a decade in the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been
22 in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42.
Fortunately there is enough additional information in the Biblical text to show
that the correct number is 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that
Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight
years later, at the age of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the
time of his father's death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish
or Christian beliefs in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture
often corrects the mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also
remember that the scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously
honest in handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them,
without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed.
(Refer to the next question for a more
in-depth presentation on how scribes could misconstrue numbers within
manuscripts)
(Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II
1992:201)
6. Was
Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24:8) or 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when
he became king of Jerusalem?
(Category: copyist error)
Once again there is enough information in the
context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age
of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are
certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They
maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him
co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a
kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon
his father's death.
A more likely scenario, however, is that this
is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may
be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing
numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish
settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more
detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used
for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the
numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we
have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we
can refer.
As with many of these numerical
discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to
observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th
century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah,
from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical
notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at
its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one
above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything
less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII
with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly
twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be
/I followed by two sets of horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of
my computer; it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).
If, then, the primary manuscript from which a
copy was being carried out was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal
notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the
copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in
his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been
smudged.
In the New International Version (NIV)
of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for
clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS
include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one
Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the
numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates
the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.
Confirmation of this type of copyist error is
found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock
inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the
slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the
Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records
the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription
discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.
Similarly in number 31 of the same
inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the
rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic
copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count.
(Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230;
Nehls pg.17-18; Light of Life II 1992:204-205)
7. Did king Jehoiachin
rule over Jerusalem for three months (2 Kings 24:8), or for three months and
ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)?
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent)
Here again, as we found in challenge number 2
and 4, the author of the Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering,
whereas the author of Kings is simply rounding off the number of months,
assuming that the additional ten days is not significant enough to mention.
8. Did the
chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and killed 800 men (2 Samuel
23:8) or only 300 men (1 Chronicles 11:11)?
(Category:misunderstood the historical
context or misunderstood the author's intent)
It is quite possible that both authors may
have described two different incidents, though by the same man, or one author
may have only mentioned in part what the other author mentions in full.
(Light of Life II 1992:187)
9. Did David
bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines (2
Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)?
(Category: didn't read the entire text)
This is not really a problem. Shabbir Ally
should have continued reading on further to 1 Chronicles 15, as he would then
have seen that David brought the Ark after defeating the Philistines. The
reason for this is that the Israelites moved the Ark of the covenant twice. The
first time, they moved it from Baal, prior to the defeat of the Philistines, as
we see in 2 Samuel 5 and 6 and in 1 Chronicles 15. Once the prophet Samuel
narrates David's victory over the Philistines, he tells us about both times
when the Ark was moved. However in 1 Chronicles, the order is as follows: the
Ark was first moved from baal; then David defeated the Philistines; and
finally, the Ark was moved from the House of Obed-Edom.
Therefore the two accounts are not
contradictory at all. What we have here is simply one prophet choosing to give
us the complete history of the Ark at once (rather than referring to it later)
and another presenting the history in a different way. In both cases the timing
of events is the same.
The same could be said of the Qur'an. In Sura
2 we are introduced to the fall of Adam, then God's mercy is shown to the
Israelites, followed by Pharaoh's drowning, followed by Moses and the Golden
calf, followed by the Israelites complaint about food and water, and then we
are introduced to the account of the golden calf again. Following this, we read
about Moses and Jesus, then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then
about Solomon and Abraham. If one wants to talk about chronology, what does
Moses have to do with Jesus, or Solomon with Abraham? Chronologically the sura
should have begun with Adam's fall, then moved to Cain and Abel, Enoch,
Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, the sons of Israel and Moses, in
that order. If such a blatant chronological mix-up can be found in this sura of
the Qur'an, then Shabbir would do well to explain it before criticizing what
they deem to be an error in the Bible.
(Light of Life II 1992:176)
10. Was Noah
supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living creatures (Genesis 6:19-20), or was he
to bring 7 pairs of 'clean' animals (Genesis 7:2; see also Genesis 7:8,9)?
(Category: misquoted the text)
This indeed is an odd question to raise. It
is obvious that Shabbir Ally has misquoted the text in the 6th
chapter of Genesis, which makes no mention of any 'clean' animals in its
figure, while the 7th chapter specifically delineates between the
clean and unclean animals. Genesis 7:2 says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs of
'clean' animals and 2 pairs of every kind of 'unclean' animal. Why did Shabbir
not mention the second half of this verse which stipulates 2 pairs in his
challenge? It is obvious that there is no discrepancy between the two accounts.
The problem is the question itself.
Shabbir attempts to back his argument by
mentioning that verses 8 and 9 of chapter 7 prove that only two pairs went into
the ark. However, these verses say nothing about two pairs entering the ark.
They simply say that it was pairs of clean and unclean animals or birds and
creatures which entered the ark.
The reason for including seven of the clean
species is perfectly evident: they were to be used for sacrificial worship
after the flood had receded (as indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20).
Obviously if there had not been more than two of each of these clean species,
they would have been rendered extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar.
But in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair would suffice,
since they would not be needed for blood sacrifice.
(Archer 1982:81-82)
11. Did David
capture 1,700 of King Zobah's horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1
Chronicles 18:4)?
(Category: copyist error)
There are two possible solutions to these
differing figures. The first by Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most
convincing solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb)
was inadvertently omitted by the scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the
second figure, 7,000 (for the parasim "cavalrymen"), was
necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his Vorlage for the
simple reason that no one would write 7,000 after he had written 1,000 in the
recording the one and the same figure. The omission of rekeb might have
occurred with an earlier scribe, and a reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have
then continued with the successive copies by later scribes. But in all probability
the Chronicles figure is right and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to
agree with that.
A second solution starts from the premise
that the number had been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each
consisting of 10 horse men, making a total of 7,000.
(Archer 1982:184: Keil & Delitzsch
1949:360; Light of Life II 1992:182)
12. Did
Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26), or 4,000 stalls (2
Chronicles 9:25)?
(Category: copyist error, or misunderstood
the historical context)
There are a number of ways to answer these
puzzling differences. The most plausible is analogous to what we found earlier
in challenge numbers five and six above, where the decadal number has been
rubbed out or distorted due to constant use.
Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2
Chronicles were large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten
stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000
small ones.
Another commentator maintains that the number
of stalls recorded in 1 Kings was the number at the beginning of Solomon's
reign, whereas the number recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at
the end of his reign. We know that Solomon reigned for 40 years; no doubt, many
changes occurred during this period. It is quite likely that he reduced the
size of the military machine his father David had left him.
(Light of Life II 1992:191)
13. According
to the author, did Baasha, the king of Israel die in the 26th year
of king Asa's reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was he still alive in the 36th
year ( 2 Chronicles 16:1)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context, or copyist error)
There are two possible solutions to this
problem. To begin with, scholars who have looked at these passages have
concluded that the 36th year of Asa should be calculated from the withdrawal of
the 10 tribes from Judah and Benjamin which brought about the division of the
country into Judah and Israel. If we look at it from this perspective, the 36th
year of the divided monarchy would be in the 16th year of Asa. This is
supported by the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as contemporary
records, which follow this convention. (note: for a fuller explanation of this
theory, see Archer, page 225-116).
Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367) preferred to
regard the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in 15:19 as a
copyist's error for 16 and 15, respectively. This problem is similar to
question numbers five and six above. In this case, however, the numbers were
written using Hebrew alphabetical type (rather than the Egyptian multiple
stroke type used in the Elephantine Papyri, referred to in questions 5 and 6).
It is therefore quite possible that the number 16 could quite easily be
confused with 36. The reason for this is that up through the seventh century BC
the letter yod (10) greatly resembled the letter lamed (30),
except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical strokes.
It required only a smudge from excessive wear on this scroll-column to result
in making the yod look like a lamed. It is possible that this
error occurred first in the earlier passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35
wrongly copied from an original 15); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the
same scribe (or perhaps a later one) concluded that 16 must be an error for 36
and changed it accordingly on his copy.
(Archer 1982:226: Keil & Delitzsch
1949:366-367; Light of Life II 1992:194)
14. Did
Solomon appoint 3,600 overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) for the work of building the
temple, or was it only 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16)?
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent)
This is not too great a problem. The most
likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who
were selected as reservists to take the place of any supervisors who would
become ill or who had died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage
includes only the supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300,
sickness and death certainly did occur, requiring reserves who would be called
up as the need arose.
(Light of Life II 1992:192)
15. Did
Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000
baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)?
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent, or copyist error)
The Hebrew verb rendered
"contained" and "held" is different from that translated
"received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained
2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000
baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make
the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that
3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually
held 2,000 gallons.
Another solution follows a theme mentioned
earlier, that the number in Hebrew lettering for 2000 has been confounded by
the scribe with a similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000.
It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate
on 25th February 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted
this "contradiction" and added to it saying that if the bath had a
diameter of 10 cubits it cannot possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits
as the text says (since 'pi' dictates that it would have a circumference of
31.416 or a 9.549 diameter).
Shabbir made the humorous comment "Find
me a bath like that and I will get baptized in it!" But Shabbir did not
read the text properly or was just going for a cheap, displaced laugh. Why? Because
the text says that it was about 8cm thick and had a rim shaped like a lily.
Therefore it depends on where you measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or
the inside or outside for the vessel would all give a different diameter; and
depending on whether you measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower
point, you would get a different circumference.
In other words, Shabbir may well be getting
baptized if someone can be bothered to make a replica!
(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)
16-21. Are
the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity correct in Ezra (Ezra
2:6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 28) or in Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7:11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 32)?
(note: because numbers 16-21 deal with the
same census, I have included them as one)
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of
Nehemiah there are about thirty-three family units that appear in both lists of
Israelites returning from Babylon to Judea. Of these 33 family units listed in
Ezra and Nehemiah, nineteen of the family units are identical, while fourteen
show discrepancies in the number of members within the family units (though
Shabbir only lists six of them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one
differs by 4, two by 6, two differ by 9, another differs by 11, another two by
100, another by 201, another differs by 105, a further family differs by 300,
and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, a difference of
1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.
How, then, are we to account for the 14
discrepancies? The answer is quite simple, and Shabbir, had he done any study
into the history of these two accounts would never have bothered to waste his
time in asking these questions. The fact that there are both similarities and
discrepancies side-by-side should have pointed him to the solution as well (as
you who are reading this are probably even now concluding).
There are two important factors to bear in
mind when looking at these discrepancies between the two lists. The first is
the probability that though members of the units or families had enrolled their
names at first as intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some
possibly died, others were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable
obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was not the same as those
who had intended to go. Anyone who has planned a school-coach trip to the beach
can understand how typical a scenario this really is.
A second and more important factor are the
different circumstances in which the two registers were taken, an important
fact of which Shabbir seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra's register was made up
while still in Babylon (in the 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra
2:1-2), whereas Nehemiah's register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC),
after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so
many years between the two lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a
difference in the numbers of each family through death or by other causes.
Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded
those people who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of
Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand,
uses the earlier list of those who originally announced their intention to join
the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.
The discrepancies between these two lists
point to the fact that there were new factors which arose to change their
minds. Some may have fallen into disagreement, others may have discovered
business reasons to delay their departure until later, whereas in some cases
there were certainly some illnesses or death, and in other cases there may have
been some last-minute recruits from those who first decided to remain in
Babylon. Only clans or city-group's came in with a shrunken numbers. All the
rest picked up last-minute recruits varying from one to 1,100.
When we look at the names we find that
certain names are mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as
well as those living in the East), a person had a name, title, and surname.
Thus, the children of Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra
2:18), while the children of Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha
(Ezra 2:44).
When we take all these factors into
consideration, the differences in totals that do appear in these two tallies
should occasion no surprise whatsoever. The same sort of arbitration and
attrition has featured every large migration in human history.
(Archer 1982:229-230 and Light of Life II
1992:219-220)
22. Both Ezra
2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the totals for the whole assembly was 42,360,
yet when the totals are added, Ezra - 29,818 and Nehemiah - 31,089?
(Category: copyist error)
There are possibly two answers to this
seeming dilemma. The first is that this is most likely a copyist's error. The
original texts must have had the correct totals, but somewhere along the line
of transmission, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed the
total in the other so that they would match, without first totaling up the
numbers for the families in each list. There is the suggestion that a later
scribe upon copying out these lists purposely put down the totals for the whole
assembly who were in Jerusalem at his time, which because it was later would
have been larger.
The other possibility is forwarded by the
learned Old Testament scholar R.K. Harrison, who suggests that at any rate the
figure of 42,000 may be metaphorical, following "...the pattern of the
Exodus and similar traditions, where the large numbers were employed as symbols
of the magnitude of God, and in this particular instance indicating the
triumphant deliverance that God achieved for His captive people"
(Harrison 1970:1142-1143).
Such errors do not change the historicity of
the account, since in such cases another portion of Scripture usually corrects
the mistake (the added totals in this instance). As the well-known commentator,
Matthew Henry once wrote, "Few books are not printed without mistakes;
yet, authors do not disown them on account of this, nor are the errors by the
press imputed to the author. The candid reader amends them by the context or by
comparing them with some other part of the work."
(Light of Life II 1992:201, 219)
23. Did 200
singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Nehemiah 7:67) accompany the assembly?
(Category: copyist error)
As in question number 7, this is a copyist
error, where a scribe copying the numbers in the Ezra account simply rounded
off the figure of 245 to 200.
24. Was King
Abijah's mother's name Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles
13:2) or Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20 & 2 Samuel
13:27)?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This apparent contradiction rests on the
understanding of the Hebrew word bat, equivalent to the English daughter.
Although usually used to denote a first generation female descendant, it can equally
refer to more distant kinship. An example of this is 2 Samuel 1:24, which
states: 'O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul...' As this is approximately 900
years after Israel (also called Jacob) actually lived, it is clear that this
refers to the Israelite women, his distant female descendants.
When seen in this light, the 'contradiction'
vanishes. 2 Chronicles 13:2 correctly states that Michaiah is a daughter of
Uriel. We can assume that Uriel married Tamar, Absalom's only immediate
daughter. Together they had Michaiah who then married king Rehoboam and became
the mother of Abijah. 2 Chronicles 11:20 and 1 Kings 15:2, in stating that
Maachah was a daughter of Absalom, simply link her back to her more famous
grandfather, instead of her lesser known father, to indicate her royal lineage.
Abishalom is a variant of Absalom and Michaiah is a variant of Maachah.
Therefore, the family tree looks like this:
Absalom/Abishalom
|
Tamar-----Uriel
|
Rehoboam-----Maachah/Michaiah
|
Abijah
25. Joshua
and the Israelites did (Joshua 10:23,40) or did not (Joshua 15:63) capture
Jerusalem?
(Category: misread the text)
The short answer is, not in this campaign.
The verses given are in complete harmony and the confusion arises solely from
misreading the passage concerned.
In Joshua 10, it is the king of
Jerusalem that is killed: his city is not captured (verses 16-18 and 22-26).
The five Amorite kings and their armies left their cities and went to attack
Gibeon. Joshua and the Israelites routed them and the five kings fled to the
cave at Makkedah, from which Joshua's soldiers brought them to Joshua, who killed
them all. Concerning their armies, verse 20 states: 'the few who were left
reached their fortified cities', which clearly indicates that the cities were
not captured. So it was the kings, not their cities, who were captured.
Joshua 10:28-42 records the rest of this
particular military campaign. It states that several cities were captured and
destroyed, these being: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron and Debir. All
of these cities are south-west of Jerusalem. The king of Gezer and his army
were defeated in the field whilst helping Lachish (v.33) and in verse 30
comparison is made to the earlier capture of Jericho, but neither of these last
two cities were captured at this time. Verses 40 & 41 delineate the limits
of this campaign, all of which took place to the south and west of Jerusalem.
Importantly, Gibeon, the eastern limit of this campaign, is still approximately
10 miles to the north-west of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is, therefore, not stated as
captured in Joshua 10. This agrees completely with Joshua 15:63, which states
that Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites in Jerusalem.
26. Was Jacob
(Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The answer to this is simple but requires
some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of
Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli
the father of Mary.
This is shown by the two narrations of the
virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective,
while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.
A logical question to ask is why Joseph is
mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict
Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is
designated by her husband's name.
This reasoning is clearly supported by two
lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's
genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite
article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English
translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize
that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.
The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem
Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary,
referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).
(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)
27. Did Jesus
descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are
sons of David?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This is directly linked to 'contradiction'
26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives that of
Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary
through Nathan.
28. Was
Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
Once again, this problem disappears when it
is understood that two different genealogies are given from David to Jesus,
those of both Mary and Joseph (see #26). Two different genealogies mean two
different men named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not
surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers!
29. Which son
of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa
(Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles 3:19-20)?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
As with #28, two different Shealtiels
necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is no problem that their sons had
different names.
It should not surprise us that there was a
Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary's and Joseph's ancestry. Matthew tells
us that Joseph's father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another
Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt
(Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that these two men are one and the
same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of
Shealtiel.
The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles
3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are
several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it was a common name. The same
may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned
in Matthew 1:12,13. A comparison of Matthew and 1 Chronicles gives the
following possible family tree:
Jehoiachin
|
Shealtiel----Malkiram----Pedaiah----Shenazzar----Jekamiah----Hoshama----Nedabiah----...
| |
Zerubbabel Zerubbabel----Shimei----...
| |
Abiud 7 sons
| (1 Ch. 3:19,20)
|
Joseph
30. Was Joram
(Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This answer is of a similar nature to that in
#24. Just as the Hebrew bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more
distant descendant, so can the Hebrew ben (son). Jesus is referred to in
Matthew 1:1 as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace
Jesus' ancestry through both these men, illustrating the usage of 'son'.
Although no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew's gospel are extant today, it is
clear that he was a Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore
completely at home with the Hebrew concept of son ship.
With this in mind, it can easily be shown
that Amaziah was the immediate father of Uzziah (also called Azariah).
Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah's great-great-grandfather and a
direct ascendant. The line goes Joram/Jehoram - Ahaziah - Joash - Amaziah -
Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 21:4-26:1).
Matthew's telescoping of Joseph's genealogy
is quite acceptable, as his purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He
comments in 1:17 that there were three sets of fourteen generations. This
reveals his fondness for numbers and links in directly with the designation of
Jesus as the son of David. In the Hebrew language, each letter is given a
value. The total value of the name David is fourteen and this is probably the
reason why Matthew only records fourteen generations in each section, to
underline Jesus' position as the son of David.
31. Was
Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This question is essentially the same as #30.
Jehoiakim was Jeconiah's father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite
acceptable and results from Matthew's aesthetic telescoping of the genealogy,
not from any error.
32. Were
there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from
the Babylonian exile until Christ?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
As Matthew clearly states (1:17), there were
fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen
and in the third, fourteen. Perhaps the simplest way of resolving the problem
is to suggest that in the first and third sections, the first and last person
is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. In any case, as Matthew
has clearly telescoped his genealogy with good reason, a mistake on his part is
by no means shown conclusively. If by some chance another name or two has been
lost from the list in the originals, by scribal error, we cannot know. Whatever
the real situation, a simple explanation can be afforded, as above.
33. Who was
the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
Although a conclusive answer is not possible,
plausible explanations can be found. The most probable answer to this is that
the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis telescopes the generations as
does Matthew in his list. When we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the
name of Cainan included as the father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke.
Luke, writing in Greek, would have used the Septuagint as his authority.
On that same note, if we refer to the
Septuagint, when we look at Genesis 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135
years old, rather than 35 (which would allow more time for him to be Shelah's
grandfather).
34. John the
Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
Matthew records Jesus saying that John the
Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the
Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of
contextualization by readers.
The priests and Levites came to John the
Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone,
unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi
that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time.
Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite
logical.
John was about 30 years when he was asked
this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah
from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into
heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously "No, I am not
Elijah."
Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to
John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than
all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was
greater than them both.
So what did Jesus mean when he says of John
"he is the Elijah who was to come"? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in
Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying
"he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn
the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom
of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke
1:17)
The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah
40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and
Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the
prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will
turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the
children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John
is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.
So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests
and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as
'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.
Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the
prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this
"Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples
understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist".
Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal
Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to
(and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who
takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.
35. Jesus
would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah
36:30) inherit David's throne?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This answer follows on directly from that to
#26. Having shown that Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious
from Jeremiah 36:30 that none of Joseph's physical descendants were qualified
to sit on David's throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as
Matthew makes clear, Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph.
After having listed Joseph's genealogy with the problem of his descendance from
Jeconiah, Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he proves how
Jesus avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David's throne.
Luke, on the other hand, shows that Jesus' true physical descendance was from
David apart from Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of
his father David. The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the
picture: 'the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David'. This divine
appointment, together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful
heir to David's throne.
(Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)
36. Jesus
rode into Jerusalem on one colt (Mark 11:7; cf. Luke 19:35), or a colt and an
ass (Matthew 21:7)?
(Category: misread the text &
misunderstood the historical context)
The accusation is that the Gospels contradict
about how many donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based
on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about
this event.
It first should be noted that all four Gospel
writers refer to this event, the missing reference above being John 12:14-15.
Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic
shows that there is no "contradiction" as Jesus cannot ride on two
animals at once! So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.
Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we
can see from the text that Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the
colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir,
we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and
Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says:
"Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See,
your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a
donkey'."
Matthew 21:5
By saying "a donkey" and then
"on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Zechariah is using classic Hebrew
sentence structure and poetic language known as "parallelism", simply
repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. This is
very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, "Your word is a
lamp to my feet and a light to my path," yet says the same thing twice
in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to.
Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on a colt, in agreement with the
other three Gospel writers.
So why does Matthew say that the colt and its
mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who
was an eyewitness (where as Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes
the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the
colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on
its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother
donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her,
even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to
follow a roadway.
Here again we see that there is no
contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part
of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.
This is just one of many of the prophecies
that Jesus fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as
ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth
(Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm
16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two.
Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there
is reference to the prophecy which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6
concerning Muhammad. However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while
Jesus is predicted time and time again.
37. Simon
Peter finds out that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matthew
16:17), or by His brother Andrew (John 1:41)?
(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)
The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon
did not just hear it from someone else: God had made it clear to him. That does
not preclude him being told by other people. Jesus' point is that he was not
simply repeating what someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Jesus
and he was now clear in his mind that Jesus was none other than the Christ
(Messiah), the Son of the Living God.
Jesus did not ask, "Who have you heard
that I am?" but, "Who do you say I am?" There is all the
difference in the world between these two questions, and Peter was no longer in
any doubt.
38. Jesus
first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22), or on
the banks of the river Jordan (John 1:42-43)?
(Category: misread the text)
The accusation is that one Gospel records
Jesus meeting Simon Peter and Andrew by the sea of Galilee, while the other
says he met them by the river Jordan. However this accusation falls flat on its
face as the different writers pick up the story in different places. Both are
true.
John 1:35 onwards says Jesus met them by the
river Jordan and that they spent time with him there. Andrew (and probably
Peter too) were disciples of John the Baptist. They left this area and went to
Galilee, in which region was the village of Cana where Jesus then performed his
first recorded miracle. "After this he went down to Capernaum with his
mothers and brothers and disciples. There they stayed for a few days."
John 2:12.
Peter and Andrew were originally from a town
named Bethsaida (John 2:44) but now lived in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark
1:30-31, Luke 4:38-39), a few miles from Bethsaida. They were fishermen by
trade, so it was perfectly normal for them to fish when they were home during
these few days (for at this time Jesus was only just beginning public teaching
or healing).
This is where Matthew picks up the story. As
Peter and Andrew fish in the Lake of Galilee, Jesus calls them to follow him -
to leave all they have behind and become his permanent disciples. Before this
took place, he had not asked them, but they had followed him because of John
the Baptist's testimony of him (John 1:35-39). Now, because of this testimony,
plus the miracle in Cana, as well as the things Jesus said (John 1:47-51), as
well as the time spent with the wisest and only perfect man who ever lived
etc., it is perfectly understandable for them to leave everything and follow
him. It would not be understandable for them to just drop their known lives and
follow a stranger who appeared and asked them to, like children after the pied
piper! Jesus did not enchant anyone - they followed as they realized who he was
- the one all the prophets spoke of, the Messiah the son of God.
39. When
Jesus met Jairus, his daughter 'had just died' (Matthew 9:18), or was 'at the
point of death' (Mark 5:23)?
(Category: too literalistic an
interpretation)
When Jairus left his home, his daughter was
very sick, and at the point of death, or he wouldn't have gone to look for
Jesus. When he met Jesus he certainly was not sure whether his daughter had
already succumbed. Therefore, he could have uttered both statements; Matthew
mentioning her death, while Mark speaking about her sickness. However, it must
be underlined that this is not a detail of any importance to the story, or to
us. The crucial points are clear:
o
Jairus's daughter
had a fatal illness.
o
All that could
have been done would already have been: she was as good as dead if not already
dead.
o
Jairus knew that
Jesus could both heal her and bring her back from the dead. As far as he was
concerned, there was no difference.
Therefore it is really of no significance
whether the girl was actually dead or at the point of death when Jairus reached
Jesus.'
40. Jesus
allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3) his disciples to
keep a staff on their journey?
(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)
It is alleged that the Gospel writers
contradict each other concerning whether Jesus allowed his disciples to take a
staff on their journey or not. The problem is one of translation.
In Matthew we read the English translation of
the Greek word "ktesthe", which is rendered in the King James
(Authorized) translation as "Provide neither gold, nor silver nor yet
staves". According to a Greek dictionary this word means "to get
for oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise" (Robinson, Lexicon
of the New Testament). Therefore in Matthew Jesus is saying "Do not
procure anything in addition to what you already have. Just go as you
are."
Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Jesus
directed his disciples to take along no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in
part with the wording of Mark 6:8, using the verb in Greek, ("take");
but then, like Matthew adds "no staff, no bag, no bread, no money".
But Matthew 10:10 includes what was apparently a further clarification: they
were not to acquire a staff as part of their special equipment for the
tour. Mark 6:8 seems to indicate that this did not necessarily involve
discarding any staff they already had as they traveled the country with Jesus.
However, this is not a definitive answer,
only a possible explanation. This trivial difference does not effect the
substantial agreement of the Gospels. We would not be troubled if this were, or
is, a contradiction, for we do not have the same view of these Gospels as a
Muslim is taught about the Qur'an. And if this is the pinnacle of Biblical
contradictions when the Bible is said to be "full of contradictions"
and "totally corrupted", then such people are obviously deluded. If
indeed Christian scribes and translators had wished to alter the original
Gospels, this "contradiction" would not have been here. It is a sign
of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what took place, and is a
clear sign that it has not been deliberately corrupted.
41. Herod did
(Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke 9:9) think that Jesus was John the
Baptist?
(Category: misread the text)
There is no contradiction here. In Luke 9:9,
Herod asks who this incredible person could be, as John was now dead. In
Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 he gives his answer: after considering who Jesus
could be, he concluded that he must be John the Baptist, raised from the dead.
By the time Herod actually met Jesus, at his trial, he may not have still
thought that it was John (Luke 23:8-11). If that were the case, he had most
probably heard more about him and understood John's claims about preparing for
one who was to come (John 1:15-34). He may well have heard that Jesus had been
baptised by John, obviously ruling out the possibility that they were the same
person.
42. John the
Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before
his baptism?
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent)
John's statement in John 1:33 that he would
not have known Jesus except for seeing the Holy Spirit alight on him and
remain, can be understood to mean that John would not have known for sure
without this definite sign. John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before
his birth (Luke 1:15) and we have record of an amazing recognition of Jesus
even while John was in his mother's womb. Luke 1:41-44 relates that when Mary
visited John's mother, the sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in
the womb, to leap in recognition of Mary's presence, as the mother of the Lord.
From this passage we can also see that John's
mother had some knowledge about who Jesus would be. It is very likely that she
told John something of this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she
died while he was young).
In the light of this prior knowledge and the
witness of the Holy Spirit within John, it is most likely that this sign of the
Holy Spirit resting on Jesus was simply a sure confirmation of what he already
thought. God removed any doubt so that he could be sure that it was not his
imagination or someone else's mistake.
43. John the
Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his
baptism?
(Category: misread the text)
In the passage of John 1:29-36 it is
abundantly clear that John recognised Jesus. We should have no doubt at all
about this.
Matthew 11:2 takes place later on, and many
things have happened in the interum. John's original knowledge of Jesus was
limited and it seems that subsequent events had disillusioned him somewhat. He
did not know exactly what form Jesus' ministry would take. We are told from
Matthew 3:11,12 some of what John knew: "He will baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear
his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff
with unquenchable fire." This is the classic portrayal of the Messiah
as the conquering king who would bring God's judgement on all those who reject
him, bringing peace and justice to those who follow him. John obviously
understood this.
However, the Messiah was also portrayed in
the scriptures as a suffering servant who would suffer on behalf of God's
people. This is shown clearly in Isaiah 53, especially verse 12: "For
he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors".
John also understood this, as shown by his statement in John 1:29: "Look,
the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
What was sometimes not so well understood was
how the two portrayals of the Messiah interacted. Many thought that the Messiah
would bring his terrible judgement as soon as he came. In fact, this will occur
when he returns again (his return is alluded to in Acts 1:11, for example).
Some were confused, therefore, by Jesus' reluctance to act as a military leader
and release the nation of Israel from Roman oppression at that time.
This confusion is illustrated by Luke
24:13-33, where Jesus spoke with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus
after his resurrection. They were initially kept from recognising him (v.16).
They told him how they "had hoped that he was the one who was going to
redeem Israel" (v.21). They were correct in this hope, but failed to
understand the first stage in God's redemptive process. Jesus corrected their
misunderstanding in v. 25,26: "How foolish you are, and how slow of
heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to
suffer these things and then enter his glory?" (emphasis added)
It is most likely that a similar
misunderstanding prompted John's question in Matthew 11:2. Despite having been
so sure of Jesus' identity as the Messiah of Israel, further events had clouded
his certainty. After expecting Jesus to oust the Romans and restore the kingdom
of Israel as in the days of king David, instead he had seen Jesus 'teach and
preach in the towns of Galilee' (Matthew 11:1), with no mention of a military
campaign. John surely wondered what had gone wrong: had he misunderstood the Messiah's
role, or perhaps he had made a bigger mistake in thinking Jesus was the
Messiah. Jesus' answer in Matthew 11:4-6 makes it clear:
"Go back and report to John what you
hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy
are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to
the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
These activities were Messianic
prerogatives, as foretold by Isaiah 29:18; 35:5,6; 61:1-3. Although John's disillusionment
was a natural human reaction, he had been right the first time. Jesus ended his
reply with an exhortation to John not to give up hope. The Messiah was here
without a doubt and all would be revealed in its proper time.
44. When
Jesus bears witness to himself, is his testimony not true (John 5:31) or is his
testimony true (John 8:14)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
"If I testify about myself, my
testimony is not valid" (John 5:31) compared with "Even if I
testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid" (John 8:14). It
appears to be a contradiction, but only if the context is ignored.
In John 5 Jesus is speaking about how he
cannot claim on his own to be the Messiah nor the Son of God, unless he
is in line with God's revealed word. That is, without fulfilling the prophecies
spoken in the Old Testament. But as Jesus did fulfil them and was proclaimed to
be the Messiah by John the Baptist who the prophets also spoke of as heralding
the way for the Messiah (see #34), then Jesus was indeed who he claimed to be,
the Son of God. Jesus says of the Jewish scriptures which his listeners studied
diligently, "These are the Scriptures that testify about me".
We read of a somewhat different setting
however in John 8. Jesus has just once again claimed to be the Messiah by
quoting Old Testament Messianic prophecies and applying them to himself (John
8:12, Isaiah 9:2, Malachi 4:2). "Then some Pharisees challenged him,
'Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not
valid'." Verse 13.
It is to this statement that Jesus responds
"Yes it is". Why? Because the Pharisees were using a law from
Deuteronomy 19:15 which says "One witness is not enough to convict a
man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be
established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness
takes the stand."
Therefore they broadened the law to mean more
that it does actually say. Indeed, the testimony of one man was valid - however
not enough to convict, but enough when used in defense to bring an acquittal.
This law is not speaking about anyone making a claim about himself, only in a
court when accused of a crime.
So when Jesus says in reply to them "Even
if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid" he is right to
do so as what the law referred to did not directly apply. He also says that he
knew exactly who he was, whereas they did not. He was not lying to them; he was
the sinless Messiah of God. Therefore his word could be trusted.
However, it is a good principle not to
believe just anyone who claims to be the Messiah. Any claimant must have proof.
Therefore the second thing Jesus goes on to state in John 8 is that he has
these witnesses too, the witnesses that the Pharisees were asking for. "I
am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father who sent
me." Verse 18. The same proclamation as in John 5 that he was
fulfilling the prophecies that they knew (see just before this incident in John
7:42 for further proof of this point).
There is no contradiction, simply clarity and
great depth which can be seen when Jesus' is viewed in context, in his fertile
Jewish culture and setting.
45. When
Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew 21:12) or did not cleanse (Mark
11:1-17) the temple that same day, but the next day?
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent)
The key to understanding may be found in
Matthew's use of narrative. At times he can be seen to arrange his material in
topical order rather than strict chronological sequence. See the next question
(#46) for more details.
With this in mind, it is probable that Matthew
relates the cleansing of the temple along with the triumphal entry, even though
the cleansing occurred the next day. Verse 12 states that 'Jesus entered the
temple' but does not say clearly that it was immediately following the entry
into Jerusalem.. Verse 17 informs us that he left Jerusalem and went to
Bethany, where he spent the night. Mark 11:11 also has him going out to Bethany
for the night, but this is something that he did each night of that week in
Jerusalem.
Matthew 21:23 states: "Jesus entered
the temple courts" in a similar fashion to verse 12, yet Luke 20:1
says that the following incident occurred "one day",
indicating that it may not have been immediately after the fig tree incident.
According to this possible interpretation,
Jesus entered the temple on the day of his triumphal entry, looked around and
retired to Bethany. The next morning he cursed the fig tree on the way to
Jerusalem (at which time it started to wither) and cleansed the temple when he
got there. Returning to Bethany that evening, probably as it was getting dark,
the withered fig tree may not have been noticed by the disciples. It was only
the following morning in the full light of day that they saw what had happened
to it.
(Archer 1994:334.335)
46. Matthew
21:19 says that the tree which Jesus cursed withered at once, whereas Mark
11:20 maintains that it withered overnight.
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent)
The differences found between the accounts of
Matthew and Mark concerning the fig tree have much to do with the order both
Matthew and Mark used in arranging their material. When we study the narrative
technique of Matthew in general, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he
sometimes arranges his material in a topical order rather than in the strictly
chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke.
For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of
Matthew which deal with the sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that
portions of the sermon on the Mount teachings are found some times in other
settings, such as in the sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew's
tendency was to group his material in themes according to a logical sequence.
We find another example of this exhibited in a series of parables of the
kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached,
Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.
When we see it from this perspective it is to
Mark that we look to when trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In
Mark's account we find that Jesus went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and
the following Monday. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Jesus did
not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the
barren fig tree (verses 12 to 14).
To conclude then, Matthew felt it suited his
topical approach more effectively to include the Monday afternoon action with
the Sunday afternoon initial observation, whereas Mark preferred to follow a
strict chronological sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but
show merely a different style in arrangement by each author.
(Archer 1982:334-335 and Light of Life III
1992:96-97)
47. In
Matthew 26:48-50 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, whereas in John 18:3-12 Judas
could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him.
(Category: misquoted the text)
This is rather an odd seeming discrepancy by
Shabbir, for nowhere in the John account does it say (as Shabbir forthrightly
maintains) that Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. Not
being able to get close to him had nothing, therefore, to do with whether he
kissed him or not. It seems that Shabbir imagines this to be the problem and so
imposes it onto the text. The fact that John does not mention a kiss does not
mean Judas did not use a kiss. Many times we have seen where one of the gospel
writers includes a piece of information which another leaves out. That does not
imply that either one is wrong, only that, as witnesses, they view an event by
different means, and so include into their testimony only that which they deem
to be important.
(Light of Life III 1992:107)
48. Did Peter
deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times
before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30, 72)?
(Category: discovery of earlier
manuscripts)
This accusation is that Jesus says to Peter "the
cock will not crow till you have denied me three times" (John 13:38)
and also "Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three
times" (Mark 14:30). However, as the King James translation has it the
cock crowed prior to Peter's third denial in Mark, while the prediction in John
failed. This problem is one of manuscript evidence.
Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 "before the
cock crows you will disown me three times"
Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 "before the cock
crows today, you will deny three times that you know me"
John 13:38 "before the cock crows,
you will disown me three times"
Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is
probably due to the second crow being a later addition to the original Gospel
for some unknown reason. Some early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words
"a second time" and "twice" in 14:72, nor the word
"twice" in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time in verse 14:68 as
in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous addition is spotted by
the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many early manuscripts of the
Gospel of Mark.
However, another explanation is plausible if
the first crow verse (68 in the King James) was not in the original but the others
("twice" in 30 and 72) were, as in the New International translation.
For as a cock can (and often does) crow more than once in a row, there would be
no contradiction (the first and second crows being together, with Peter
remembering Jesus' prediction on the second crow), for since we may be very
sure that if a rooster crows twice, he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore
just included more information in his account than the other gospel writers.
Although I am not an expert on the
manuscripts used for the King James translation and do not know a great deal
about why later, more accurate translators had enough manuscript evidence to
omit verse 68 but not the others, I think that the first reason is more likely.
49. Jesus did
(John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31-32) bear his own cross?
(Category: misread the text or the texts
are compatible with a little thought)
John 19:17 states that he went out carrying
his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31,32 tells us that he was
led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha
that Simon was forced to carry the cross.
Mark 15:20,21 agrees with Matthew and gives
us the additional information that Jesus started out from inside the palace
(Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he
was passing by in the street. This implies that Jesus carried his cross for
some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and
torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or
was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the
cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as
they led Jesus away.
Thus the contradiction vanishes. Jesus
started out carrying the cross and Simon took over at some point during the
journey.
50. Did Jesus
die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), or after (Luke 23:45-46) the
curtain of the temple was torn?
(Category: misread the text)
After reading the three passages Matthew
27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46, it is not clear where the apparent
contradictions are that Shabbir has pointed out. All three passages point to
the fact that at the time of Jesus' death the curtain in the temple was torn.
It does not stand to reason that because both Matthew and Mark mention the
event of Christ's death before mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke
mentions it in reverse order, that they are therefore in contradiction, as
Matthew states that the two events happened, 'At that moment', and the other two
passages nowhere deny this.
They all agree that these two events happened
simultaneously for a very good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier
between God and man. Its destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah,
thereby allowing man the opportunity for the first time since Adam's expulsion
from God's presence at the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him.
51. Did Jesus
say everything openly (John 18:20) or did he speak secretly to his disciples
(Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:10-11)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
The reason people say that Jesus contradicts
himself about saying things secretly or not, especially in relation to parables,
is due to a lack of textual and cultural contextualising.
This answer requires significant background
information, some of which I hope to give briefly here.
Firstly, what is a parable? It is a story
given in order to clarify, emphasize or illustrate a teaching, not a teaching
within itself. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. In Rabbinical literature there are
approximately 4000 parables recorded. It was thought by Rabbis to be good
practice to divide their instruction of the people into three parts, the latter
third typically being two parables representative to the first two thirds.
Jesus carries on in this tradition with just over one third of his recorded
instruction being in the form of parables. He drew upon a wealth of images that
the Israelis of his day knew, using common motifs such as plants, animals etc.
Therefore the point of each of Jesus' parables was clear to all the listeners,
which can be seen from the Gospels too. Parables were so rich and also so
subtle that not only could they drive home a clear and simple point to the
ordinary listener, but the scholars could turn them over and over in their
mind, deriving greater and greater meaning from them. So, Jesus often expanded
on the meaning of a parable to his disciples, his close students, in response
to their inquiry or to instruct them further as any Jewish Rabbi would.
This can be seen from reading Mark 4:34 in
context. For it says, "With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word
to them [the crowds], as much as they could understand. He did not say
anything to them without using a parable [to clarify, emphasize or
illustrate the teaching]. But when he was alone with his own disciples he
explained everything [taught them more, for they could understand more than
the crowds]." Mark 4:33-34.
Therefore parables were not secret teachings.
They are not esoteric knowledge given only to the initiated. It makes no sense
(nor has any historical basis) to say that Jesus went around confusing people.
He went around in order to teach and instruct people. So when Jesus was asked
while on trial in court (John 18:20) about his teaching, he says something to
the words of "I taught publicly - everyone heard my words. You know I
taught. I did not teach in secret." He was right.
As all this is true, what are these
"secrets of the kingdom of heaven" which Jesus speaks of? The only
'secret' ("the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and
made known through the prophetic writing by the command of the eternal God, so
that the nations might believe and obey him" (Romans 16:25-26) is that
Jesus is Lord!
This secret was that Jesus' mission was
foretold by the prophets, that he was the fulfillment of these prophecies and
the greatest revelation that would ever be given to mankind. His words were not
only for the saving of people, but also for the judging of people because they
were "ever hearing but never understanding, ever seeing but never
perceiving" (Matthew 13:14) as many of the hearers of the parables
were unwilling to repent and submit to God.
Many people enjoyed Jesus' teaching, came for
the nice moral discourses and the excellent parables, but not many followed him
as the cost was too great (see Luke 9:57-61, 14:25-27, 33). But it was these
things his disciples were beginning to understand because they truly followed
Jesus. The secrets of the kingdom of heaven is what he said to his disciples
following (and explaining) Matthew 13:10-11:
"But blessed are your eyes because
they see, and your ears because they hear [unlike the crowds]. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and
righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what
you hear but did not hear it" [as they did not live during the
lifetime of Jesus - all the prophets were before him].
The secret is Jesus is Lord, Jesus is king,
Jesus is Messiah, Jesus is the one all the prophets spoke of, the salvation of
mankind, God's greatest revelation, the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6-8,
22:12-16), the only way to be right with God (John 3:36, Romans 6:23).
52. Was Jesus
on the cross (Mark 15:23) or in Pilate's court (John 19:14) at the sixth hour
on the day of the crucifixion?
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
The simple answer to this is that the
synoptic writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) employed a different system of
numbering the hours of day to that used by John. The synoptics use the
traditional Hebrew system, where the hours were numbered from sunrise (approximately
6:00am in modern reckoning), making the crucifixion about 9:00am, the third
hour by this system..
John, on the other hand, uses the Roman civil
day. This reckoned the day from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the
Elder (Natural History 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3)
both tell us as much. Thus, by the Roman system employed by John, Jesus' trial
by night was in its end stages by the sixth hour (6:00am), which was the first
hour of the Hebrew reckoning used in the synoptics. Between this point and the
crucifixion, Jesus underwent a brutal flogging and was repeatedly mocked and
beaten by the soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion
itself occurred at the third hour in the Hebrew reckoning, which is the ninth
in the Roman, or 9:00am by our modern thinking.
This is not just a neat twist to escape a
problem, as there is every reason to suppose that John used the Roman system,
even though he was just as Jewish as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John's gospel was
written after the other three, around AD90, while he was living in Ephesus.
This was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, so John would have become
used to reckoning the day according to the Roman usage. Further evidence of him
doing so is found in John 21:19: 'On the evening of that first day of the
week'. This was Sunday evening, which in Hebrew thinking was actually part
of the second day, each day beginning at sunset.
(Archer 1994:363-364)
53. The two
thieves crucified with Jesus either did (Mark 15:32) or did not (Luke 23:43)
mock Jesus?
(Category: too literalistic an
interpretation)
This apparent contradiction asks did both
thieves crucified with Jesus mock him or just one. Mark 15:23 says both did.
Luke 23:43 says one mocked and one defended Jesus. It isn't too difficult to
see what it going on here. The obvious conclusion is that both thieves mocked
Jesus initially. However after Jesus had said, "Father, forgive them, for
they do not know what they are doing," one of the robbers seems to have
had a change of heart and repented on the cross, while the other continued in
his mocking.
There is a lesson here which shouldn't be
overlooked; that the Lord allows us at any time to repent, no matter what crime
or sin we have committed. These two thieves are symptomatic of all of us. Some
of us when faced with the reality of Christ continue to reject him and mock
him, while others accept our sinfulness and ask for forgiveness. The good news
is that like the thief on the cross, we can be exonerated from that sin at any
time, even while 'looking at death in the face'.
54. Did Jesus
ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days
later (John 20:17)?
(Category: misunderstood how God works in
history)
The idea that Jesus contradicts himself (or
the Gospels contradict themselves) concerning whether he had ascended to Paradise
or not after his death on the cross is due to assumptions about Paradise as
well as the need to contextualize.
Jesus says to the thief on the cross
"Today you will be with me in Paradise". This was indeed true. For
the thief was to die that same day on earth; but in paradise "today"
is any day in this world, as Heaven is outside of time.
Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, according to
the rendering of the King James translation, that he had not yet
"ascended" to his Father. However, this could also be rendered
"returned" to his Father.
Jesus was with God, and was God, before the
beginning of the world (John 1 and Philippians 2:6-11). He left all his glory
and became fully God, fully man. Later, God did exalt Jesus to the highest
place once more, to the right hand of Himself (see Acts 7:56). This had not yet
taken place in John 20:17. Jesus saying "for I have not yet returned to
the Father" does not rule out the possibility that he was in heaven
between his death and resurrection in "our time" (although Heaven is
outside of time). By way of parallel (albeit an imperfect one), I do go to my
original home and the area where I grew up without returning there. Returning
as in myself being restored to what was.
However, a more likely understanding of the
text has to do with the context. Another way to say, "Do not hold on to
me, for I have not ascended to my Father. Go instead to my brothers...",
would be, "Do not hang on to me Mary - I have not left you all yet. You
will see me again. But now, I want you to go and tell my disciples that I am
going to my Father soon, but not yet".
Both Islam and Christianity believe in the
resurrection of the body, and both believe in the intermediate state. In Luke,
Jesus dies, and his spirit ascended to Paradise (see vs. 46). In John, Jesus
has been bodily resurrected, and in that state, he had not yet ascended to the
Father.
The time factor makes this somewhat
paradoxical but the texts are not mutually exclusive. There is no
contradiction.
55. When Paul
was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who
were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)?
(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage
or the text is compatible with a little thought)
Although the same Greek word is used in both
accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to
understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did
not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and
understood. There is no contradiction.
(Haley p.359)
56. When Paul
saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts
26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground?
(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage
or the text is compatible with a little thought)
There are two possible explanations of this
point. The word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the
spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or
lying down.
An alternative explanation is this: Acts
26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light
flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men 'stood
speechless' after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to
stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no
significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice
and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long
he had been persecuting and killing those who were following God. He had in
effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This
terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his
companions.
(Haley p.359)
57. Did the
voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he
commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can
be seen from Acts 9 and 22. However in Acts 26 the context is different. In
this chapter Paul doesn't worry about the chronological or geographical order
of events because he is talking to people who have already heard his story.
In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts,
narrates the conversion of Saul.
In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking
to Jews, who knew who Paul was and had actually caused him to be arrested and
kept in the Roman Army barracks in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the
steps of the barracks and starts off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before
launching into a detailed account of his meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ and
his conversion.
In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the
speech given by Paul, (who was imprisoned for at least two years after his
arrest in Jerusalem and his speech in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman
Governor Festus and King Herod Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with
the case. (Read the preceding Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full
blown explanation of Paul's case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul
gives them. This is further highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish
credentials in one part of a sentence, "I lived as a Pharisee," as
opposed to two sentences in Acts 22:3. Paul also later in the Chapter is aware
that King Agrippa is aware of the things that have happened in verses 25-27.
58. Did
24,000 Israelites die in the plague in 'Shittim' (Numbers 25:1, 9), or was it
only 23,000 Israelites who died (1 Corinthians 10:8)?
(Category: confused this incident with
another)
This apparent contradiction asks how many
people died from the plague that occurred in Shittim (which incidentally is
misspelt 'Shittin' in Shabbir's pamphlet). Numbers 25:1-9 and 1 Corinthians
10:8 are contrasted. Shabbir is referring to the wrong plague here.
If he had looked at the context of 1
Corinthians 10, he would have noted that Paul was referring to the plague in
Exodus 32:28, which takes place at Mt. Sinai and not to that found in Numbers
25, which takes place in Shittim, amongst the Moabites. If there is any doubt
refer to verse 7 of 1 Corinthians 10, which quotes almost exactly from Exodus
32:6, "Afterwards they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in
revelry."
Now there are those who may say that the
number killed in the Exodus 32 account were 3,000 (Exodus 32:28) another
seeming contradiction, but one which is easily rectified once you read the rest
of the text. The 3,000 killed in verse 28 account for only those killed by men
with swords. This is followed by a plague which the Lord brings against those
who had sinned against him in verse 35, which says, "And the Lord struck
the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had
made." It is to this plague which Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 10:8.
(Geisler/Howe 1992:458-459)
59. Did 70
members of the house of Jacob come to Egypt (Genesis 46:27), or was it 75
members (Acts 7:14)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical
context)
This apparent contradiction asks how many
members of the house of Jacob went to Egypt. The two passages contrasted are
Genesis 46:27 and Acts 7:14. However both passages are correct. In the Genesis
46:1-27 the total number of direct descendants that traveled to Egypt with
Jacob were 66 in number according to verse 26. This is because Judah was sent
on ahead in verse 28 of Chapter 46 and because Joseph and his two sons were
already in Egypt. However in verse 27 all the members of the family are
included, including Joseph and his sons and Judah making a total number of 70,
referring to the total number of Jacob's family that ended up in Egypt not just
those that traveled with him to Egypt.
In the older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll
manuscripts the number given in verse 27 is 75. This is because they also
include Joseph's three grandsons and two great grandsons listed in Numbers
26:28-37, and in at least the Septuagint version their names are listed in
Genesis 46:20. Therefore the Acts 7:14 quotation of Stephen's speech before his
martyrdom is correct because he was quoting from the Septuagint.
60. Did Judas
buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his blood-money for betraying Jesus, or did he
throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?
(Category: misunderstood the author's
intent)
This apparent contradiction asks, 'What
did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?' In Acts
1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown
into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon
closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas
betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the
Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which
many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and
32:6-9.
In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something
that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter,
among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57
earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says,
"Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than
probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the
believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to
go into detail about the facts of Judas' death.
61. Did Judas die by hanging himself
(Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels
gushing out (Acts 1:18)?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel
speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas
falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements
are true.
Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order
to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to
cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about
and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to
tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff,
above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and
Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.
62. Is the field called the 'field of blood'
because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of
Judas's bloody death (Acts 1:19)?
(Category: misunderstood the wording)
Once again, looking at the same two passages as the last two apparent
contradictions Shabbir asks why the field where Judas was buried called the
Field of Blood? Matthew 27:8 says that it is because it was bought with
blood-money, while, according to Shabbir Acts 1:19 says that it was because of
the bloody death of Judas.
However both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money.
Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, "With the reward he got for his wickedness,
Judas bought a field". So it begins with the assumption that the field was
bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for
what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate.
63. How can the ransom which Christ gives
for all, which is good (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:5-6), be the same as the ransom
of the wicked (Proverbs 21:18)?
(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)
This contradiction asks, 'Who is a ransom for whom?' Shabbir uses passages from
Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6 to show that it is Jesus that is a ransom for
all. This is compared to Proverbs 21:18 which speaks of "The wicked become
a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright."
There is no contradiction here as they are talking about two different types of
ransom. A ransom is a payment by one party to another. It can be made by a good
person for others, as we see Christ does for the world, or it can be made by
evil people as payment for the evil they have done, as we see in the Proverbs
passage.
The assumption being made by Shabbir in the Mark and 1 Timothy passages is that
Jesus was good and could therefore not be a ransom for the unrighteous. In this
premise he reflects the Islamic denial that someone can pay for the sins of
another, or can be a ransom for another. He must not, however impose this
interpretation on the Bible. Christ as a ransom for the many is clearly taught
in the Bible. Galatians 3:13-14 and 1 Peter 2:23-25 speak of Jesus becoming a
curse for us. Therefore Jesus has fulfilled even this proverb.
Again Shabbir's supposition relies upon quotations being taken out of their
context. The Mark 10:45 passage starts off by quoting Jesus as saying,
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many." This was spoken by Jesus because the
disciples had been arguing over the fact that James and John had approached
Jesus about sitting at his right and left side when Christ came into his glory.
Here Jesus is again prophesying his death which is to come and the reason for
that death, that he would be the ransom payment that would atone for all
people's sin.
In 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Paul is here speaking, saying,
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men-the testimony given in its
proper time."
This comes in the middle of a passage instructing the Early Church on worshiping
God. These two verses give the reason and the meaning of worshiping God. The
redemptive ransom given by God, that through this mediator Jesus Christ's
atoning work on the Cross, God may once again have that saving relationship
with man.
The Proverbs 21:18 passage speaks however of the ransom that God paid through
Egypt in the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, as is highlighted in the book of
Isaiah, but particularly in Chapter 43:3;
"For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour; I give
Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead."
This picture is further heightened in verses 16 and 17 of the same Chapter.
This also has some foundation from the book of Exodus 7:5; 8:19; 10:7; 12:33.
Chapters 13 and 14 particularly point to this. As history records for us in the
Bible it was through this action that the Old Covenant was established between
God and the Kingdom of Israel.
64. Is all scripture profitable (2 Timothy
3:16) or not profitable (Hebrews 7:18)?
(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)
The accusation is that the Bible says all scripture is profitable as well as
stating that a former commandment is weak and useless, and therein lies the
contradiction. This is a contextual problem and arises through ignorance of
what God promised to do speaking through the Prophets, concerning the two
covenants which He instituted.
Due to space this wonderful issue cannot be looked at in depth here. However,
some background information will have to be given in order for a reader,
unfamiliar with the Bible, to understand what we are saying here. In order to
illustrate I will draw a parallel from question #92 which speaks of the wealth
behind many of the Hebrew words used in the Bible; in that particular case the
ability we have to interpret the word 'niham' as either changing one's mind,
repenting, or to be aggrieved (refer to the question for a further
understanding of the context).
God's word obviously originates from Him alone, and is indeed useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training as 2 Timothy states. That is a
general statement which refers to all that which comes from God.
Hebrews chapter 7 speaks of a particular commandment given to a particular
people at a specific time; the sacrificial system in the Tabernacle and later
the Temple in Jerusalem. God established in His covenant with His people Israel
a system where they would offer sacrifices, animals to be killed, in order for
God to forgive them of their sins; particularly what God calls in Leviticus
chapters 4 to 6, the "sin offering" and the "guilt
offering".
This concept of substitutional death is foreign to Islam, but is fundamental to
Biblical Judaism and Christianity. Atonement must take place for sin. The
penalty of sin is death, and someone has to pay that price. There is no
forgiveness for sin without the shedding of blood, for God demands justice. He
cannot just ignore it for that would not be just.
God indeed established this system of atonement as the Old Testament shows by
referring to the need for atonement 79 times! However, it also records God
saying "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be
like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand
and led them out of Egypt" [i.e. at Mount Sinai where He gave the first
covenant to the people of Israel just after God saved them from Egypt] (Jeremiah
31:31-33). The reason God gives is that the people did not remain faithful to
it. Thus the new covenant will be different as God says, "I will put my
laws in their minds and write them on their hearts" (vs. 33). He says also
that this new covenant will necessitate a once-for-all payment for their sins,
unlike the previous covenant (Jeremiah 31:34, Daniel 9:24-25).
God also speaks in the Old Testament of the Messiah who would bring this about.
A Messiah not from the Levitical priesthood, but a perfect man from the tribe
of Judah who would be a priest unto God. He, the Messiah would be the sacrifice
that would pay for all sin in one go, and approach God not on the merit of his
ancestry (as with the Levitical priests), but on his own merit, being like God,
perfect. If people follow this Messiah and accept his payment of the penalty
for sin for them, then God will write the law on their minds and hearts, and
God can be merciful to them as His justice has been satisfied. Then they too
can draw near to God, for God wants to be in relationship with His creation
(Genesis 3:8-11) and it is only sin which stops that.
Obviously this is quite involved and only a comprehensive reading of the Old
Testament will explain it adequately. All scripture is profitable, including
that concerning the sacrificial system. However, God also promised in the Bible
to make a renewed covenant with His people. In this the original system was
replaced with the perfect sacrifice of the Messiah, Jesus.
Many scriptures describe this Messiah who would bring about this new covenant.
In this God "makes his life a guilt offering" and we are told
"Surely he took up our infirmities [sins] and carried our sorrows, he was
pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace [with God] was upon him." See Isaiah
chapter 53.
You can pay the price for your sin if you wish - it will cost you your life
eternally. You will die for your own sin and go to hell. Or, because of the
love of God, the Messiah can pay that price for you, and be "pierced"
in substitution for you, which will bring you peace with God. Then God will
permit you to enter heaven for eternity as His justice is satisfied. For as
John the Baptist when seeing Jesus mentioned, "Look, the Lamb of God, who
takes away the sins of the word!" He also said, "Whoever believes in
the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see
life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 1:29, 3:36.
God teaches that He will do this. It was fulfilled in the death and
resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus, EXACTLY as the Old Testament said it would
happen, and the new covenant was established. Sin was paid for once for all by
the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the
Baptist announced upon seeing Jesus (see #34 and #44). He is the one God
promised. So through his death the old system of sacrifices, offering animals
over and over again, became unnecessary. God's alternative, which is vastly
superior and comprehensive, rendered by God himself the previous system useless
(Hebrews 8:7-13).
So, like clarification #92, God did not change His mind on His plan for
enabling people to be right with Him. God is not a man that He should change
His mind. It was His intention and plan all along to bring in this new covenant
as a fulfilment of the old, as the Old Testament shows. A further point needs
to be addressed a here. These ceremonial laws were required of the Israelites
alone, as they were the ones who operating within the stipulations, ordinances
and decrees of the Mosaic covenant. Any Gentile, or non-Israelite, who wished
to convert to Judaism, was obligated to observe these covenantal ordinances as
well. But Christians are not converts to Judaism. They are believers in Jesus,
God's Messiah, the Savior. They operate within the context of a "new
covenant," the one established in Jesus' blood by his atoning sacrifice,
not the old covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai. Within this new
covenant, Christians too have commandments, and in one manner or another they
all relate to what was written in the Old Testament, but now in an entirely new
context, that of fulfilment. So there is a clear line of continuity, revelation
and renewal between the covenants, new and old - because both Israel and Christianity
have the Messiah in common, and it was the Hebrew Scriptures that he fulfilled.
Therefore all those Scriptures are profitable for studying, to know where we
have come from, and where we are going. But not every commandment, ordinance or
decree in the Old Testament is applicable to Christians in the same way it was
(or is) to Israel. Though we have much in common, we have distinct covenants, a
new covenant, which present Jews need to read about and acquiesce to, as it
fulfills all that they look for and continue to hope for.
Note: a parallel to this, although an imperfect one, can be draw for the Muslim
from the Qur'an. Sura 3:49-50. Jesus comes and says to the people of Israel
"I have come to you to affirm the Law which was before me. And to make
lawful to you what was before forbidden to you", or "to make halal
what was haram". According to this he came and confirmed the law which God
had given to them, but he made some things permissible for them which God had
previously prohibited. This is not true according to the Bible in the context
of this "contradiction" and cannot be said for Judaism and
Christianity. It is just a parallel to show that the Qur'an testifies of such
things too.
65. Was the exact wording on the cross, as (
Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19) all seem to have
different wordings?
(Category: misread the text)
This seeming contradiction takes on the question, 'What was the exact wording
on the cross?' It is argued that Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and
John 19:19 all use different words posted above Jesus's head while hanging on
the cross. This can be better understood by looking at John 19:20 which says;
"Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified
was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek."
It is interesting that Pilate is said to have written the sign and may have
written different things in each of the languages according to Pilate's
proficiency in each of the languages. The key charge brought against Jesus in
all of the Gospels is that he claimed to be 'King of the Jews'. If this had
been missing from any of the accounts then there may have been a possible
concern for a contradiction here; but this is not the case. For a further
explanation of this see Archer's explanation.
(Archer 1982:345-346).
66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist
(Matthew 14:5), or was it his wife Herodias (Mark 6:20)?
(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)
The supposed contradiction pointed out by Shabbir is, 'Did Herod want to kill
John the Baptist?' The passages used by Shabbir to promote his conjecture are
Matthew 14:5 where it appears to say that Herod did and Mark 6:20 where Shabbir
suggests that Herod did not want to kill him. However the passages in question
are complimentary passages.
When we look at the whole story we see that Matthew 14:1-11 and Mark 6:14-29,
as far as I have been able to see nowhere contradict each other. This seems to
be a similarly weak attempt to find a contradiction within the Bible to that of
contradiction 50. In both passages Herod has John imprisoned because of his
wife Herodias. Therefore it is the underlying influence of Herodias on Herod
that is the important factor in John's beheading. Mark's account is more
detailed than Matthew's, whose Gospel is thought to have been written later,
because Matthew does not want to waste time trampling old ground when it is
already contained within Mark's Gospel. Notice also that Mark does not anywhere
state that Herod did not want to kill John, but does say that Herod was afraid
of him, because of John's righteousness and holiness, and, as Matthew adds, the
factor of John's influence over the people.
67. Was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the
list of twelve Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19) or Judas, son of James
(Luke 6:12-16)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical context)
Both can be correct. It was not unusual for people of this time to use more
than one name. Simon, or Cephas was also called Peter (Mark 3:16), and Saul was
also called Paul (Acts 13:9). In neither case is there a suggestion that either
was used exclusively before changing to the other. Their two names were
interchangeable.
68. Was the man Jesus saw sitting at the tax
collector's office whom he called to be his disciple named Matthew (Matthew
9:9) or Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical context)
The answer to this question is exactly the same as the previous one in that
both scriptures are correct. Matthew was also called Levi, as the scriptures
here attest.
It is somewhat amusing to hear Mr Ally drawing so much attention to this
legitimate custom. In the run-up to a debate in Birmingham, England in February
1998, he felt free to masquerade under an alternative name (Abdul Abu Saffiyah,
meaning 'Abdul, the father of Saffiyah', his daughter's name) in order to gain
an unfair advantage over Mr Smith, his opponent. By disguising his identity he
denied Mr Smith the preparation to which he was entitled. Now here he finds it
a contradictory when persons in the 1st century Palestine either use
one or the other of their names, a practice which is neither illegal nor
duplicitous.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons for using an alternative name. However,
in the light of Mr Ally's unfair and deceitful practice outlined above, there
is a ring of hypocrisy to these last two questions raised by him.
69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after
the Passover meal (Mark 14:12-17) or the daytime before the Passover meal (
John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical context)
Jesus was crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal. The reason why
Mark seems to say it was after is one of culture and contextualising.
The evidence from the Gospels that Jesus died on the eve of the Passover, when
the Passover meal would be eaten after sunset, is very solid. Before we delve
(albeit briefly) into this issue, it is worth noting that Mark 14 records that
Jesus does not eat the Passover with his disciples.
Luke 14:12 says it was "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", which is also
called "Passover". As the name suggest states, part of the Passover
meal was to eat bread without yeast. It is a commandment which Jewish people
keep even today for the meal, for God makes it extremely clear, "eat bread
without yeast And whoever eats bread with yeast in it must be cut off from the
community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must
eat unleavened bread ". See also Exodus 12:1-20.
The Greek word for "unleavened bread" is 'azymos'. This is the word
used by Mark in "the Feast of Unleavened Bread", chapter 14 verse 12.
The Greek word for normal bread (with yeast) is 'artos'. All the Gospel
writers, including Mark, agree that in this last meal with his disciples the
bread they ate was artos, in other words a bread with yeast. "While they
were eating, Jesus took bread [artos], gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to
his disciples, saying Take it; this is my body." Mark 14:22. It is highly
probably therefore that this meal was not a Passover meal. The use of the
different words in the same passage strongly suggests this. For it would be
unthinkable to them to eat something that God had commanded them not to eat
(bread with yeast - artos), and not to eat something that they were commanded
to eat (unleavened
bread - azymos).
Therefore, as this is true, what does Mark mean in verses 12-17? Firstly, we
read, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". Exodus
20:1-8 says that this must happen on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan.
However, there was dispute as to when this day was, due to the debate on
separate calendars which were used for calculating feast-days. It is possible
that separate traditions were in vogue in Jesus life. So, indeed it may have
been "customary" to sacrifice the lamb on that day for some, although
many, probably most, recognized the Passover as being the next evening.
Secondly, the disciples ask Jesus "Where do you want us to go and make
preparations for you to eat the Passover?" They had no idea that Jesus was
going to give his life for the sins of the world like the Passover lamb of
Exodus 20 did to save the Israelites from God's wrath upon Egypt. Jesus had
explained to them, but they did not grasp it for many reasons, including the
hailing of Jesus by the people as Messiah in the Triumphal Entry, which was
still 'ringing in their ears'. He does not state that he would eat it with
them. He wanted to, but he knew he would not. There is no room for any dogmatic
statement that the Passover must be eaten on the same day the room was hired or
prepared. Indeed, Jewish people, because of Exodus 12, thoroughly prepared
their houses for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Thirdly, in some ways the Gospels couch the last supper in terms of
fulfillment. i.e. Luke 22 records Jesus saying that he had longed to eat "this"
Passover meal with them. So, does Luke say it was the Passover meal? It is
doubtful, due to the same use of artos and azymos, amongst other reasons. Jesus
did make this last supper a sort of Passover meal (but not the real one). He
wanted to have this special fellowship with his disciples, his friends, being
painfully aware of the agony he would go through, only a few hours later. He
also wanted to show his disciples that the Passover spoke of him; that he was
the sacrifice that would bring in the New Covenant God promised (see questions
#64 and #34) just like the lambs that was killed 1500 years earlier to save the
people if Israel from God's wrath. He illustrated through the meal that he is
the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" as John the
Baptist called Jesus (John 1:29). He wanted to eat it with them for he says,
"I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of
God" (Luke 22:16). His coming death was its fulfillment, "For Christ,
our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7).
If this understanding is correct (one of two feasible explanations I opted for
due to my current research), then there is no contradiction. Jesus died before
the Passover meal.
70. Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark
14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the
crucifixion?
(Category: misread the text)
This apparent contradiction asks: 'Did Jesus pray to the Father to prevent the
crucifixion?' Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42 are supposed to imply
that he does. John 12:27, however, seems to say that he doesn't.
This is a rather weak attempt at a contradiction and again wholly relies upon
the ignorance of the reader for it's strength. Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, and
Luke 22:42 are parallel passages which take place in the Garden of Gethsemane
just before the arrest of Jesus. In all of these passages Jesus never asks for
the Crucifixion to be prevented but does express his fears of the difficulties,
pain and suffering that he is going to encounter over the next few hours, in
the form of his trials, beatings, whippings, loneliness and alienation from
people and God on the Cross, the ordeal of crucifixion itself and the upcoming
triumph over Satan. He does, however, more importantly ask for God's will to be
carried out over the next few hours knowing that this is the means by which he
will die and rise again, and by doing so atone for all the sins of the world.
John 12:27 is from a totally different situation, one which takes place before
the circumstances described above. It is said while Jesus is speaking to a
crowd of people during the Passover Festival at the Temple in Jerusalem (in
fact even before the gathering of the Twelve with Jesus at the Upper Room). On
this occasion Jesus again says something very similar to the other passages
above;
"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father save me from this
hour'? No it was for this very reason that I came to this hour. Father, glorify
your name!"
Again we are reminded that he is feeling troubled. He knows events are fast
unfolding around him. Yet, this statement is said in reply to some Greeks who
have just asked something of Jesus through his disciples. Were they there to
offer him a way out of his upcoming troubles? Perhaps, but Jesus does not go to
meet them and indeed replies to their request to meet him in this way. Is it
really conceivable that this man wants to prevent the crucifixion from taking
place! I think not!
71. Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew
26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42) or once (Luke 22:39-46) from his disciples to pray?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
Shabbir asks how many times Jesus left the disciples to pray alone at the
Garden of Gethsemane on the night of his arrest. Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark
14:32-42, show three but Luke 22:39-46 only speaks of one. However once again
there is no contradiction once you realize that the three passages are
complementary.
Note that the Luke passage nowhere states that Jesus did not leave the
disciples three times to go and pray. Because he does not mention all three
times does not imply that Jesus did not do so. Obviously Luke did not consider
that fact to be relevant to his account. We must remember that Luke's Gospel is
thought of as the third Gospel to have been put to paper chronologically,
therefore it would make sense for him not to regurgitate information found in
the other two gospels.
72. When Jesus went away to pray, were the
words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)?
(Category: imposes his own agenda)
This apparent contradiction comparing Matthew 26:36-46 with Mark 14:32-42, and
in particular verses 42 and 39 respectively, is not a contradiction at all.
Shabbir asks the question: 'What were the words of the second prayer?' at the
Garden of Gethsemane. It relies heavily once again upon the reader of Shabbir's
book being ignorant of the texts mentioned, and his wording of the supposed
contradiction as contrived and misleading.
Shabbir maintains that in the passage in Mark, "that the words were the
same as the first prayer (Mark 14:39)." Let's see what Mark does say of
the second prayer in 14:39;
"Once more he went away and prayed the same thing."
Nowhere in this verse does Mark say that Jesus prayed the same words as
the previous prayer, but what he does imply by the words used in the sentence
is that the gist of the prayer is the same as before, as the passage in Matthew
shows. When we compare the first two prayers in Matthew (vss. 39 and 42) we see
that they are essentially the same prayer, though not exactly the same wording.
Then in verse 44 Matthew says that Christ prayed yet again "saying the
same thing!" Yet according to Shabbir's thinking the two prayers were
different; so how could Jesus then be saying the same thing the third time?
It seems that Shabbir is simply imposing a Muslim formula of prayer on the
passages above which he simply cannot do. You would expect this to be the case
if this was a rigidly formulated prayer that had to be repeated daily, as we
find in Islam. But these prayers were prayers of the heart that were spoken by
Jesus because of the enormity of the situation before him. Ultimately that
situation was secondary to the gravity, power, and loving bond that Jesus had
with the Father.
73. Did the centurion say that Jesus was
innocent (Luke 23:47), or that he was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
The question being forwarded is what the centurion at the cross said when Jesus
died. The two passages quoted are Mark 15:39 and Luke 23:47. However as has
been said before with other apparent contradictions these passages are not
contradictory but complementary.
Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 agree that the centurion exclaimed that Jesus,
"was the Son of God!". Luke 23:47 however mentions that the centurion
refers to Jesus as, "a righteous man." Is it so hard to believe that
the centurion said both? Nowhere in any of the Gospel narratives do the writers
claim that was all that the centurion had to say. Therefore, let's not impose
on the writers what we would have the centurion say.
Matthew and Mark were more interested by the declaration of divinity used by
the centurion, whereas Luke is interested in the humanity of Jesus, one of the
main themes of his Gospel. Thus he refers to the corresponding statement made
by the centurion.
(Archer 1982:346-347).
74. Did Jesus say "My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?" in Hebrew (Matthew 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mark
15:34)?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The question of whether Jesus spoke Hebrew or Aramaic on the cross is
answerable. However, the reason for Matthew and Mark recording it differently
is probably due to the way the event was spoken of in Aramaic after it
happened, and due to the recipients of the Gospel. However, the whole issue is
not a valid criticism of the Bible.
Mark 15:34 is probably the most quoted Aramaism in the New Testament, being
"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani." However, it is doubtful that Jesus
spoke in the language that Mark records them in. The reason is simple; the
people hearing Jesus' words thought he was calling Elijah (Matthew 27:47 and
Mark 15:35-36). In order for the onlookers to have made this mistake, Jesus
would have to have cried "Eli, Eli," not "Eloi, Eloi." Why?
Because in Hebrew Eli can be either "My God" or the shortened form of
Eliyahu which is Hebrew for Elijah. However, in Aramaic Eloi can be only
"My God."
It is also worth noting that lama ("why") is the same word in both
languages, and sabak is a verb which is found not only in Aramaic, but also in
Mishnaic Hebrew.
Therefore Jesus probably spoke it in Hebrew. Why therefore is it recorded in
Aramaic as well? Jesus was part of a multilingual society. He most probably
spoke Greek (the common language of Greece and Rome), Aramaic (the common
language of the Ancient Near East) and Hebrew, the sacred tongue of Judaism,
which had been revived in the form of Mishnaic Hebrew in Second Temple times.
Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related Semitic languages. That Hebrew and
Aramaic terms show up in the Gospels is, therefore, not at all surprising.
That one Gospel writer records it in Hebrew and another in extremely similar
Aramaic is no problem to Christians, nor is it a criticism of the Bible. The
simple reason for the difference is probably that when one of them remembered
and discussed the happening of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, this phrase
may well have been repeated in their conversation as Aramaic, which would be
perfectly normal. So he wrote it down as such. Secondly, Mark may have written
it in Aramaic due to the fact that he was the original recipients of the
Gospel.
However, both these reasons are simply speculation. If Mark recorded his words
in Arabic, then we would worry!
(Bivin/Blizzard 1994:10)
75. Were the last words that Jesus spook
"Father into thy hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), or "It
is finished" (John 19:30)?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
'What were the last words of Jesus before he died?' is the question asked by
Shabbir in this supposed contradiction. This does not show a contradiction any
more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two
different scenarios of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither
witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different
perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those
who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is
that at the end Jesus gave himself up to death.
It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for
his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ (noted in the
earlier question), while John, as well as quoting the last words of Jesus, was
interested in the fulfilment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last
phrase "it is finished".
John 17:4 records Jesus' prayer to the Father in the light of Christ's forthcoming
crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18),
and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the
cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that
this Gospel should centre on tetelestai. At any rate, if Jesus said 'It is
finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit' or vice versa, it would be
quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, his last words.
Luke-Acts reaches its conclusion without any climax, because the continuing
ministry of the exalted Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Church has no
ending prior to the Parousia, and to record tetelestai might have undermined
this emphasis, or it could have been taken the wrong way. At any rate, no
contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.
76. Did the Capernaum centurion come
personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders
of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)?
(Category: the text is compatible with a little thought & misunderstood the
author's intent)
This is not a contradiction but rather a misunderstanding of sequence, as well
as a misunderstanding of what the authors intended. The centurion initially
delivered his message to Jesus via the elders of the Jews. It is also possible
that he came personally to Jesus after he had sent the elders to Jesus. Matthew
mentions the centurion because he was the one in need, while Luke mentions the
efforts of the Jewish elders because they were the ones who made the initial
contact.
We know of other instances where the deed which a person tells others to do is
in actuality done through him. A good example is the baptism done by the
disciple's of Jesus, yet it was said that Jesus baptized (John 4:1-2).
We can also understand why each author chose to relate it differently by
understanding the reason they wrote the event. Matthew's main reason for
relating this story is not the factual occurrence but to relate the fact of the
importance of all nations to Christ. This is why Matthew speaks of the
centurion rather than the messengers of the centurion. It is also the reason
why Matthew spends less time relating the actual story and more on the parable
of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew wants to show that Jesus relates to all
people.
Luke in his telling of the story does not even relate the parable that Jesus
told the people, but concentrates on telling the story in more detail, thereby
concentrating more on the humanity of Jesus by listening to the messengers, the
fact that he is impressed by the faith of the centurion and the reason why he
is so impressed; because the centurion does not even consider himself 'worthy'
to come before Jesus. Ultimately this leads to the compassion shown by Jesus in
healing the centurion's servant without actually going to the home of the
centurion.
77. Did Adam die the same day (Genesis 2:17)
or did he continue to live to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)?
(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)
The Scriptures describe death in three ways; 1) Physical death which ends our
life on earth, 2) spiritual death which is separation from God, and 3) eternal
death in hell. The death spoken of in Genesis 2:17 is the second death
mentioned in our list, that of complete separation from God, while the death
mentioned in Genesis 5:5 is the first death, a physical death which ends our
present life.
For obvious reasons Shabbir will see this as a contradiction because he does
not understand the significance of spiritual death which is a complete
separation from God, since he will not admit that Adam had any relationship with
God to begin with in the garden of Eden. The spiritual separation (and thus
spiritual death) is shown visibly in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam was thrown
out of the Garden of Eden and away from God's presence.
Ironically Adam being thrown out of the garden of Eden is also mentioned in the
Qur'an (Sura 2:36), though there is no reason for this to happen, if (as
Muslims believe) Adam had been forgiven for his sin. Here is an example of the
Qur'an borrowing a story from the earlier scriptures without understanding its
meaning or significance, and therein lies the assumption behind the supposed
contradiction.
(for a clearer understanding of the significance of spiritual death and how
that impinges on nearly every area of disagreement Christians have with Islam,
read the paper entitled "The Hermeneutical
Key" by Jay Smith.)
78. Did God decide that the lifespan of
humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:12-16)?
(Category: misread the text)
In Genesis 6:3 we read:
"Then the LORD said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he
is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'"
This is contrasted with ages of people who lived longer than 120 years in
Genesis 11:12-16. However this is based, I presume on a misreading or
misunderstanding of the text.
The hundred and twenty years spoken of by God in Genesis 6:3 cannot mean the
life span of human beings as you do find people older than that mentioned more
or less straight away a few Chapters on into the book of Genesis (including
Noah himself). The more likely meaning is that the Flood that God had warned
Noah about doesn't happen until 120 years after the initial warning to Noah.
This is brought out further in 1Peter 3:20 where we read,
"God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being
built."
Therefore looking at the context of the Genesis 6:3 passage it would agree with
what we find in chapter 11 of the same book.
(Geisler/Howe 1992:41)
79. Apart from Jesus there was no-one else
(John 3:13) or there were others (2 Kings 2:11) who ascended to heaven?
(Category: misunderstood the wording)
There were others who went to heaven without dying, such as Elijah and Enoch
(Genesis 5:24). In John 3:13 Jesus is setting forth his superior knowledge of
heavenly things. Essentially what he is saying, "no other human being can
speak from first hand knowledge about these things, as I can, since I came down
from heaven." he is claiming that no one has ascended to heaven to bring
down the message that he brought. In no way is he denying that anyone else is
in heaven, such as Elijah and Enoch. Rather, Jesus is simply claiming that no
one on earth has gone to heaven and returned with a message such as he offered
to them.
80. Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark
2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of
God and ate the consecrated bread?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical
context)
Jesus states that the event happened 'in the days of Abiathar the high priest'
and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at
that time; it was his father, Ahimelech.
If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, 'When king David was a
shepherd-boy...', it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at
that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is
what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover,
the event certainly did happen 'in the days of Abiathar', as he was alive and
present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly
escaped when his father's whole family and their town was destroyed by Saul's
men. Therefore, Jesus' statement is quite acceptable.
(Archer 1994:362)
81. Was Jesus' body wrapped in spices before
burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs (John 19:39-40), or did the
women come and administer the spices later (Mark 16:1)?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
John 19:39,40 clearly states that Joseph and Nicodemus wrapped the body in 75
pounds of myrrh and aloes, along with strips of linen. We also know from the
synoptic writers that the body was placed in a large shroud. There need be no
contradiction here. The fact that the synoptics do not mention the spices
during the burial does not mean that they were not used.
If Mark 16:1 is taken to mean that the women were hoping to do the whole burial
process themselves, they would need the strips of linen as well, which are not
mentioned. It is likely that they simply wished to perform their last act of
devotion to their master by adding extra spices to those used by Joseph.
As Jesus died around the ninth hour (Mark 15:34-37), there would have been time
(almost three hours) for Joseph and Nicodemus to perform the burial process
quickly before the Sabbath began. We need not suppose that there was only time
for them to wrap his body in a shroud and deposit it in the tomb.
82. Did the women buy the spices after (Mark
16:1) or before the Sabbath (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
Several details in the accounts of the resurrection suggest that there were in
fact two groups of women on their way to the tomb, planning to meet each other
there. See question 86 for more details of these two groups.
Now it becomes clear that Mary Magdalene and her group bought their spices
after the Sabbath, as recorded by Mark 16:1. On the other hand, Joanna and her
group bought their spices before the Sabbath, as recorded by Luke 23:56. It is
significant that Joanna is mentioned only by Luke, thereby strengthening the
proposition that it was her group mentioned by him in the resurrection account.
83. Did the women visit the tomb
"toward the dawn" (Matthew 28:1), or "When the sun had
risen" (Mark 16:2)?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
A brief look at the four passages concerned will clear up any misunderstanding.
o
Matthew 28:1:
'At dawn...went to look at the tomb'.
o
Mark 16:2
'Very early...just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb'.
o
Luke 24:1:
'Very early in the morning...went to the tomb'.
o
John 20:1:
'Early...while it was still dark...went to the tomb'.
Thus we see that the four accounts are
easily compatible in this respect. It is not even necessary for this point to
remember that there were two groups of women, as the harmony is quite simple.
From Luke we understand that it was very early when the women set off for the
tomb. From Matthew we see that the sun was just dawning, yet John makes it
clear that it had not yet done so fully: The darkness was on its way out but
had not yet gone. Mark's statement that the sun had risen comes later, when
they were on their way. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the sun had
time to rise during their journey across Jerusalem.
84. Did the women go to the tomb to anoint
Jesus' body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-24:1), or to see the tomb
(Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
This answer links in with number 81 above. We know that they went to the tomb
in order to put further spices on Jesus' body, as Luke and Mark tell us. The
fact that Matthew and John do not give a specific reason does not mean that
there was not one. They were going to put on spices, whether or not the gospel
authors all mention it. We would not expect every detail to be included in all
the accounts, otherwise there would be no need for four of them!
85. When the women arrived at the tomb, was
the stone "rolled back" (Mark 16:4), "rolled away" (Luke
24:2), "taken away" (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it
(Matthew 28:1-6)?
(Category: misread the text)
Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This
accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the
tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on
their way. Verse 2 begins by saying, 'There was a violent earthquake', the
Greek of which carries the sense of, 'now there had been a violent earthquake'.
When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that
they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge
where Jesus' body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the
stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.
86. In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:5-6;
Luke 24:4-5; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus' body, while in
(John 20:2) Mary was not told.
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
The angels told the women that Jesus had risen from the dead. Matthew, Mark and
Luke are all clear on this. The apparent discrepancy regarding the number of
angels is cleared up when we realize that there were two groups of women. Mary
Magdalene and her group probably set out from the house of John Mark, where the
Last Supper had been held. Joanna and some other unnamed women, on the other
hand, probably set out from Herod's residence, in a different part of the city.
Joanna was the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household (Luke 8:3) and it
is therefore highly probable that she and her companions set out from the royal
residence.
With this in mind, it is clear that the first angel (who rolled away the stone
and told Mary and Salome where Jesus was) had disappeared by the time Joanna
and her companions arrived. When they got there (Luke 24:3-8), two angels
appeared and told them the good news, after which they hurried off to tell the
apostles. In Luke 24:10, all the women are mentioned together, as they all went
to the apostles in the end.
We are now in a position to see why Mary Magdalene did not see the angels. John
20:1 tells us that Mary came to the tomb and we know from the other accounts
that Salome and another Mary were with her. As soon as she saw the stone rolled
away, she ran to tell the apostles, assuming that Jesus had been taken away.
The other Mary and Salome, on the other hand, satisfied their curiosity by
looking inside the tomb, where they found the angel who told them what had
happened. So we see that the angels did inform the women, but that Mary
Magdalene ran back before she had chance to meet them.
87. Did Mary Magdalene first meet the
resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit
(John 20:11-17)? And how did she react?
(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
We have established in the last answer that Mary Magdalene ran back to the
apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when
Matthew 28:9 records Jesus meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we
understand from Mark 16:9 that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which
was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John
20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving
Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb
and then met Jesus himself.
As all this happened before Jesus appeared to the other women, it appears that
there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what
happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that
the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away 'afraid yet filled
with joy...to tell his disciples'. It appears that their fear initially got the
better of them, for they 'said nothing to anyone' (Mark 16:8). It was at this
time that Jesus suddenly met them (Matthew 28:9,10). Here, he calmed their
fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles.
There are several apparent problems in the harmonization of the resurrection
accounts, a few of which have been touched on here. It has not been appropriate
to attempt a full harmonization in this short paper, as we have been answering
specific points. A complete harmonization has been commendably attempted by
John Wenham in 'Easter Enigma' (most recent edition 1996, Paternoster Press).
Anyone with further questions is invited to go this book.
It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or
interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely
permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the
gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving
out different details. This is entirely to be expected from four authors
writing independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added
credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be
resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious
collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.
88. Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait
for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and
God (John 20:17)?
(Category: misread the text)
This apparent contradiction asks, 'What was Jesus' instruction for his
disciples?' Shabbir uses Matthew 28:10 and John20:17 to demonstrate this
apparent contradiction. However the two passages occur at different times on
the same day and there is no reason to believe that Jesus would give his
disciples only one instruction.
This is another contradiction which depends upon the reader of Shabbir's book
being ignorant of the biblical passages and the events surrounding that Sunday
morning resurrection. (I say Sunday because it is the first day of the week)
The two passages, in fact, are complementary not contradictory. This is because
the two passages do not refer to the same point in time. Matthew 28:10 speaks
of the group of women encountering the risen Jesus on their way back to tell
the disciples of what they had found. An empty tomb!? And then receiving the
first set of instructions from him to tell the disciples.
The second passage from John 20:17 occurs some time after the first passage,
(to understand the time framework read from the beginning of this Chapter) and
takes place when Mary is by herself at the tomb grieving out of bewilderment,
due to the events unraveling around about her. She sees Jesus and he gives her
another set of instructions to pass on to the disciples.
89. Upon Jesus' instructions, did the
disciples return to Galilee immediately (Matthew 28:17), or after at least 40 days
(Luke 24:33, 49; Acts 1:3-4)?
(Category: didn't read the entire text and misquoted the text)
This supposed contradiction asks when the disciples returned to Galilee after
the crucifixion. It is argued from Matthew 28:17 that they returned
immediately, and from Luke 24:33 and 49, and Acts 1:4 that it was after at
least 40 days. However both of these assumptions are wrong.
It would appear that Jesus appeared to them many times; sometimes individually,
sometimes in groups, and as the whole group gathered together, and also at
least to Paul and Stephen after the Ascension (see 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, and
Acts 7:55-56). He appeared in Galilee and Jerusalem and other places. Matthew
28:16-20 is a summary of all the appearances of Christ, and it is for this reason
that it is not advisable to overstress chronology in this account, as Shabbir
seems to have done.
The second argument in this seeming contradiction is an even weaker argument
than the one I have responded to above. This is because Shabbir has not fully quoted
Acts 1:4 which says;
'On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command:
"Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which
you have heard me speak about."'
Now the author of Acts, Luke in this passage does not specify when Jesus said
this. However in his gospel he does the same thing as Matthew and groups
together all the appearances so again it would be unwise to read too much
chronologically into the passage of Luke 24:36-49. However it is apparent from
the Gospels of Matthew and John that some of the disciples at least did go to
Galilee and encounter Jesus there; presumably after the first encounter in
Jerusalem and certainly before the end of the forty day period before Christ's
Ascension into Heaven.
90. Did the Midianites sell Joseph "to
the Ishmaelites" (Genesis 37:28), or to Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah
(Geneis 37:36)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical context)
This apparent contradiction is a very strange one because it shows a clear
misunderstanding of the text in Genesis 37:25-36. The question is asked, 'To
whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?' Verse 28 is used to say the Ishmaelites,
and verse 36 Potiphar.
The traveling merchants were comprised of Ishmaelite and Midianite merchants
who bought Joseph from his brothers, and they in turn sold him to Potiphar in
Egypt. The words Ishmaelite and Midianite are used interchangeably. This would
seem obvious once you read verses 27 and 28 together. A clearer usage for these
two names can also be found in Judges 8:24.
91. Did the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to
Egypt (Genesis 37:28), or was it the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), or was it
Joseph's brothers (Genesis 45:4)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical context)
This supposed contradiction follows on from the last one and again lights up
Shabbir's problem with the historical situation, as well as his inability to
understand what the text is saying This time the question asked is, 'Who
brought Joseph to Egypt?' From the last question we know that both the
Ishmaelites and the Midianites were responsible for physically taking him there
(as they are one and the same people), while the brother's of Joseph are just
as responsible, as it was they who sold him to the merchants, and thus are
being blamed for this very thing by Joseph in Genesis 45:4. Consequently, as we
saw in the previous question all three parties had a part to play in bringing
Joseph to Egypt.
92. Does God change his mind (Genesis 6:7;
Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:10-11, 35), or does he not change his mind (1 Samuel
15:29)?
(Category: misunderstood how God works in history & misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
This "contradiction" generally appears only in older English
translations of the Biblical manuscripts. The accusation arises from
translation difficulties and is solved by looking at the context of the event.
God knew that Saul would fail in his duty as King of Israel. Nevertheless, God
allowed Saul to be king and used him greatly to do His will. Saul was highly
effective as leader of Israel, in stirring his people to have courage and take
pride in their nation, and in coping with Israel's enemies during times of war.
However, God made it clear long before this time (Genesis 49:8-10) that he
would establish the kings that would reign over Israel, from the tribe of
Judah. Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore there was no doubt that
Saul or his descendants were not God's permanent choice to sit on the throne of
Israel. His successor David, however, was from the tribe of Judah, and his line
was to continue.
Therefore God, who knows all things, did not 'change his mind' about Saul, for
he knew Saul would turn away from Him and that the throne would be given to
another.
The word in Hebrew that is used to express what God thought and how God felt
concerning the turning of Saul from Him is "niham" which is rendered
"repent" in the above. However, as is common in languages, it can
mean more than one thing. For example, English has only one word for "love."
Greek has at least 4 and Hebrew has more. A Hebrew or Greek word for love
cannot always simply be translated "love" in English if more of the
original meaning is to be retained. This is a problem that translators have.
Those who translated the Bible under the order of King James (hence the King
James translation, which Shabbir quotes from) translated this word niham 41
times as "repent," out of the 108 occurrences of the different forms
of niham in the Hebrew manuscripts. These translators were dependent on far
fewer manuscripts than were available to the more recent translators; the
latter also having access to far older manuscripts as well as a greater
understanding of the Biblical Hebrew words contained within. Therefore, the
more recent translators have rendered niham far more accurately into English by
conveying more of its Hebrew meaning (such as relent, grieve, console, comfort,
change His mind, etc. as the context of the Hebrew text communicates).
With that in mind, a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew would be that God was
"grieved" that he had made Saul king. God does not lie or change his
mind; for he is not a man that he should change his mind. God was grieved that
he had made Saul king. God shows in the Bible that He has real emotions. He has
compassion on people's pain and listens to people's pleas for help. His anger
and wrath are roused when He sees the suffering of people from others' deeds.
As a result of Saul's disobedience pain was caused to God and to the people of
Israel. But also, God had it in His plan from the beginning that Saul's family,
though not being from the tribe of Judah, would not stay on the throne.
Therefore when Saul begs the prophet Samuel in verses 24 to 25 to be put right
with God and not be dethroned, Samuel replies that God has said it will be this
way - He is not going to change His mind. It was spoken that it would be this
way hundreds of years before Saul was king.
There is no contradiction here. The question was "Does God change his
mind?" The answer is, "No." But He does respond to peoples
situations and conduct, in compassion and in wrath, and therefore can be
grieved when they do evil.
(Archer 1994)
93. How could the Egyptian magicians convert
water into blood (Exodus 7:22), if all the available water had been already
converted by Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:20-21)?
(Category: didn't read the entire text & Imposes his own agenda)
This is a rather foolish question. To begin with Moses and Aaron did not
convert all available water to blood, as Shabbir quotes, but only the water of
the Nile (see verse 20). There was plenty of other water for the magicians of
Pharaoh to use. We know this because just a few verses later (verse 24) we are
told,
"And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because
they could not drink the water of the river."
So where is the difficulty for the magicians to demonstrate that they could
also do this? Not only has Shabbir not read the entire text, he has imposed on
the text he has read that which simply is not there.
94. Did David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50) or
Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) kill Goliath?
(Category: copyist error)
The discrepancy as to who killed Goliath (David or Elhanan) was caused by
copyist or scribal error, which can be seen clearly.
The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 reads as follows:
"In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of
Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with
a shaft like a weaver's rod."
As this stands in the Hebrew Masoretic text, this is a certainly a clear
contradiction to 1 Samuel and its account of David's slaying of Goliath.
However, there is a very simple and apparent reason for this contradiction, as
in the parallel passage of 1 Chronicles 20:5 shows. It describes the episode as
follows:
"In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi
the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a
weaver's rod."
When the Hebrew for these sentences is examined, the reason for the
contradiction becomes quite obvious and the latter 1 Chronicles is seen to be
the true and correct reading. This is not simply because we know David killed
Goliath, but also because of the language.
When the scribe was duplicating the earlier manuscript, it must have been
blurred or damaged at this particular verse in 2 Samuel. The result was that he
made two or three mistakes (see Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties, page 179):
8.
The sign of the direct object in 1
Chronicals was '-t which comes just before "Lahmi" in the
sentence order. The scribe mistook it for b-t or b-y-t
("Beth") and thus got BJt hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite")
out of it.
9.
He misread the word for
"brother" ('-h , the h having a dot underneath it) as the sign of the
direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath").
Therefore he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" instead
of "brother" of Goliath, as in 1 Chronicles.
10. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers"
('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his family name
(ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, ben ya'arey 'ore-gim,
"the son of the forest of weavers", a most improbable name for anyone's
father). In Chronicles the ore-gim ("weavers")
comes straight after men\r ("a beam of") - thus making
perfectly good sense.
To conclude: the 2 Samuel passage is an
entirely traceable error on the part of the copyist in the original wording,
which has been preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5. David killed Goliath.
This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both
Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized
error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts.
Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has
shown, it is criticism which we are not afraid of. An excellent example of
human copying error resulting from the degeneration of papyrus.
95. Did Saul take his own sword and fall
upon it (1 Samuel 31:4-6), or did an Amalekite kill him (2 Samuel 1:1-16)?
(Category: misread the text)
It should be noted that the writer of 1 & 2 Samuel does not place any value
on the Amalekite's story. Thus, in all reality it was Saul who killed himself,
though it was the Amalekite who took credit for the killing. The writer relates
how Saul died and then narrates what the Amalekite said. The Amalekite's
statement that he 'happened to be on Mount Gilboa' (2 Samuel 1:6) may not be an
innocent one. He had quite possibly come to loot the dead bodies. In any case,
he certainly got there before the Philistines, who did not find Saul's body
until the next day (1 Samuel 31:8). We have David's own testimony that the
Amalekite thought he was bringing good news of Saul's death (2 Samuel 4:10). It
is likely, therefore, that he came upon Saul's dead body, took his crown and
bracelet and made up the story of Saul's death in order that David might reward
him for defeating his enemy. The Amalekite's evil plan, however, backfired
dramatically on him.
96. Is it that everyone sins (1 Kings 8:46;
2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8-10), or do some
not sin (1 John 3:1, 8-9; 4:7; 5:1)?
(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage & Imposes his own agenda)
This apparent contradiction asks: 'Does every man sin?' Then a number of Old
Testament passages that declare this are listed followed by one New Testament
passage from 1 John 1:8-10:
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our
sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we
make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."
After this it is claimed by Shabbir that: 'True Christians cannot possibly sin,
because they are children of God.' This is followed by a number of passages
from the First Epistle of John showing that Christians are children of God.
Shabbir is here imposing his view on the text, assuming that those who are
children of God, somehow suddenly have no sin. It is true that a person who is
born of God should not habitually practice sin (James 2:14ff), but that is not
to say that they will not occasionally fall into sin, as we live in a sinful
world and impinged by it.
The last of the verses quoted is from 1 John 3:9 which says:
"No-one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed
remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of
God."
Shabbir in his quote uses an older translation for 1 John 3:9 and so states,
"No one born of God commits sin...and he cannot sin...," which is not
a true translation of the Greek. In the newer translations, such as the NIV
they translate correctly using the present continuous in this verse, as it is written
that way in the Greek. Thus those born of God will not continue to sin, as they
cannot go on sinning..., the idea being that this life of sinning will die out
now that he has the help of the Holy Spirit in him or her.
It is interesting how Shabbir jumps around to make his point. He begins with 1
John 1, then moves to 1 John 3-5, then returns to the 1 John 1 passage at the
beginning of the Epistle and re-quotes verse 8, which speaks of all men
sinning, with the hope of highlighting the seeming contradiction. There is no
contradiction in this as Shabbir obviously hasn't understood the apostle's
letter or grasped the fact that the letter develops its theme as it goes on.
Therefore quoting from the beginning of the letter, then moving to the middle
of the letter, and finally returning to the beginning of the letter is not the
way to read a letter.
The Scriptures clearly teach that all men have sinned except for one, the Lord
Jesus Christ, therefore we have no quarrel with Shabbir on this point. As to
Shabbir's second point I am glad he has come to realize that Christians are
children of God therefore we have no quarrel with him on this subject.
It is Shabbir's third point, however, which is a contentious one because it
does not take on board the development of the themes of the letter, of which
the one pointed out here is the call to holiness and righteousness because of
the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ's atoning death. It is for that reason
that we are called not to continue in our sinful ways but to be changed
into Christ's sinless likeness. In his attempt to show an apparent
contradiction Shabbir has mischievously rearranged the order in which the
verses were intended to be read in order to force a contradiction, which
doesn't exist.
97. Are we to bear one another's burdens
(Galatians 6:2), or are we to bear only our own burdens (Galatians 6:5)?
(Category: misread the text)
The question is asked: 'Who will bear whose burden?' Galatians 6:2 and 6:5 are
compared, one says each other's, while the other says your own.
There is no contradiction here at all. This is not a case of 'either/or' but of
'both/and'. When you read Galatians 6:1-5 properly you will notice that
believers are asked to help each other in times of need, difficulty or
temptation; but they are also called to account for their own actions. There is
no difficulty or contradiction in this, as the two are mutually inclusive.
98. Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples
after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew
27:3-5; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9-26)?
(Category: misread the text)
There is no contradiction once you notice how the words are being used. In all
the references given for eleven disciples, the point of the narrative account
is to be accurate at that particular moment of time being spoken of. After the
death of Judas there were only eleven disciples, and this remained so until
Matthias was chosen to take Judas' place.
In 1 Corinthians 15:5 the generic term 'the Twelve' is therefore used for the
disciples because Matthias is also counted within the Twelve, since he also
witnessed the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the passage pointed
out by Shabbir records in Acts 1:21-22.
99. Did Jesus go immediately to the desert
after his baptism (Mark 1:12-13), or did he first go to Galilee, see disciples,
and attend a wedding (John 1:35, 43; 2:1-11)?
(Category: misread the text)
This apparent contradiction asks: 'Where was Jesus three days after his
baptism?' Mark 1:12-13 says he went to the wilderness for forty days. But John
'appears' to have Jesus the next day at Bethany, the second day at Galilee and
the third at Cana (John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11), unless you go back and read the
entire text starting from John 1:19. The explanation about the baptism of Jesus
in John's Gospel is given by John the Baptist himself. It was "John's
testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he
was" (vs. 19). It is he who is referring to the event of the baptism in
the past. If there is any doubt look at the past tense used by John when he
sees Jesus coming towards him in verses 29-30 and 32. While watching Jesus he
relates to those who were listening the event of the baptism and its significance.
There is no reason to believe that the baptism was actually taking place at the
time John was speaking, and therefore no reason to imply that this passage
contradicts that of Mark's Gospel.
100. Did Joseph flee with the baby Jesus to
Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23), or did he calmly present him at the temple in
Jerusalem and return to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)?
(Category: misunderstood the historical context)
This supposed contradiction asks: 'Was baby Jesus's life threatened in
Jerusalem?' Matthew 2:13-23 says yes. Luke 2:21-40 appears to say no.
These are complementary accounts of Jesus' early life, and not contradictory at
all. It is clear that it would take some time for Herod to realize that he had
been outsmarted by the magi. Matthew's Gospel says that he killed all the baby
boys that were two years old and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity. That
would be enough time to allow Joseph and Mary the opportunity to do their
rituals at the temple in Jerusalem and then return to Nazareth in Galilee, from
where they went to Egypt, and then returned after the death of Herod
101. When Jesus walked on the water, did his
disciples worship him (Matthew 14:33), or were they utterly astounded due to
their hardened hearts (Mark 6:51-52)?
(Category: didn't read the entire text)
This seeming contradiction asks: 'When Jesus walked on water how did the
disciples respond?' Matthew 14:33 says they worshiped him. Mark 6:51-52 says
that they were astounded and hadn't understood from the previous miracle he had
done when he fed the 5000.
This again is not a contradiction but two complementary passages. If Shabbir
had read the entire passage in Matthew he would have seen that both the Matthew
account (verses 26-28) and the Mark account mention that the disciples had
initially been astounded, thinking he was a ghost. This was because they had
not understood from the previous miracle who he was. But after the initial
shock had warn off the Matthew account then explains that they worshiped him.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, once we have weighed the evidence, many if not all of the
seeming contradictions posed by Shabbir Ally can be adequately explained.
When we look over the 101 supposed contradictions we find that they fall into
15 broad categories or genres of errors. Listed below are those categories,
each explaining in one sentence the errors behind Shabbir's contradictions.
Alongside each category is a number informing us how many times he could be
blamed for each category. You will note that when you add up the totals they
are larger than 101. The reason is that, as you may have already noticed,
Shabbir many times makes more than one error in a given question.
Categories of the errors evidenced by Shabbir in his pamphlet:
-he misunderstood the historical context - 25 times
-he misread the text - 15 times
-he misunderstood the Hebrew usage - 13 times
-the texts are compatible with a little thought - 13 times
-he misunderstood the author's intent - 12 times
-these were merely copyist error - 9 times
-he misunderstood how God works in history - 6 times
-he misunderstood the Greek usage - 4 times
-he didn't read the entire text - 4 times
-he misquoted the text - 4 times
-he misunderstood the wording - 3 times
-he had too literalistic an interpretation - 3 times
-he imposed his own agenda - 3 times
-he confused an incident with another - 1 time
-we now have discovered an earlier manuscript - 1 time
It must be admitted that we have in certain places followed explanations or
interpretations that are not specifically stated in the text. This is entirely
permissible, as the explanations must merely be plausible. It is clear that the
gospel authors are writing from different points of view, adding and leaving
out different details. This is entirely to be expected when four authors write
independently. Far from casting doubt on their accounts, it gives added
credibility, as those details which at first appear to be in conflict can be
resolved with some thought, yet are free from the hallmarks of obvious
collusion, either by the original authors or any subsequent editors.
This testifies to the honesty and openness of the scribes and translators (both
Jewish and Christian). Although it would be easy to change this recognized
error, this has not been done in favour of remaining true to the manuscripts.
Although it leaves the passage open to shallow criticism as Shabbir Ally has shown,
it is criticism which we are not afraid of.
In Shabbir's booklet, he puts two verses on the bottom of each page. It would
seem appropriate that we give an answer to these quotes, which are:
11. "God is not the author of confusion..." (1
Corinthians 14:33)
True, God is not the author of confusion. There is very little that is
confusing in the Bible. When we understand all the original readings and the
context behind them, the confusion virtually
disappears. Of course we need scholarship to understand everything in there, as
we are 2,000 - 3,500 years and a translation removed from the original hearers.
But this is no different to the Qur'an. On first (and tenth) readings of the
Qur'an there are many things which are not apparent. Take the mysterious letters
at the beginning of the suras. It seems that after 1,400 years of scholarship,
people can only take a good guess at what on earth they might be there for. Or
take the many historical Biblical characters whose stories do not parallel the
Bible but seem to originate in second century Talmudic apocryphal writings.
This is indeed confusing. However, it is because we can go to the historical
context of those writings that we now know that they could not have been
authored by God, but were created by men, centuries after the authentic
revelation of God had been canonized.
12. "...A house divided against itself falls"
(Luke 11:17)
The Bible is not divided against itself. Jesus was talking about a major
division, i.e. Satan destroying his own demons. This is far removed from the
Bible. A book four times the size of the Qur'an, with the remaining problems
able to be counted on your fingers and toes, a 99.999% agreement! That indeed
is remarkable!
We conclude with two quotes of our own:
"The first to present his case seems right... till another comes forward
and questions him" (Proverbs 18:17)
"...our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave
him....His letters contain some things that are hard to understand which
ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their
own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15-16)
By: By: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer
