Biblical Contradictions

[Silmarien]

Lineage was very important back then for land ownage, land rights and of the 12 tribes they were from. Thats why families had lists. It was very important in Jewish traditions and they learned there lists.

Sure, for important families. It's a bit hard to reconcile some of what shows up in the Gospel narratives with the idea that this was a priestly family or something along those lines.

On the Matthew fathers lines it really doesn't matter if there are woman or not even if that is unusaul. There is also a curse. I guess Matthew included woman in the lineage because thats the correct Joseph to David lineage for various reasons. And those woman have stories in the OT. Ruth has a whole book.

You think that Matthew included a handful of thematically relevant Gentile women simply because that was what the genealogy said? Keep in mind that Rahab is of particular interest. She does not show up in the separate genealogy provided in the Book of Ruth, so her presence in the Gospel of Matthew has to have been either an invention or a separate tradition. Either way, I don't see how we can attribute any historical value to it. It seems to me that Matthew was using the genealogy in part to remind his readers of various different stories in the Old Testament, sometimes taking additional creative license. Which I don't see as a problem, much less a contradiction.

 

[HitchSlap]

You're preaching to the choir. I'm open to all reasonable explanations, however, I'm partial to the mundane one's that make less assumptions.

Eh, my favorite explanation for the genealogies is that they're both literary devices employed by the authors of the two Gospels to summarize the Old Testament and frame their own renditions of the story in a particular way. People have been arguing about why Matthew chose to include the four women he did (Ruth, Tamar, Rachab, and Bathsheba) for ages.

Let's not forget aspects of ancient Jewish culture like Midrash and its creative interpretations. There are options out there besides the genealogies being historical records and them being mistakes.

 

[dougangel]

Sure, for important families. It's a bit hard to reconcile some of what shows up in the Gospel narratives with the idea that this was a priestly family or something along those lines.



You think that Matthew included a handful of thematically relevant Gentile women simply because that was what the genealogy said? Keep in mind that Rahab is of particular interest. She does not show up in the separate genealogy provided in the Book of Ruth, so her presence in the Gospel of Matthew has to have been either an invention or a separate tradition. Either way, I don't see how we can attribute any historical value to it. It seems to me that Matthew was using the genealogy in part to remind his readers of various different stories in the Old Testament, sometimes taking additional creative license. Which I don't see as a problem, much less a contradiction.

The author of Matthew was writing to a primarily Jewish audience. Jewish culture emphasized male predominance back in the first century; everything, for example genealogies and the blessing, was passed down through the male. The fact that the author of Matthew mentioned these women,whom are believed to be either Gentile or associated with prostitution or adultery, shows the Jewish audience that Jesus came for both men and women, Jew and Gentile, and the righteous and sinner alike.

Judah and Tamar

Salmon and Rachab

Boaz and Ruth

David and Bathsheba

I still don't think theres anything incorrect about the list. But it is an engineered. It's not a mistake it's deliberate. Thats what I have been trying to tell Hitchslap all along. I think its OT biblical lineage still. The anomalies can be explained. But with the inclusion with the wifes of the husbands and some names left out. It's not an official list. The Jews of the time would of known what those women names meant and the point Matthew was making.

 

[dougangel]

You're preaching to the choir. I'm open to all reasonable explanations, however, I'm partial to the mundane one's that make less assumptions.

Your video man and you are the ones making the most uneducated assumptions.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thats what I have been trying to tell Hitchslap all along.

I understand what you're saying. My point is that your explanation requires additional assumptions and special pleading.

 

[HitchSlap]

Your video man and you are the ones making the most uneducated assumptions.

Bart Ehrman is a biblical scholar.

I'm not sure you and I have anywhere else to go with this line of conversation. Take care.

 

[dougangel]

I understand what you're saying. My point is that your explanation requires additional assumptions and special pleading.

That happens alot in history. Alot of history needs to be explained

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

 

[HitchSlap]

The authors of Luke and Matthew are anonymous, and they most definitely were not Jewish.

That happens alot in history. Alot of history needs to be explained

Some point to these differences as evidence of errors in the Bible. However, the Jews were meticulous record keepers, especially in regard to genealogies. It is inconceivable that Matthew and Luke could build two entirely contradictory genealogies of the same lineage. Again, from David through Jesus, the genealogies are completely different. Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. Matthew gives Shealtiel's father as Jeconiah while Luke gives Shealtiel's father as Neri. It would be normal for a man named Shealtiel to name his son Zerubbabel in light of the famous individuals of those names (see the books of Ezra and Nehemiah).

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

 

[dougangel]

The authors of Luke and Matthew are anonymous, and they most definitely were not Jewish.

I'm sure they meant the book of luke and the book of matthew. That comes from that website reference.

 

[Silmarien]

The authors of Luke and Matthew are anonymous, and they most definitely were not Jewish.

Why is the author of Matthew "definitely" not a Jew? That's the most Jewish of the Gospels, so I'm unaware of any conclusive evidence that would paint its author as a Gentile instead.

 

[John 1720]

I recommend you watch the video.

Time stamp: 4:15
Luke claims after the birth of Jesus, they returned to Nazareth thirty-two days later, after the rites of purification. Matthew claims the Jesus went with his parents to Egypt.

1. After being honorably discharged from the US military I moved from New York to New England.
2. After being honorably discharged from the US military, and attending school in Boston, I decided to settle in New England.

1 & 2 differ with regard to the amount of information supplied but they are not contradictory statements. Perhaps the motives to spin them as contradictory however may sell more books and provide one with lucrative public speaking engagements. Cah-ching, cah-ching $$$. The world loves a controvery, eh. So creating one is good for business despite the motives.

 

[John 1720]

The authors of Luke and Matthew are anonymous, and they most definitely were not Jewish.

Why is the author of Matthew "definitely" not a Jew? That's the most Jewish of the Gospels, so I'm unaware of any conclusive evidence that would paint its author as a Gentile instead.

Hi Mr. Hitchslap sir,
The best evidence is that your supposition is incorrect. The original Gospel was purported to have been written in Hebrew by the Apostle Matthew.

• Hebrew Matthew

 

[HitchSlap]

Hi Mr. Hitchslap sir,
The best evidence is that your supposition is incorrect. The original Gospel was purported to have been written in Hebrew by the Apostle Matthew.

• Hebrew Matthew

Matthew is also purported to have been written in third person narrative, in a language Matthew didn’t speak, and he forgot to sign in it.

 

[HitchSlap]

1. After being honorably discharged from the US military I moved from New York to New England.
2. After being honorably discharged from the US military, and attending school in Boston, I decided to settle in New England.

1 & 2 differ with regard to the amount of information supplied but they are not contradictory statements. Perhaps the motives to spin them as contradictory however may sell more books and provide one with lucrative public speaking engagements. Cah-ching, cah-ching $$$. The world loves a controvery, eh. So creating one is good for business despite the motives.

They went either to Nazareth, or to Egypt.

 

[John 1720]

Matthew is also purported to have been written in third person narrative, in a language Matthew didn’t speak, and he forgot to sign in it.

Hi Sir, and what special significance does that have beyond humility, a godly virtue. Anyone who would make a monument to God would hesitate to mar the marble with his own name. Unlike modern authors the NT authors were not lauding themselves but testifying to the Lord of Glory. The status quo of modern authorship has nothing to do with Biblical authorship.
On Authorship
David Brown writes, “It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord…”
Matthew’s Writings Paralleled by Josephus’ Writings
Matthew’s writing of a Hebrew original and then an expanded Greek translation was not unparalleled in the Mediterranean world. Josephus (37-100AD) the famous Jewish historian and Matthew’s contemporary, wrote his Jewish Wars first in Hebrew (Aramaic) which was eventually lost and then in Greek in a more formal and expanded form.

The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew is attested to by the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c. 100–140 CE) and we know it's superscription as the Gospel of Matthew goes back to the early 2nd century.

 

[John 1720]

They went either to Nazareth, or to Egypt.

Yes, that is your opinion sir, but it is just as likely Luke simply didn't bother to mention the exodus to Egypt just as I didn't mention my detour to college in my 1st narrative before settling in New England, which I indeed spelled out in my 2nd narrative. The Gospel authors don't always cover the same events and this is typical of eyewitness testimony.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, that is your opinion sir, but it is just as likely Luke simply didn't bother to mention the exodus to Egypt just as I didn't mention my detour to college in my 1st narrative before settling in New England, which I indeed spelled out in my 2nd narrative. The Gospel authors don't always cover the same events and this is typical of eyewitness testimony.

You're missing the point; when leaving point A, you cannot both travel to point B and point C simultaneously. Either they traveled north to Nazareth, or South to Egypt, but it can't be both. Neither account makes reference of the other location, nor does either account allow for the time necessary for both to happen.

(We won't even get into the fact that Herod died four years before Jesus was born)

 

[HitchSlap]

I do appreciate your reply. Thanks.

Hi Sir, and what special significance does that have beyond humility, a godly virtue. Anyone who would make a monument to God would hesitate to mar the marble with his own name. Unlike modern authors the NT authors were not lauding themselves but testifying to the Lord of Glory. The status quo of modern authorship has nothing to do with Biblical authorship.
On Authorship
David Brown writes, “It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord…”
Matthew’s Writings Paralleled by Josephus’ Writings
Matthew’s writing of a Hebrew original and then an expanded Greek translation was not unparalleled in the Mediterranean world. Josephus (37-100AD) the famous Jewish historian and Matthew’s contemporary, wrote his Jewish Wars first in Hebrew (Aramaic) which was eventually lost and then in Greek in a more formal and expanded form.

The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew is attested to by the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c. 100–140 CE) and we know it's superscription as the Gospel of Matthew goes back to the early 2nd century.

 

[John 1720]

You're missing the point; when leaving point A, you cannot both travel to point B and point C simultaneously. Either they traveled north to Nazareth, or South to Egypt, but it can't be both. Neither account makes reference of the other location, nor does either account allow for the time necessary for both to happen.

Hi Sir, no I believe I actually do understand your point quite well. The problem with your point is the verbage really isn't quite as strict as you infer. I believe you and some others may be interpreting Luke way too rigidly. Actually Jimmy Akin gives a pretty good harmony of the Infancy Narrative of Jesus using Matthew and Luke. This is how he harmonizes the chronology:

1. Gabriel appears to Zecharaiah in Jerusalem to announce the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-22).
2. At the end of his term of service, Zechariah returns to his home in the hill country of Judea and his wife, Elizabeth, becomes pregnant (Luke 1:23-25; cf. 39).
3. In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the fifth month but before the end of the sixth month), Gabriel appears to Mary in Nazareth to announce the birth of Jesus (Luke 1:26-38).
4. Mary goes to visit Elizabeth and stays for three months before returning to Nazareth (Luke 1:39-56). This appears to happen in the ninth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the eighth month but before the end of the ninth month).
5. In the tenth month of her pregnancy (i.e., after the end of the ninth month but before the end of a tenth month), Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist and, eight days later, John is circumcised and named (Luke 1:57-80; note that the ancient Israelites reckoned pregnancy as lasting ten months, not nine; cf. Wisdom 7:2; technically, a pregnancy lasted 9.6 months on the Jewish calendar, but the ancients rounded all fractions up; by comparison, a pregnancy is typically 9.3 months on a modern calendar, but we round this fraction down instead of up).
6. Some time between event 3 and event 7, Joseph is informed that Mary is pregnant and he plans to divorce her quietly. However, an angel appears to him in a dream and tells him to go ahead and continue the marriage (Matthew 1:18-23). Most likely, this event occurred after Mary returned from her visit to Elizabeth. Joseph likely would have waited to deal with the divorce question until Mary's pregnancy was confirmed, either by it beginning to show or by Mary reaching the point of "quickening" (when the unborn child was large and strong enough for the mother to feel it kicking in the womb). In the absence of pregnancy tests, the ancients used these as proof that a woman was pregnant. These points would have been reached around or shortly after the time Mary remained with Elizabeth. In fact, they may have motivated her return home so that she, also, could go into seclusion for the remainder of her pregnancy.
7. Joseph and Mary then begin cohabiting (Matthew 1:24). This would have been in Nazareth, per Luke’s account.
8. Because of the enrollment announced by Caesar Augustus, the Holy Family is forced to travel to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5), despite Mary's pregnancy (which was at this point in the second or third trimester). If this was a tax enrollment, the journey was likely required because Joseph owned property there (cf. Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 3:62-63). While there, they likely stayed with relatives, but there were so many that there was no room in the main part of the house, and so they stayed in the part (likely a grotto) where the animals were kept. Animals were often kept in the homes of the people who owned them at this time.
9. Jesus is born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:7, Matthew 1:24a).
10. That same night, shepherds visited them (Luke 2:8-20).
11. About this time, an unusual star is observed by the magi in their eastern homeland (cf. Matthew 2:2, 16).
12. Eight days after the birth, Jesus was circumcised and named (Luke 2:21, Matthew 1:24b).
13. Forty days after the birth, Jesus was presented at the temple in Jerusalem, and the Holy Family encountered Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:22-38; cf. Leviticus 12:1-8).
14. It is possible that, shortly after this, the Holy Family returned to Nazareth (cf. Luke 2:39-40). If so, they later returned to Bethlehem for reasons we will see in a moment. If they did return to Nazareth at this point, they likely returned to Bethlehem multiple times in the next 1-2 years, because they observed the three annual pilgrimage feasts that Jews were required to make each year (cf. Luke 2:41; Exodus 23:14-17). These required to go to Jerusalem, and they likely stayed with relatives in Bethlehem on these occasions, since Bethlehem is just 6 miles from Jerusalem.
15. It is also possible that they did not return to Nazareth at this time but stayed in Bethlehem for a period of as much as two years (cf. Matthew 2:16). The likely seems the more probable, for reasons we shall see. If they did stay in Bethlehem instead of returning to Nazareth, they probably continued to live with relatives. It is possible that they acquired their own house, but it was much more common in ancient Israel than it is today to have an extended family living under the same roof, especially among the poor (cf. Luke 2:24 with Leviticus 12:8).
16. Between one and two years after the birth (cf. Matthew 2:16), the magi appear in Jerusalem and ask Herod the Great where the newborn king of the Jews is to be found. They are directed to Bethlehem, and they travel there by night. They note that the star is now in the southern sky (the direction of Bethlehem from Jerusalem), and when they arrive they note that, from their perspective, the same star is above the house in a providential coincidence. They then enter the house, see the child Jesus with Mary, pay him homage, and offer gifts (Matthew 2:1-11).
17. This encounter could have occurred anywhere between one and two years after Jesus’ birth, given the tendency of the ancients to round up all fractions and the desire on Herod’s part to make sure he would eliminate Jesus (he would not want to have cut it close and missed the baby by a few days or months, so he would have at least rounded up and may have even padded the amount of time the magi told him).
18. The magi are warned in a dream (that night or very quickly after) to return to their country by a different route, which they then do (Matthew 2:12).
19. After they leave, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt, which the Holy Family then does (Matthew. 2:13-15).
20. Some time shortly afterward, Herod realizes that the magi are not coming back and flies into a rage. He orders all the boys two years old and under who are in Bethlehem to be killed (Matthew 2:16-18). This is entirely in keeping with what we know about Herod, particularly in the latter portion of his reign. He had several of his own sons killed when he perceived them as threats, and Caesar Augustus reportedly quipped that it would be better to be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son (the joke being that, as a Jew, Herod couldn’t eat pork, so his pig would be safe;
21. Herod the Great dies (this likely happened in 1 B.C. not 4 B.C.), and his sons assume full authority over the different parts of his kingdom (they likely had partial authority as co-rulers for a few years prior, as was common in the ancient world). This leaves Herod Archelaus in control of Judea.
22. In Egypt, Joseph is informed in a dream that Herod the Great is dead, and he is told to return to Israel. He and the Holy Family do so (Matthew 2:19-21).
23. Once back in Israel, Joseph is informed that Herod Archelaus is ruling in Judea in place of his father. Knowing Archelaus’s reputation, Joseph is afraid to settle in Judea (Matthew 2:22a). Joseph’s impression is confirmed by the historical record. Archelaus was a terrible ruler who was eventually removed from power by the Romans, who replaced him with a governor in A.D. 6. This is why Judea is ruled by a governor (Pontius Pilate) during Jesus’ adult ministry, rather than by one of Herod’s sons.
24. Being warned in a dream, Joseph relocates the family to its previous home in Nazareth, which, being in Galilee, is outside of Archelaus’s territory (Matthew 2:22b-23; this is likely the same relocation referred to in Luke 2:39).
    
25. The family continues to make the annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and when Jesus is twelve, at Passover, Jesus remains behind and his parents find him in the temple three days later (Luke 2:41-52).

(We won't even get into the fact that Herod died four years before Jesus was born)

Ha, ha - well sir, the proverbial horse has already bolted out of your barn despite your announcing that you "wouldn't get into it" - l.o.l. . So obviously I think you did get into what you seem to believe is some sort of false historical chronology. The historical disparity however is a pointless dart that bounces off the intended target (in this case the very nasty Herod - a great engineering mobilizer but an utter despot). The disparity you infer, however, really is quite easily explained in Wikipedia
The Anno Domini dating system was devised in AD 525 by Dionysius Exiguus to enumerate the years in his Easter table. His system replaced the Diocletian era of dating. Dionysius implied that Jesus' Incarnation occurred 525 years earlier, without stating the specific year during which his birth or conception occurred. However, he did not explain or justify the underlying date. Bonnie J. Blackburn and Leofranc Holford-Strevens briefly present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year Dionysius intended for the Nativity or Incarnation.

So really the whole 1BC or AD1 estimate for Jesus' birth is superfluous to the history of Herod, who really died in 1 BC not 4 BC as scholars used to think.
Seriously, only one other person has answers to these questions...
Herodian dates: The Three Year Ministry of Jesus

The actual year of Jesus' birth is estimated to have occurred between 4 and 2 BC. Personally I think it was probably either 3 or 2 BC.

Have a pleasant evening sir. I have enjoyed our discussions and appreciate your desire to question many things that are not black and white but gray areas of history and Biblical literacy.

 

[dougangel]

You're missing the point; when leaving point A, you cannot both travel to point B and point C simultaneously. Either they traveled north to Nazareth, or South to Egypt, but it can't be both. Neither account makes reference of the other location, nor does either account allow for the time necessary for both to happen.

(We won't even get into the fact that Herod died four years before Jesus was born)

Where does it say they traveled similtaneously to places at once. Can you really point that out to me in the scriptures.