Contradictions in the Bible
|CONSISTENCY is as admirable in a book as it is in a man. Inconsistency
is born either of ignorance or insincerity. In either case, it is a
serious blemish in both man and book. There is, of course, a sense in
which all growing minds are inconsistent, and proudly so. Manhood is
inconsistent with childhood, experience contradicts want of knowledge,
and progress is the very antithesis of custom and tradition. But there
is no contradiction in dropping an idea which we find to be outworn and
untenable, to espouse its very opposite. On the other hand, it would be
the most unpardonable inconsistency to try to hold on to an opinion
in the face of all the evidence against it. Equally insincere and
contradictory would be our conduct if we advocated the new idea without
giving up the old.
The Protestants, for instance, profess to believe in private judgment;
but they also believe in an infallible revelation. How can an honest
mind hold on to both these ideas? What is private judgment good for
where there is an infallible guide? But, if private judgment is meant
to help us test or interpret infallibility, then private judgment is the
judge of infallibility, which is absurd. And when a man uses his private
judgment and disagrees with any part of the bible, is he not summarily
dropped from the list, and "delivered up to Satan," as the apostle
commands? Is that the way to respect the right of private judgment?
The bible is replete with contradictions of this description. A thing
is often said and unsaid in the same sentence. An idea is affirmed and
denied; a promise made and broken; a doctrine given and withdrawn, in
about every chapter of the bible. The most contrary propositions may be
proved by texts equally "inspired." Not only does one writer pull down
what the other builds up, but the same writer repeatedly demolishes
his own work. The author of Exodus, for instance, states as plainly as
language will allow that God is invisible; but the same writer assures
us that God has been seen by man, and his form and shape discerned.
Moses reports the Lord as saying to him, "Thou canst not see my face;
for there shall no man see me, and live." * But the same Moses testifies
that "the Lord spake unto Moses, face to face, as a man speaketh unto
a friend." ** The Apostle John bluntly contradicts this "divine"
statement, by another equally "divine," that "No man hath seen God at
any time." *** And whereas Jacob swears that he not only saw God but had
also a wrestling match with him, which lasted for many hours,**** the
Apostle Paul testifies that, not only has no man ever seen God, but no
man can ever see him. (v)
It is also stated that Abraham dined with the Lord, and that about
seventy of the elders went up the mount and saw the God of Israel. (vi)
But more serious than the textual discrepancies, which are numerous, are
the moral contradictions, of which the following is but one out of many.
* Exodus xxxiii, 20.
** Exodus xxxiii, 11.
*** John i, 18.
**** Genesis xxxii, 24-31.
v. Timothy vi, 16.
vi. Exodus xxiv, 9-11.
In telling the story of the Tower of Babel, and, describing the state
of society immediately after the deluge, the bible paints a pleasing
picture of the world after all the bad people in it had been drowned:
_And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. _*
An ideal state! To educate the races of the world to dwell together as
one great family, speaking the same language and cherishing the same
hopes--is not that the object of all our efforts? But this was precisely
what the God of the bible is represented as not desiring. When Jehovah
looked down from heaven and saw the state of harmony in which these
people dwelt, and the energy and unanimity with which they labored
to erect a tower which in their simplicity they thought would protect
future generations from such a deluge as had destroyed their fathers and
mothers, he was very much alarmed, and, as the text says, he decided to
break up this happy family, and to make strangers and wanderers of its
members over the whole earth. Could anything be more inconsistent!
_And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the
children of men builded.
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one (that, he did not like),
and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now
nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do._
**
* Genesis xi, i.
** Genesis xi, 5,6.
This picture of human concord and purpose displeased the being, one of
whose supposed titles is "Our Father in Heaven." Nor did he enjoy
the sight of a united people, building a city, and a tower to defend
themselves against the fury of nature; in other words, progress and
science provoked the anger of Jehovah. And so the Lord said:
_Let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not
understand one another's speech.
So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the
earth: and they left off to build the city._ *
What an occupation for a "good" God! Instead of blessing their union and
brotherhood, he destroys them. And this is the being whose fatherhood is
to be the basis of human brotherhood! Even as Adam was expelled from the
garden, "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live for-ever," ** the people dwelling in peace and
laboring in unison must be scattered lest they become great and happy.
And is this the book which is to teach us human brotherhood?
* Genesis xi, 7, 8.
** Genesis iii, 22.
The brotherhood of man existed; but the bible-God destroyed it. "And
the Lord said, Behold, the people is one." Is not that brotherhood? They
were not fighting one another; they were not persecuting one another;
they were not idle; they were not working at cross-purposes. But after
the Lord had sown the seeds of discord, this unity was no more. How
different is the bible from what people think it is!
But it would be easier to make a list of the consistencies to be found
in the Old Testament than to undertake to call attention even to a
limited number of its most glaring inconsistencies. The Old Testament,
being miraculous from beginning to end, is but a mass of mutually
destructive statements, from the Mosaic commandment, which forbids a man
"to trim the corners of his beard," to the saying of the Lord that he
himself will turn barber and shave the people:
_In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired... the
head, and the hair of the feet; and it shall also consume the beard._ *
A sane word in the bible is as rare as an oasis in a desert. The Old
Testament is mostly paradox and platitude.
Serious Discrepancies in the Story of Jesus
|BUT what about the New Testament? The Jesus story is as miraculous as
the Mosaic, and, therefore, equally well stocked with contradictions.
In presenting to us the narrative of the birth of Jesus, the first
evangelist, Saint Matthew, states that Joseph "took the young child
(Jesus) and his mother by night and departed into Egypt, and was there
until the death of Herod.... But when Herod was dead... he (Joseph)
arose and took the young child and his mother and came.. and dwelt in
a city called Nazareth." ** The Evangelist Luke, on the other hand, not
only ignores the flight to Egypt, but leaves absolutely not a shadow of
a foundation for the story as told in Matthew, which is, that as soon
as the wise men from the East had departed, an angel of the Lord ordered
the "Holy Family" to Egypt. This was to protect the infant Jesus from
the machinations of King Herod. It is also clearly stated that they
remained in Egypt until "the death of Herod." But according to Luke,
Jesus did not leave the country at all, nor did he avoid Jerusalem,
where Herod reigned:
* Isaiah vii, 20. The hair of the feet. The translators were
too civilized to render this sentence into plain English, so
they substituted the word "feet" in place of the
objectionable word in the Hebrew.
** Matthew ii, 14-23.
_And when the days of her purification, according to the laws of Moses,
were accomplished (eight days after birth of the child) they brought him
to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.... And when they had performed
all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee,
to their own city Nazareth._ *
When, then, did they visit Egypt?
According to the law of Moses, Mary, the mother of Jesus, having given
birth to a child, could not appear in public until the days of her
purification were over, and Jesus, the child, was required by another
law, equally binding, to be circumcised on the eighth day, which he was,
according to Luke's Gospel:
_And when the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the
child, his name was called Jesus._ **
* Luke ii, 22-39.
** Luke ii, 21.
But if Mary and her son remained in the land to perform these
ceremonies, and if they appeared in the temple at Jerusalem, where Herod
could have easily seized him, if he was really looking for him, what
becomes of the story in Saint Matthew, that Jesus fled by night from
Bethlehem to a foreign country, where he remained in hiding until Herod
died? Matthew says, Jesus fled to Egypt; Luke says, he did not go to
Egypt at all, but was taken to Jerusalem, and publicly circumcised in
the temple, after which he and his parents went to live in Nazareth.
If Jesus followed the course laid down by Matthew, he could not possibly
have gone to Jerusalem, eight days after his birth, and thence to
Nazareth; if, on the other hand, he did as Luke reports, then it was a
physical impossibility for him to have fled to Egypt. Is it not evident
from these random and careless statements that the writers are not
reporting actual events, but merely reproducing floating gossip?
Let us quote another instance: Mark says that "immediately" after his
baptism, Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil, and
that he remained there for forty days. Note the words "immediately"
and "for forty days," and then read what John says about what Jesus did
after he was baptized. According to this evangelist, Jesus, three days
after he was baptized, went to a wedding in Cana of Galilee, where he
turned water into wine. Will the interpreters of the Scriptures please
tell us how Jesus could have gone to the wilderness _immediately_
after his baptism and remained there for _forty_ days, if, according
to another report, he went to a marriage feast three days after his
baptism? A historical account in which such contradictions occur would
lose, and deserves to lose, the confidence of the reader.
Perhaps few events are so essential to the Christian plan of salvation
as the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. But there is not a consistent
report of even this all-important occurrence in the Gospels. Mark has it
that Jesus was crucified at the third hour; John thinks that Jesus was
not crucified until some time after the sixth hour. Now, if Jesus were
really crucified, and these reporters were in Jerusalem at the time,
and were also present at the crucifixion, they would have known, even
without inspiration, at what hour the awful tragedy took place. The very
fact that they report the time of the day shows that they are anxious
to give to their report all the earmarks of a historical document. If,
therefore, the event had really transpired, and if the apostles had been
eye-witnesses of it, there would have been unanimity as to the hour in
which Jesus was crucified. The lack of such unanimity shows, we believe,
that the reporters were far removed from the supposed events they are
describing, and that they had nothing more than rumors to guide them.
In the description of the scene on Calvary, there are nearly as many
inaccuracies as there are sentences.
Matthew and Mark say: "The thieves, also, which were crucified with
him... reviled him."
John says: "And one of the malefactors... railed on him.... But the
other rebuked him (his companion) saying, Dost thou not fear God?" etc.
Matthew says: "They gave him (Jesus) vinegar to drink, mingled with
gall."
Mark says: "And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh."
Nor do the biographers of Jesus agree as to whether Jesus drank the
vinegar-wine, or not. Matthew says, he "tasted thereof, but would not
drink." Mark says: "And they gave him to drink... but he received it
not." John is sure this is a mistake, for he says: "He received the
vinegar." Luke does not mention the wine-vinegar drink at all. We wonder
what he would have said had he also referred to the matter.
But a better idea of the character of these documents will be had by
comparing the different accounts of the last hours, and the last words
of Jesus. If Luke may be credited, Jesus delivered quite a little speech
on his way to Calvary. Seeing the "great company of people, and of
women" which followed him, he said, addressing the women alone:
_Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and
for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall
say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the paps
which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains,
Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a
green tree, what shall be done in the dry?_ *
* Luke xxiii, 29-31.
This is quite pessimistic, and contains no suggestion of the great
hope and salvation which a dying Saviour is said to have brought to
the world. And as none of the other evangelists reports this somber
lamentation of Jesus, it is likely that some celibate alarmist, who
expected the speedy destruction of the world, penned the lines. Is it
conceivable that, if Jesus actually delivered the above speech on his
way to the cross, and under the most impressive circumstances--that
three of his intimate and inspired biographers would have omitted any
mention of it? We are willing to waive the claim that an "infallible"
document should be free from such errors as are liable to slip into
human writings, but should they not, at least, be as free from them as
any uninspired historical document is expected to be? It is reported
that Pilate wrote a "superscription" in three languages to be placed on
the cross, and which could be read even by the people in Jerusalem. What
was this superscription? Each of the four evangelists gives a different
reading of it.
Matthew: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."
Mark: "The King of the Jews."
Luke: "This is the King of the Jews."
John: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."
Notwithstanding that we have four supposedly inspired witnesses, the
exact wording of the short superscription remains unknown.
We are equally in the dark as to the last words of Jesus: "I thirst,"
and "It is finished," were his last words according to John.
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," are the words reported by
Luke.
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," were the last words
according to Matthew and Mark.
When we consider the miracle of the resurrection, it can not escape
notice that the documents which tell of it are nothing but a collection
of popular rumors which, as usual, contradict one another at every
point. There is, on the one hand, for instance, the emphatic and
unqualified statement, "So shall the son of man be _three days and
three nights_ in the heart of the earth." Then follows an equally
unqualified statement that Jesus was buried late Friday, and rose before
or at sunrise, Sunday, thereby allowing only, at the utmost, _one day
and two nights_ for Jesus to remain in his grave. Again, if the four
narrators of the events in Jesus' life were eye-witnesses of them, they
would have surely agreed in the report of the place from which Jesus
ascended. The writer of the Book of Acts tells us that Jesus ascended to
heaven from the Mount of Olivet. The writer of the third Gospel says
it was from Bethany that he went up to heaven. The author of the second
Gospel intimates that it was from neither of these places that Jesus
ascended, but that it was while they were all at dinner. Add to these
conflicting reports, the important omission of John, the author of
the fourth Gospel, who does not so much as even mention this wonderful
finale in the earthly life of the Christian god, and an idea may be
formed of the character of the events narrated in our Gospels.
According to one version of the miraculous conversion of Paul, who may
be called the real founder of Christianity--at least, the man who was
responsible for its introduction into Europe--the men who were with him
when he saw his famous vision on the road to Damascus "stood speechless,
hearing a voice, but seeing no man." This is as explicit as any
statement can be. But according to another version the men who were with
Paul "saw indeed the light... but they heard not the voice."
Paul's Conversion! Paul's Conversion. *
* Read the ninth and the twenty-second chapters of Acts.
Paul's Conversion.! Paul's Conversion.
Story No. 1. Story No. 2.
And the men which jour- And they that were with
neyed with him (Paul) stood me saw indeed the light
speechless, hearing a voice, . . . but they heard not the
but seeing no man. voice.
The only way to account for so decisive a disagreement in the narration
of, presumably, one of the most significant events in the history of
Christianity, is that the writer or writers had no first-hand knowledge
of what they were reporting, and that both of the above versions were
matters of popular gossip--some holding to the earlier and others to the
later accounts, and the narrator, wishing to please both parties, and
possessing no reliable data himself, incorporated them both in his
report.
An equally impressive event in the rise of Christianity is the suicide
of Judas, one of the twelve apostles. That Jesus should have selected
Judas for an apostle, knowing he was a murderer in embryo, is puzzling
enough, but that there should be no unanimity as to the fate of a
man who plays one of the principal rôles in the Christian scheme of
salvation, lends serious support to the theory that Judas, too, is a
myth. Observe the irreconcilable accounts concerning Judas, as given in
Matthew and in the Acts of the Apostles:
* Read the ninth and the twenty-second chapters of Acts.
According to Matthew. According to Acts.
Judas . . brought Now this man (Judas)
again the thirty pieces of purchased a field with the
silver to the chief priests and reward of iniquity. **
elders. *
Matthew's account makes Judas return the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and elders who had bribed him with the amount; the other
makes Judas purchase a piece of land with the money.
There are also two contradictory accounts of the way in which Judas met
his death.
According to Matthew. According to Acts.
And he (Judas) went and And (Judas) falling head-
hanged himself. *** long, he burst asunder in the
midst and all his bowels
gushed out. ****
* Matthew xxvii, 3.
*** Matthew xxvii, 5.
**** Acts i, 18. **** Acts i, 18.
The writer of Acts knows nothing about the hanging story. His Judas has
a headlong fall, which causes him to burst open in the midst, tearing
out his bowels. A man hanging himself can not have a headlong fall, and
if it had been known to the writer of Acts that Judas "went and hanged
himself," he would have left out "he burst asunder in the midst and all
his bowels gushed out."
We leave it to the theologians to explain the manner of Judas' death.
One Writer Makes Jesus Affirm What Another Made Him Deny
|WHEN we come to study the sayings attributed to Jesus the
contradictions become more and more pronounced. The most irreconcilable
statements are put in Jesus' mouth, often by the same evangelist, as the
following few quotations will show:
Jesus Is the Judge of Men.
The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the
Son.--John v, 22.
Jesus Is Not the Judge of Men.
I (Jesus) judge no man.--John viii, 15.
If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not. For I came
not to judge the world.--Ibid. xiii, 47.
Jesus Witness of Himself Is True.
I am one that bear witness of myself... Though I bear record of myself,
yet my record is true.--Ibid. viii, 1, 4, 18.
Jesus Witness of Himself Is Not True.
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.--Ibid. v, 31.
Temptations Are to Be Avoided.
Lead us not into temptation.--The Lord's Prayer, Matthew vi, 13.
Temptations Are to Be Courted.
Count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.--James i, 2.
In the same way it could be proven by the bible that Jesus worked
miracles of every description to inspire faith in his mission, and from
the same book it could just as positively be shown that Jesus not only
worked no miracles whatever, but that he gave his word of honor he would
under no circumstances give a sign to prove his claims:
Jesus Refuses to Perform Miracles. Jesus Recites His Many Miracles.
And the Pharisees came Jesus answered and said
forth, and began to question unto them, Go and shew John
with him, seeking of him a again those things which ye
sign from heaven. . . . do hear and see. The blind
And he sighed deeply in his receive their sight, and the
spirit, and saith . . . There lame walk, the lepers are
shall no sign be given unto cleansed, and the deaf hear,
this generation. And he left the dead are raised up. **
them. . . .*
It is difficult to suppose that the Pharisees, after seeing all these
miracles performed in their midst daily, desired "a sign" from, him, or
that Jesus, instead of pointing to his many miracles, should declare,
positively: "There shall no sign be given unto this generation." The
miracle of Jonah, who was in the belly of a fish for three days, was
enough, Jesus said to the Jews, to prove his own divinity.
Again, it is as clear as anything can be, for instance, that the words,
"Go, ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," *** were interpolated
into the text of the Gospels after the Trinitarian party had come into
power. If Jesus really delivered the words to his disciples just before
they began their missionary labors, how is it that not one of the
baptisms by the Apostles recorded in the New Testament were in the name
of the Trinity? Paul was not baptized according to the formula given in
the Gospels; Peter did not baptize in the name of a triune God; Philip,
who baptized the Ethiopian, does not seem to have known of the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost form of baptism.
* Mark viii, 11-13.
** Matthew xi, 4,5.
*** Matthew xxiii, 19.
Again, if Jesus really commanded his Apostles to go into all the world,
and teach all nations, is it likely that only a short time thereafter,
Peter, one of the pillars, who had seen the risen Lord, and was now
confirmed in his faith, would have refused to preach the Gospel to
Cornelius because the latter was not a Jew? And if Jesus really sent
them unto all the nations of the world, how are we to explain the
bitter controversy over the admission of Gentiles into the church--a
controversy that led Paul to denounce Peter as a dissimulator? It is
not a lack of moral courage, but courtesy, which, in view of these
revelations, restrains us from calling the above text in the Gospels a
partisan forgery. Is it reasonable to suppose that the same Jesus who
forbade his disciples to go to the Gentiles, telling them to confine
themselves exclusively to the Jews, also commissioned them to make no
distinction of race, country or religion?
Below we present one of the most important commandments of Jesus, and
the prompt cancellation of the same, in parallel columns:
Go not into the way of the Go ye into all the world
Gentiles, and into any city of and preach the Gospel to
the Samaritans enter ye not: every creature. **
But go rather to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. *
Again, Jesus said:
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ***
* Matthew x, 5.
** Luke xvi, 15.
*** Matthew xv, 24.
It is claimed that Jesus postponed the giving of the larger command
until his disciples could appreciate it. But there is a serious
objection to this explanation. When Jesus forbade his apostles to visit
any of the cities of the Gentiles, he stated his reason for it. "I
am not sent," he said, "but unto the... house of Israel." Could any
pronouncement be more explicit than that? He further explained to his
disciples that they would not finish visiting the cities of Israel
before they would see him in his second coming. It was after
Christianity had crossed over into Europe that a note of universality
was introduced into it. That Jesus had no idea, or even desire, to
include the non-Jewish peoples of the world into his heavenly kingdom,
is clearly inferred from his definite declaration that the world would
come to an end during the lifetime of some of those who heard his
preaching.
And now, how do the orthodox defend themselves against these
revelations? One of the answers they offer is that contradictions and
inaccuracies occur in all books, but we do not discredit them on that
account. Therefore, they conclude, it is not fair to discredit the bible
because of the mistakes it contains. But the bible is claimed to be
an infallible book; and for an infallible book to stand in need of
the courtesy and indulgence shown to human writings is a terrible
humiliation. Moreover, the kind of contradictions which exist in the
bible would destroy the reputation of any book.
A second defense is that the mistakes in the bible are limited to
details only, and that in the essentials, it is infallible. It will not
be necessary to remind the readers of this book of the untruth of that
statement.
But why could not an inspired book be as accurate in the details as in
the essentials? If, for instance, the world were really created, or
if Jesus were crucified and raised from the grave, why is there not a
consistent account of these events?
A third defense is that these contradictions really prove the
inspiration of the bible. Had there been one consistent account of the
life and teachings of Jesus, instead of four contradictory ones, the
apostles might have been suspected of collusion, but the inconsistencies
in their narratives show, it is said, that they were honest men. Let
us test the value of the above defense by applying it to a specific
instance: Matthew and Luke testify that the women, upon their return
from the empty grave of Jesus, communicated their experience to the
disciples: "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre... and did run
to bring his disciples word." Mark, on the other hand, testifies that
the women fled from the sepulchre in consternation; "neither said they
any thing to any man." Now, did the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration
both accounts were supposedly produced, purposely cover the facts, or
misinform the reporters, that it may never be definitely known what the
women really did when they returned from the grave; or, did he confuse
the writers that the world may see in their disagreements the proof of
their honesty? But such a manouvre would only prove the ingenuity of the
Holy Ghost--not the honesty of the reporters. If the women communicated
with the disciples upon their return from the grave, then, to have
reported as Mark does, that "neither said they any thing to any man,"
was an error. It may have been an honest error, but if he were prompted
by the Holy Ghost to make the error, it does not prove his honesty, any
more than the contrary report proves the honesty of Matthew and Luke.
But there is a more important question suggested by this discussion: Why
are there four Gospels? If it were for the purpose of supplementing what
the others have omitted, we ask, why should there be omissions in an
inspired document? If all four of the evangelists in reporting the same
event agree perfectly, three of the reports would be superfluous. One
inspired and truthful account of it would have been enough. If, however,
the four accounts of the same event do not agree, as we have seen that
in numerous instances they do not, then no one will attempt to maintain
that all four of them could be true. If one evangelist testifies that
the ascension took place from the Mount of Olives, and another is
equally sure that it was from Bethany, about three miles from the former
place, it is evident that only one of them can be correct, if Jesus
ascended at all. The only good reason for more than one inspired account
of Jesus' life is that given by a great pillar of the early church,
namely, there had to be as many Gospels as there were corners to the
earth, or winds of heaven.