What is the biggest bible contradiction?

I think the situation is more that Matthew did write in Hebrew, but quoted an OT more similar to the Greek Septuagint than to the Hebrew. It doesn't matter too much. Maybe that is the translation he had available, maybe he was using it for the Greek speakers, or maybe the Holy Spirit was quoting Greek and he was trying to translate quickly. (just kidding!)

So you have no idea why I put the word in inverted commas? No I'm not, I am using definition C.God knows why you thought I was using A. I didn't claim that they all had 'according to' on the first page, I said we didn't know what was on the originals.This is another example of your lack of critical skills. For all we know 'John's' Gospel may have had 'according to' on the original and it was deemed important that the others had 'according to' added to them. It is equally possible that another Gospel had 'according to' written on it and it was added to John, or perhaps none of them had it written on them, we just don't know so you have to be careful about making absolute claims about any historical text. Oh well, another brain-washed fundy to ignore.Brian.

in reply to both Anastasia and Nem:Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

There is a verse, and I can not find it now, in which John says 'these signs and many more did He do' or something similar, which makes many feel that this was the end of the book, and that it was picked up later on by someone else.

---

Yes, that’s part of it. Your are thinking of the last verse in chap 20. It is Jn 20:30

quote:

---

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

---

The ending of the apparent addition is similar, Jn 21:25

quote:

---

25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

---

There are a few independent lines of evidence that suggest that chap 21 is a later addition. Some are:1. The earliest manuscripts don’t have it. These include the second century scraps of P 52 and P 90, and the 3rd century scraps of P5, P 9, P 22, P28 and P 75. The oldest attribution of these verses is in the 3rd century, in P 109. However, this evidence is only suggestive, since none of these scraps are complete anyway. For instance, P 52 and P 90 also don’t have chapter 1, but no one is suggesting that chapter 1 is a later addition.2. Tertullian writing around the beginning of the third century, says that it ends without chapter 21. Of course there weren’t chapter numbers then. This is what he says:

quote:

---

"And wherefore does this conclusion of the gospel affirm that these things were written unless it is that you might believe, it says, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?"

---

That fits the end of chapter 20 as the end of the gospel.3. The writing style doesn’t fit - it’s as if someone else wrote it. Scholars who read greek say this is easy to see. It’s lost in the English translation. I don’t read greek, so I can’t testify to this one.4. The topic covered is different - chap 21 is mostly about ecclesiastical structure and denying that Jesus will come in “this generation”, while the bulk of John is about Jesus as God.5. No church fathers quote or refer to Jn Chap 21 until the later 3rd century.6. The gospel appears to end at 20:30 as mentioned above.While I agree that none of these are irrefutable, they are suggestive, and there is nothing to suggest that chap. 21 was in the original gospel. It’s well known that the gospels were added to or otherwise changed in other places (hence the large number of differences between our early manuscripts), so that points not debatable. So on the bulk of the evidence, most scholars see Jn 21 as an addition, just like the end of the Gospel of mark.Anastasia, I’ll reply to your earlier post tomorrow. I have to go now. Have a fun day-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

So you are unfamiliar with these matters, but that does not make the findings "conspiracies"The Christian theologian Brooke Foss Westcott of the 19th century said this in relation to John 21: Read the wiki on John 21 for more information on this "conspiracy" I think Equinox did quite adequately....BTW, why do you contend that a book, that some claim is inspired by God, should automatically be presumed innocent (truthful). Do you also grant this honor to the Koran and Book of Mormon?"Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence" not "outrageous claims automatically invoke special protection and blind belief"

Brian, I do not understand you! You are contradicting your own self. You are the one who started the topic about the naming being so much later than the writing. Now you are saying that when the gospels were written some of them already had names on them? When the Bible says 'the Gospel according to John' what do you think that is, if not the naming? If this qualifies me as a fundy, fine. But if you know for a fact that Matthew was given its name in 130, how could the words 'according to' not have been added to it later. after the writing?BTW remember this? Definition a. in agreement withDefinition c. on the authority of; as said byYou pick your definition. I will say this for the last time on the subject. John or someone else wrote a gospel. A long time later someone printed it and wrote on the frontispiece 'the gospel according to John'. You are totally making it sound like someone found a manuscript with the words 'according to John' on the front page, as if someone had heard it from John, or written it for him. You can not use this idea to prove it was second hand info. If it were only that simple!

If this is true, why is there not a record of when the second part was added? Or is there? I mean, where did chapter 21 come from? Was it just discovered late? I mean, it was not even written until 90-140 CE anyway, so it could not have been on the shelf for too long.

Hi Anastasia-

quote:

---

why is there not a record of when the second part was added? Or is there?

---

Sorta both. Remember how things were back before gutenburg. Books had to be hand copied, and most people couldn't read or write. So books (anb bibles) were few, rare, and each unique. A copy of "Galen's anatomy" wasn't the exactly the same as another copy.Plus, the bible wasn't put together as a canon until around the 3rd-4th century. In addition, a person quoting a book won't quote all of it, so we don't know what they had but didn't quote. Thus if one person doesn't quote J21 because it's not in their copy of GoJ, and another doesn't because he just decided to quote a different part, we can't tell which is doing which.Lastly, the copies of J floating around didn't have chapter numbers. So Tertullian isn't going to notice that someone else's copy doesnt' have chapter 21 - he'd have to sit down and compare them word for word. He might notice if someone quoted J21, but probably wouldn't notice then, since there are a lot of words in the books, and he wouldn't know that the quote wasn't in there somewhere - remember, back then there weren't chapter numbers, so a person quoting a passage just said " and the gospel says 'XXXX'", so checking up on that was nearly impossible.So if in, say, 265, some scribe, while copying John by hand (which is what everyone who wanted another copy of John had to do or pay someone to do), decided he thought of a cool story that should have been in there, he may just keep writing when he got to the end. Or more likely, he may have heard the story orally, and may think that it really was in the original, and his copy must be deficient, so he "fixes" it by adding the story. No one would notice, since, as we saw above, it really wouldn't show.Then there would be different manuscripts floating around. If someone hears of both, and is copying another copy of John, the next scribe would assume that his copy is lacking a part that should be in there, and add it to his new copy. Soon copies have that all over.We know this happens from other cases too. For instance, part of what we now call John chap 8 doesn't appear until the middle ages.Is it documented when J21 was added? It sort of is. We know it was before the end of the 3rd century, since we have multiple manuscripts from the 4th century that have it. It's hard to say how early it could be, since a few copies with it could easily escape detection. Added in the middle of the 2nd cent? Middle of the 3rd? Who knows. Many scholars actually think that there are two added parts, one earlier and one later. That's pretty up in the air though.Whenever it was added, just like J chap 8, it is perhaps the moral and message that is more important than the details of when it was added, as you mention earlier.Have a fun evening-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

Thanks, Equinox. I understand. It is around the end of the third century that chapter 21 starts appearing in some gospels. It is my stuck in a rut mentality that views things back then the way they are now. Nowadays we have a lot of different bibles, but every now and again an ancient scroll or manuscript shows up that undergoes analysis, and is sometimes said to belong in the bible. I guess I pictured this scenerio that way, too. duh...but then it makes me wonder about the Apocolypse, and if that matches any of the other 'Johns' in time or style.

no, that's just the point. we don't know that. according to one book it is, but the other books are a day different. the days of the week, and the relation to shabat doesn't tell us anything. the difference between matt/mark/luke's last supper on the first day of passover, and john's last supper the day before passover is a perfectly clear contradiction. they are told in the same terms. no, you are attempting to confuse the issue. ask any jewish person you know, shabat starts on friday night, and continues to saturday morning. in israel, friday is a half-day at work. look, i'll make this really, really simple for you. it's not about when jesus died -- the synoptic gospels and john agree that he died on friday, the preparation for shabat. the contradiction is when passover was that year.see luke's last supper, which makes numerous references to the chag ha-matzot (feast of unleavened bread) and pesach (passover):

quote:

---

Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

---

compared to john's trial of jesus, which happens after the last supper:

quote:

---

Jhn 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

---

john exchanges the "preparation for the sabbath" (friday morning) in matt/mark/luke for "prepatation for passover" and moves passover up one day. no, it's a single day. because the very next day is the trial, above, which is on the day before passover. in john, jesus dies on passover, as the sacrificial lamb. the matthew, mark, and luke, the last supper is the passover seder. they cannot both be right. then you have clearly missed where the text continues to explicitly state that it is before passover, up until jesus is actually on the cross. again, see above. jesus's trial is still the day before passover. no? one (sometimes) washes their own hands after the kiddush, and again before bread is broken. but i know of no foot-washing traditions, except among the early christian church. doing so in the ancient near east was a symbol of hospitality -- something that would be utterly foriegn to the themes of pesach, which involve servitude, hardship, and family, and the instruction of youth. i never said he wasn't -- he just isn't portraying it as a passover seder. instead, he portrays jesus as the sacrificial lamb -- his death starts passover. and you claim i insulted you?this really isn't very complicated. matthew, mark, and luke say that the last supper takes place on the first night of passover. john says it takes place before passover, and jesus's trial is on the day before passover (making his death, in the evening, the first day of passover).

---

audience. greek was the lingua franca of the 1st century roman-occupied middle east, and probably a fair portion of the rest of the empire. educated jews in the area spoke and read greek (which is why there was a septuagint in the first place, btw). it's actually entirely possible that jesus himself conducted most or at least part of his teaching in koine greek. when he talks to pontius pilate, he must be doing so in greek. if it weren't for the fact that we have numerous aramaic inclusions in the gospels, the case might even be better. personally, i would think that jesus conducted his sermons in aramaic (being aimed largely at the common people), but we can't rule out the possibility that he only resorted to his native aramaic when he was at a loss for greek words. well, we know he wasn't quoting the masoretic, because it didn't exist then. we can't actually say that the changes between the septuagint and the masoretic were the septuagint's doing and not the masoretic's, but the versions of quotes that matthew uses are closer to the septuagint than to the masoretic.for instance, a famous example, the virgin birth, and isaiah 7:14. the greek used in the septuagint is the word for "virgin." but the hebrew word in the masoretic carries no such connotation. actually, we can pretty much rule out matthew writing in hebrew. he would have had to have been a pharisee to even know the language. hebrew was a dead language at this point in history, and if it was even ever spoken aloud, it would have been by church elders, for ceremonial purposes. (sort of like latin, in catholic mass. nobody speaks latin anymore, really)even by the end of the old testament biblical period, hebrew was a dead language. the most recent books of the old testament are written in aramaic.

---

Ok, I will concede some points to you. The topic is tricky in some ways. I have a bible which says Jesus died on preparation day for Shabat, but the Latin Vulgate says 'parasceve of the pasch'. It is a bit odd that the date is thrown in out of context over and over in John, as if he wants to drill it into our heads to make a point. Still, I do not see the whole picture tying together, though. It seems if John wants to illustrate Jesus being the paschal lamb, he would have included the 'eucharist' part. Who knows, he may not have even been Jewish. Or maybe the dates were added after the fact by someone with more of an agenda. Strange thing is, many scholars argue that John is right, and not matt/mark/luke.

it's not a case so much of disproving the bible, but of logic.if one text says one thing, and another text says the opposite, they cannot both be right. logically, one must be wrong, but without further evidence we cannot say which. however, knowing that either text a or text b must be wrong, we can say that the whole volumne or library of texts cannot be wholely correct in every way.so in a manner, contradictions do disprove parts of the bible, using the bible, and disprove the notion of inerrancy. a text that says something AND that things opposite cannot be entirely correct.these are not issues so much of ambiguity and overlap, like saying "god loves you, but he'll kill you." maybe god kills out of love, right? these are issues to plain statement of facts: was the last supper before or on passover? it cannot be both. no, and that's important to remember. it's a story. it may or may not have some truth to it. this is overly simplistic. much of the bible has little to do with morality, and many books play many different roles and serve many different functions. well, see, there are a few problems here. the point about when jesus died in relation to passover is a very important point in christian theology. john derives one more from it, the synoptic gospels derive another. we modern christians have confounded the two, and accept an amalgum of the gospels as a singular moral tale -- but they all have different points, and different audiences. if they didn't, we had one gospel, not four. it is very important not to lose the flavor and subtlety of the texts.the other issue is that very, very often in the bible, the spiritual messages themselves are contradictory. for instance, god is just -- but punishes job for no good reason. god kills people for touching his box -- but sends his son to die for us. god tells the israelites to beware (or exterminate) foriegners -- but to be hospitable to strangers, even telling jonah to go to nineveh. these are big, big points, not silly little "when did the cock crow" things.and we shouldn't expect anything different from the text. all these tell us is that this collection of texts is not what the fundies say it is, but what it on first sight appears to be: a collection of texts, by many different authors, presenting many different points of view, from many different places and times. if it did agree, it would be a miracle. as this very board illustrates, total agreement is not within the realm of human capability.heck, some of us contradict ourselves. yes, he switches shabat for pesach. where matthew mark and luke read "preparation for sabbath" (after the first night of passover) john reads "prepatation for passover," thus moving passover up to the day of jesus's death.there is a preparation for passover, btw. for instance, the night before pesach, there is a ritual where the family searches for (and removes) all leavening from the house. since passover is 7 days long, there is always a saturday during it. i'm not aware of this, can you elaborate?either way, it's clear by john's phrasing during the trial of jesus that he intended to place jesus's death on the first night of passover, or perhaps even the day before passover, with passover coinciding with the sabbath.

quote:

---

Jhn 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!

---

quote:

---

Jhn 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away.

---

the question is whether or not it becomes passover while jesus is on the cross, or whether the two preparations are the same. either reading is possible, but both contradict matthew, mark and luke which say the last supper is a passover seder.

---

john actually says both, in chapter 19. the question is how much time elapses between them. and either way, the other texts still place this DURING passover, not before. no, he doesn't need the extra symbolism. he's straight forward about it. to him, jesus literally is the sacrifice that keeps those who live in him safe from the wrath of god. the synoptic gospels take a more abstracted approach, but john goes for the jugular. it's just his style. i have a suspicion that he had some gnostic influences. john is a preferred text in christian churches, probably because it is more forward. people teach from the pauline epistles because paul says "do this, don't do that" and describes the meaning of christ point-blank. people quote john because jesus just comes out and says who he is, and what he means. it's easier to digest, really, because of this. you don't have to abstract out the meaning of a plot when the meaning is simply handed to you. (this is also why all of the earliest non-canonical gospels are simply collections of sayings, such as thomas.)but to a careful reader, the gospels of john presents a very different theological character of jesus, and a very different personality. many educated readers don't like john very much, because they see john's jesus as arrogant, self-righteous, and breaking a number of commandments and jewish traditions. the jesus of the synoptic gospels is a little more modest.

---

Obviously I am not an expert, but I know that at some point in time the Jews pushed the fast of the first born, and the search for the leavened bread ( I think ) back to Thursday, when the Passover fell on the evening of the Sabbath. There is another rule which says that there must be a feast before every Sabbath. I am not sure how this info adds into the story, or if it does at all. It is odd that if Jesus is really dying on Passover, no one is mentioning it or doing anything about it. There are other things which have been pointed out, such as the apostles making purchases and preparing burial places, which would be no-no's on passover, and which lead people to say that John must be right, and that he died the day before. It is too much for me at the moment, honestly, to calculate, but I can't help but wonder why the author would say that it was one day, and his details would make it seem like another day. That is the trap of proving the bible with the bible. John seems like he just added in all the references to the passover anyway.

I understand this, yet I see many examples of the circular reasoning that is not really so logical. Like saying Jesus could not have died at 3 oclock, because later on in the story it was only 4 oclock and too much time would have passed. We do not know that later on 'it was only 4' is true, so we can not conclude that '3 oclock' is false, or vice versa. But people do that. This is an imaginary scene of course.....