"`The Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions!' These were the words of a tall, handsome medical officer, some few years ago, in the saloon of a passenger steamer as we were silently gliding through the beautiful waters of the Mediterranean, returning home from a voyage to the East. I asked him, as there were so many mistakes in the Bible, would he kindly show me a few of them. But the only reply I could get from him was, `It's full of them, it's full of them,' I then placed my open Bible in front of him, and, in presence of another passenger, said, `if you can show me one mistake or contradiction in that Book I will give up the whole thing.' Of course, as in nearly all cases, he knew absolutely nothing of the Bible itself, but had been reading what German critics had said about it; and so his knowledge of what the Bible was supposed to contain was all second-hand! He neither knew its supposed errors, nor its precious truths." {1} The foregoing scene, as described by noted scholar Sidney Collett, has been similarly repeated many times.
Those who allege that the Bible contains contradictions basically fall into two classes. First, there is the person who honestly believes such to be the case because he has heard that hackneyed charge repeated incessantly; he thus is sincerely misinformed of the facts. Secondly, there is the person who, because of his base motives, hates the Bible and hence scruples not to deliberately pervert its testimony in an attempt to embarrass the Sacred Volume. In either case, the Word of God is not at fault.
Preliminary to a study of this important theme, it should be observed initially that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" assuredly ought to be applied. A mere charge alone does make a conviction. Do we not normally assume a person to be truthful until it is demonstrated otherwise? By the same token a book--any book--should be presumed to be internally consistent until it can be conclusively shown that it is self-contradictory. This has been the accepted approach throughout literary history. Great attempts have been made to absolve the Greek and Latin classics of alleged discrepancies under the presumption that the authors did not contradict themselves. Surely the Bible deserves at least an equally charitable approach.
The Nature of a Contradiction
It is fairly safe to say that most people have only a superficial understanding of what constitutes a genuine contradiction. An important truth that must repeatedly be hammered home is this: a mere difference does not a contradiction make! In logic, the Law of Contradiction is succinctly stated as follows:
"Nothing can both be and not be." {2} That is a very abbreviated form of the rule. Aristotle, in a more amplified version, expressed it this way: "That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible." {3} Though there are several ramifications of this principle, which will be discussed later, at this time three points need to be made. When one is confronted by an alleged contradiction, is he certain that:
(a) the same thing or person is under consideration?
(b) the same time reference is in view?
(c) the seemingly conflicting language is employed in the same sense?
It is vitally important that these questions be answered correctly. For instance, let the following two simple statements be analyzed: Bob is rich; Bob is poor.
Now, do these brief sentences contradict each other? Not necessarily. First, two different people named Bob may be under consideration. Second, two different time frames may be in view. Bob may have been rich, but, due to adverse circumstances, became poor. Third, the words rich and poor might have been used differently; he might be spiritually rich while financially poor. The point is this: it is never legitimate to assume a contradiction until every possible means of harmonization has been fully exhausted. Now, let this principle be applied to the Bible.
Same Person or Thing
An infidel once gleefully announced that he had discovered a discrepancy in Scripture. When he was challenged to produce it, he suggested that where Noah's ark with all of its inmates must have weighed several tons (Genesis 6), the priests were said to have carried the ark across the Jordan River (Joshua 3).{4} The poor fellow, in his profound simplicity, did not even know the difference between Noah's ark and the Ark of the Covenant! Different objects were under consideration.
In Acts 12 one reads of the death of James, while later (Acts 15), James is prominent at the Jerusalem conference. A contradiction? Of course not! The James murdered in Acts 12 was the brother of John (v. 2), the son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21), while the James of Acts 15 was the Lord's half-brother (Matthew 13:55; Acts 12:17; 15:13; Galatians 1:19).
The Bible asserts that a sinner is saved by works; then again, that a sinner is not saved by works. But there is no discrepancy, for there are several kinds of works. Salvation does involve works of obedience to Christ's commands (James 2:14f; Philippians 2:12), but it cannot be obtained by works of the Mosaic law (Romans 3:28; 4:2f), or by boastful human works (Ephesians 2:9).
Same Time Reference
The Bible records: "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31), and then, "And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Genesis 6:6). The infidel cites both verses and suggests that the Lord was simultaneously satisfied and dissatisfied with His creation, neglecting to mention, of course, that the fall of man and hundreds of years of history separated the two statements.{5} Judas, as one of the twelve disciples, was empowered to cast out demons (Matthew 10:18), and yet, he is called the "son of perdition" (John 17:12). Is there a conflict here? No, for the statements that record the apostasy of Judas (John 12:6; 13:2,27) represent a time reference that is some two years beyond incident of the giving of that limited commission in Matthew 10.
Bible critics have attempted to make much of the fact that whereas the Gospel of Mark represents Jesus being crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25), according to John's account, the Lord was still on trial before Pilate at the sixth hour (John 19:14). Though a number of possible explanations have been suggested by reputable Bible scholars, the most likely explanation is probably that each of these passages fits within a different reference frame of time.
Many scholars forcefully argue that John, writing in Asia Minor a score or more years beyond the destruction of the Jewish system, most likely employed the Roman method of reckoning time, i.e., from midnight as currently practiced in the West, while Mark (and the other gospel writers) used the Jewish method from 6:00 p.m. Westcott, in advancing this position, observed that "the Romans reckoned their civil days from midnight (Aul. Gell. III. 2; comp. Matthew 27:19, `this day,') and not from sunrise, or from sunset (as the Jews). And there are
also traces of reckoning the hours from midnight in Asia Minor. Polycarp is said (`Mart. Pol.' c.21) to have been martyred at Smyrna `at the eighth hour.' This, from the circumstances, must have been 8 a.m. Pionius again is said to have been martyred (at Smyrna also) at `the tenth hour,' which can hardly have been 4 p.m., since such exhibitions usually took place before noon. These two passages furnish a sufficient presumption that St. John, in using what is the modern reckoning, followed a practice of the province in which he was living and for which he was writing." {6}This seems to be born out further by John's allusion to the evening of the resurrection day which is still acknowledged as "the first day of the week" (John 20:19). The time element is thus vitally important in understanding some passages.
Same Sense
If the Bible is to be understood, it is imperative that recognition be given to the different senses in which words may be employed. Normally, terms are used literally, but they certainly can be employed figuratively as well. For instance, in Matthew 11:14 John the Baptist is identified as "Elijah," yet the forerunner of Christ plainly denied that he was Elijah (John 1:21). These verses are easily reconcilable. Though John was not literally Elijah, physically reincarnated, nevertheless he was the spiritual antitype of that great prophet; he prepared the way for Christ "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17).
Did the apostle Paul contradict himself when he affirmed on one occasion that he was "as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless" (Philippians 3:6), and yet at another time he acknowledged that he was "chief" of sinners (I Timothy 1:15)? Again, the answer is no. In the former passage he was describing the reputation which he enjoyed as a Pharisee among his Hebrew
contemporaries, while in the latter, he expresses the anguish he felt at having been a persecutor of the Christian Way. There is no conflict!
Sometimes, passages which appear to conflict are shown to have different senses by grammatical peculiarities. For example, in connection with Saul's conversion, the men who journeyed with him were said to have heard the voice that spoke to Him (Acts 9:7), whereas later, Acts 22:9 declares that they did not hear the voice. The problem is cleared up, however, by a recognition of the Greek idiom employed. When the verb akouo is used with the genitive, phones--the case of specification--it simply indicates that a sound was heard, as in the case of Acts 9:7. But when akouo is employed with phonen, accusative case--the case of extent--it suggests that the men did not hear to the extent of understanding the meaning of the sound they heard.{7}
Contradictory Qualities
Another ramification of the Law of Contradiction is the concept that "nothing can have at the same time and at the same place contradictory and inconsistent qualities." {8} A door may be open, or a door may be shut, but the same door may not be both open and shut at the same time. With reference to the door, shut and open are opposites, but they are not contradictory unless it be affirmed that they characterize the same object at the same time. So it is very important that one recognize that mere opposites do not necessitate a contradiction.
Let this principle be applied to certain biblical matters. Does the Bible contradict itself, as often claimed, when it affirms that God both loves and hates? No, for though these terms are opposites, when used of God they do not express His disposition toward the same objects. While it is indisputably true that God loves the world (John 3:16), it is equally true that He hates every false way (Psalm 119:104). He loves righteousness, but hates iniquity (Psalm 45:7). Accordingly, one may take note of both the goodness and severity of Jehovah (Romans 11:22)--severity toward those who rebel, yet goodness toward those who walk in truth.
Bible critics claim that though Paul denied that he is perfect--"Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect..." (Philippians 3:12)--within the same context the apostle asserted his perfection. He wrote: "Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded..." (3:15). Only someone uninformed of the facts would make such a charge. When Paul denied that he had been "made perfect" he used the Greek term teteleiomai, in the perfect tense. The perfect tense suggests an act in the past with abiding or permanent results. The apostle is thus affirmed that he had not attained, or arrived at a permanent state of perfection; there was room for improvement even in this great man. In verse 15, however, Paul employed the adjective teleioi, which is full-grown or mature. The word is used in the Greek papyri of those who have obtained maturity.{9} Again, observe that this word is used in I Corinthians 14:20, and in Ephesians 4:13, in obvious contrast to infantilism. So, while Paul denied a permanently possessed perfection, he did affirm his spiritual maturity. There is no contradiction!
Differences Are Not Contradictions
Another implication of the Law of Contradiction is that a proposition cannot, with reference to the same matter, be both true and false. It is a contradiction to say, for instance, that A is B, and then, of the same A to assert that A is not B. To state that John Doe is a father, and then that John Doe is not a father is a contradiction. However, to suggest that John Doe is a father, and then to suggest that John Doe is a husband, does not constitute a contradiction. Although the two terms tell something different about John Doe, the statements merely supplement one another; they do not contradict. Many of the so-called biblical discrepancies must be classified under this principle.
The case of the healing of the blind men of Jericho presents an interesting study in supplementation (Matthew 20:2934; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43). Two prominent problems have been set forth. First, while both Mark and Luke mention the healing of only one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two men, as Christ made His way to Jerusalem and the final Passover. Secondly, Matthew and Mark indicate that blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, whereas Luke appears to suggest that a blind man was healed as the Lord "drew nigh" to the city. What can be said of these matters? As we commence to discuss these points, the following vital consideration should be remembered. If there is any reasonable way of harmonizing these records, no legitimate contradiction can be charged to the accounts!
In the first place, the fact that two of the Gospel accounts mention only one blind man while the other mentions two, need not concern us. Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, with Matthew affirming that more than one were healed, a contradiction would be apparent, but such is not the case. If one says, "I have a son," he does not contradict himself by saying further, "I have a son and a daughter." He merely supplements the former statement. There can be no conflict, therefore, with reference to the number of men involved. But how shall the second difficulty be resolved? Several reasonable possibilities have been advanced by scholarly writers.
(1) It is possible that three blind men were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion. The instance mentioned by Luke as occurring when Jesus approached the city might have represented a different case than that recorded by Matthew and Mark. Though this suggestion is considered by many to be remote, it is at least possible, and that is all that is required to negate a possible discrepancy. (2) Noted lexicographer Edward Robinson argued that the verb eggizo (rendered "drew near" in Luke 18:35), could also mean "to be near." He cited evidence from the Septuagint (I Kings 21:2-- "it is near unto my house," Deuteronomy 21:3--"the city next unto the slain man," cf. Jeremiah 23:23; Ruth 2:20; II Samuel 19:42) and also from the New Testament (Luke 19:29, compared with Matthew 21:1; Philippians 2:3). He thus translated Luke 18:35 as "while he was yet nigh unto Jericho." {10} This view implies that Luke therefore simply locates the miracle near Jericho and hence such can be readily harmonized with the other two accounts. While this view does not have numerous supporters, can it be absolutely denied as a possibility? (3) A harmonization that is very popular among reputable writers is the fact that at the time of Christ there were actually two Jerichos. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament history (Joshua 6:1ff; I Kings 16:34) which was located at the sight of Elisha's spring. In the first century, however, that city lay mostly in ruins, and about two miles south of that site was the new Jericho built by Herod the Great. The Lord, therefore, traveling toward Jerusalem, would first pass through Old Testament Jericho, and then, some two miles to the southwest, go through Herodian Jericho. The miracles under consideration, therefore, may have been performed between the two Jerichos. Accordingly, the references of Matthew and Mark to leaving Jericho would allude to old Jericho, whereas Luke's observation to drawing near to Jericho would refer to the newer city.{11}
The foregoing case is but a sample of that which, though alleged to be a contradiction" is, upon closer examination, shown to be otherwise. It may be further briefly observed that some supposed discrepancies, especially involving names and figures, are frequently explained on the basis of transcription errors (comparable to modern printing mistakes) and incorrect translations of ancient languages. Such matters are beyond the scope of this present paper.
Conclusion
In dealing, therefore, with so-called contradictions, let these principles be carefully remembered:
(1) No contradictions exist between passages that refer to different persons or things.
(2) No contradictions exist between passages which involve different time elements.
(3) No contradictions exist between verses that employ phraseology in different senses.
(4) Opposites are not necessarily contradictions.
(5) Supplementation is not contradiction.
(6) The biblical apologist need only show the possibility of a harmonization between passages that appear to conflict in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction exists.
Finally, this point needs to be made. While it is true that variations certainly exist between different biblical accounts of the same event, such variations merely show that the writers were not in collusion with one another. In commenting upon an alleged contradiction in the Gospel accounts, R.C. Foster penned the following:
"Two-source Theory advocates are utterly helpless to explain these variations in the light of their theory. For years critics have declared that these accounts are hopelessly in contradiction and cannot be harmonized. By their own argument, then, the accounts certainly cannot have been copied from one another. While the differences can be harmonized, no conceivable explanation can be offered as to how such differences could have arisen, if the narratives were copied from one another or from a common source. If the narratives were written independently by eyewitnesses or upon the testimony of eyewitnesses, then such variations are the natural result of independent narration; but, if the narratives were copied from one another, what writers could have been so stupid or perverse as deliberately to have changed the record thus?" {12}
The Bible, being from God, does not contradict itself. Whenever, therefore, one is confronted with a problem, he must patiently study with a reverent confidence that somewhere there is the answer to his difficulty.
ENDNOTES
1. Sidney Collett. All About the Bible. Fleming Revell. Westwood, New Jersey. No date. p 115.
2. W. Stanley Jevons. Elementary Lessons in Logic. MacMillan & Co. London. 1928. p 117.
3. Quoted by W. Arndt. Does the Bible Contradict Itself? Concordia. St. Louis, Missouri. 1955. p x.
4. Harry Rimmer. The Harmony of Science and Scripture. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1956. p 194.
5. John Haley. Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. B.C. Goodpasture. Nashville. 1958. p 4.
6. B.F. Westcott. Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Scribner's & Sons. New York. 1907. p 282.
7. Boyce W. Blackwelder. Light from the Greek New Testament. Warner Press. Anderson, Indiana. 1959. p 139.
8. Jevons. op. cit. p 118.
9. J.H. Moulton and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Hodder & Stoughton. London. 1963. p 629.
10. Edward Robinson. A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1855. p 200. (cf. Edward Robinson. Harmony of the Gospels. Religious Tract Society. London. 1879. p 197.)
11. A.T. Robertson. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Broadman Press. Nashville. 1930. Volume I. p 163.
12. R.C. Foster. Studies in the Life of Christ. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1971. pp 1043,1044.
This file may be copied, but is distributed on the understanding that it will not be modified or edited, and will not be used for commercial purposes. Further, it may not be copied without due reference to the original publication source, author, year, and name and address of the publisher. [Apologetics Press, 230 Landmark Drive, Montgomery, AL 36117-2752]
This item originally appeared in Reason and Revelation
