Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible
Lesson 8
Historical Discrepancies
Rationale: The student will encounter some major
attacks on the internal consistency of the Bible in
matters of the historical account of the resurrection of
Christ. In doing so the student will become familiar with
a two step approach in dealing with such, these two
steps are: 1) becoming familiar with cautionary
principles against mistaken claims of contradictions in
scripture. 2) Using such principles in answering the
charges against the historical consistency of the
resurrection narratives.
Making claims against the historical consistency of
the bible is not the same thing as proving them.
Many false claims against the historical accuracy of
the Bible stems from the readers misunderstanding
of the writer’s technique and purpose in writing.
Three basic cautionary principles with several
subcategories of the principles will be presented.
Every claim of an alleged historical discrepancy or
contradiction should undergo the scrutiny of these
principles.
I. Principle # 1 Unreasonable Expectations Do
Not Necessitate Contradiction: Many critics
of the Bible employ unfair expectations on
the historical accounts of the Bible. Five
cautions against unreasonable expectations
will be offered:
1. Rule 1 of Principle 1, Selection is not denial:
Authors cannot write everything! They have
no choice but to be selective of what they
write.
The apostle John even reports the necessity of
selectivity: John 21:25 (NASB) And there are
also many other things which Jesus did, which
if they *were written in detail, I suppose that
even the world itself *would not contain the
books that *would be written.
It is unreasonable to expect the gospel writers
to include every single detail in historical
accounts when no writer in history has
attempted such.
2. Rule 2 of Principle 1, Different is not
discrepant: differences between historical
accounts do not necessitate an
irreconcilable discrepancy. When it comes
to reporting an event, writers must make
many choices about what details to include
and how to relate it to other events.
Consider the Temple veil being torn:
Matthew 27:49-51 (NASB) 49 But the rest of them
said, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to save
Him." 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice,
and yielded up His spirit. 51 And behold, the veil of
the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and
the earth shook and the rocks were split.
Mark 15:37-38 (NASB) 37 And Jesus uttered a
loud cry, and breathed His last.
38 And the veil of the temple was torn in two
from top to bottom.
Mathew and Mark report Jesus’ dying and
then the veil of the temple being torn into, but
notice Luke’s account:
Luke 23:45-46 (NASB) 45 because the sun was
obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn
in two. 46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud
voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I
COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He
breathed His last.
Luke reports the veil of the temple being torn
into before Jesus died, however, this alleged
discrepancy fails to point out that all three
writers note that both things happened at “the
ninth hour” i. e., around 3:00 pm.
The different orders in which these accounts
are written does not change the fact that the
accounts all report two events happening at
the same time.
It is unreasonable to expect multiple to record
two separate events that take place at the
same time, to record the two separate
concurrent events precisely the same way.
Hence, different is not necessarily discrepant!
3. Rule 3 of Principle 1, Accuracy is not
precision: these are not completely
synonymous concepts. Precision words are
words such as: “exactly” “precisely”
“unerringly”, while accuracy words use
words like: “on” “about” “after” “around”.
Matthew 17:1-2 (NASB) 1 Six days later Jesus *took with
Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led
them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2 And He
was transfigured before them; and His face shone like
the sun, and His garments became as white as light.
Mark 9:2-3 (NASB) 2 Six days later, Jesus *took with Him
Peter and James and John, and *brought them up on a
high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured
before them;
3 and His garments became radiant and exceedingly
white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.
Luke 9:28-29 (NASB) 28 Some eight days after
these sayings, He took along Peter and John
and James, and went up on the mountain to
pray. 29 And while He was praying, the
appearance of His face became different, and
His clothing became white and gleaming.
It must be noted that the lack of precision does
not disprove accuracy, and it is unreasonable
to expect historical accuracy to be synonymous
with historical precision.
4. Rule 4 of principle 1, Paraphrase is not
quotation: in the gospel accounts there are
some differences in how quotations are
recorded.
Matthew 3:17 (NASB) and behold, a voice out of the
heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am
well-pleased."
Mark 1:11 (NASB) and a voice came out of the
heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am wellpleased."
Luke 3:22 (NASB) and the Holy Spirit descended upon
Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out
of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am
well-pleased."
If the voice spoke in Hebrew of Aramaic (the
common language of the Jews in the first
century), then what we have in the New
Testament are paraphrasing translations of the
message into Greek. What the writers of the
New Testament were concerned about was
getting the message correct.
It is unreasonable to expect ancient historical
writers to use exact quotations and not give
truthful paraphrases when we accept truthful
paraphrases from the modern media.
5. Rule 5 of principle 1, Thematic ordering is
not errant: an author’s selection and
ordering of events by theme and not by
mere chronology does not require that the
author is being dishonest.
The four gospels are largely chronological but
none claims to be exactly chronological. The all
begin with beginnings, but different
beginnings according to their purpose. Yet they
all end with the death and resurrection of
Jesus.
Note the differences between Matthew and
Luke in reference the temptation of Jesus:
Matthew 4:1-11 (read) and Luke 4:1-13 (read)
•Matthew and Luke report the same temptation accounts; they place the three accounts in differing orders. Matthew lists the three temp
Matthew and Luke report the same temptation
accounts; they place the three accounts in
differing orders. Matthew lists the three
temptations in order: bread making, temple
jumping, and Satan worshiping. Luke lists the
temptations in a different order: bread
making, Satan worshiping, and temple
jumping.
Luke desires to end His account with a
thematic emphasis on the temple in
Jerusalem, thus there is no contradiction,
thematic accounts are not necessarily meant
to be chronological.
II. Principle # 2 Misconstrued Referents Do
Not Necessitate Contradiction
•A Referent is the object or event to which a
term or symbol refers.
The reader’s wrong assumptions about a
writer’s intended subject matter do not
necessarily involve the writer in contradiction.
This confusion of referents can manifest in
several different ways:
1. Rule # 1 of Principle # 2: Unrecognized
Referents: Matthew 27:7-10 clearly quotes
Zechariah 11:12-13 but then attributes the
citation to Jeremiah:
Matthew 27:7-10 (NASB) 7 And they conferred
together and with the money bought the Potter's
Field as a burial place for strangers. 8 For this reason
that field has been called the Field of Blood to this
day. 9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah
the prophet was fulfilled: "AND THEY TOOK THE
THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE
WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel; 10
AND THEY GAVE THEM FOR THE POTTER'S FIELD, AS
THE LORD DIRECTED ME."
Zechariah 11:12-13 (NASB) 12 I said to them, "If it is
good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not,
never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of
silver as my wages. 13 Then the LORD said to me,
"Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at
which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty
shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the
house of the LORD.
Is this not a mistake on Matthew’s part with regard
to his misconstrued referent? Not necessarily,
consider: Matthew probably attributed the text to
Jeremiah because Jeremiah, in many Hebrew
manuscripts, headed up the collection of the
prophets and his name was used to designate all in
the collection. (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old
Testament,242)
2. Rule # 2 of Principle # 2: Undifferentiated
Definitions: The reader’s misapplied
definition to a writer’s term does not
necessarily entail that the writer is in error.
For example Paul’s use of the word flesh (en
sarki) in Romans 8:8-9 and Galatians 2:20.
Romans 8:8-9 (NASB) 8 and those who are in the flesh
cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the
flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God
dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit
of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
Galatians 2:20 (NASB) 20 "I have been crucified with
Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives
in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live
by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
Himself up for me.
By examining these two passages in context
we can easily see that in Galatians 2:20 Paul is
referring to his new life in Christ that he lives in
his physical body, whereas in Romans 8:8-9
Paul is clearly referring to one who is void of
the Holy Spirit and thus unregenerated and
one who is clearly controlled by the craving of
the sinful flesh.
3. Rule # 3 of Principle # 2: Unclassified
Causations: this is where a distinction
between the “primary” and the “secondary”
cause is overlooked or ignored. Take for
example 2 Samuel 24:1- compared to 1
Chronicles 21:1:
2 Samuel 24:1 (NASB) Now again the anger of the
LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David
against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah."
1 Chronicles 21:1-2 (NASB) 1 Then Satan stood up
against Israel and moved David to number Israel. 2
So David said to Joab and to the princes of the
people, "Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to
Dan, and bring me word that I may know their
number."
Did God incite David to perform the census or did
Satan incite David? This is an example of a
misconstrued referent because of unclassified
causations. The answer is that both are correct but
in very different senses. The author of 2 Samuel
refers to god as the “primary cause” where as the
author of 1 Chronicles refers to Satan as the
“secondary” cause, the means by which God
accomplished Hid purpose, i.e., his control through
the actions of others.
4. Rule # 4 of Principle # 2 Unseen Summary:
we have already looked at the author’s use
of the journalistic technique of selectivity,
now we must look at an author’s choice to
recount a long series of events in a
shortened summary format. This is to say
that the authors can write in summary and
still be truthful; this is the principle of
unseen summary.
Mark is clearly known as the shortest gospel,
but he actually reports longer accounts,
although he reports fewer, (unseen summary).
Matthew reports more historical accounts than
Mark does, however, the accounts that
parallels that of Mark contains fewer details
than Mark, again, unseen summary.
III. Principle # 3: Mystery does not Necessitate
Contradiction: just as there are definitive
facts surrounding the sinking of the Titanic,
there are also some missing facts that
appear to be a mystery, like wise with the
Bible. Not having a definitive answer is not
the same as saying that an answer does not
exist.
•The New Testament accounts of the death of Judas
appears to be mysterious:
Matthew 27:4-5 (NASB) 4 saying, "I have sinned by
betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that
to us? See to that yourself!" 5 And he threw the pieces of
silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he
went away and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 (NASB) 18 (Now this man acquired a field with
the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he
burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed
out.
It may well be that Judas did indeed hang
himself as per Matthew, and the rope broke so
that his body fell and ruptured on the ground
as per Acts. While we cannot definitively say
that this is how this happened, we can that the
mystery does not necessitate a contradiction.
In terms of alleged contradictions and
discrepancies one should consider the words of
A.T. Robertson: in explaining a difficulty, it is
always to be remembered that even a possible
explanation is sufficient to meet the objector. If
several possible explanations are suggested, it
becomes all the more unreasonable for one to
contend that the discrepancy is irreconcilable.