How do Christians respond to the charge: ‘the Bible is full of contradictions’?

G’day everyone, Dave Deane here, and our question for the week is: How do Christians respond to the charge: ‘The Bible is full of contradictions?’

Critics of Christianity often argue that the Bible cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information – historical or otherwise – because it contains many contradictions. In the words of best-selling author and New Testament textual critic, Bart Ehrman: “The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions…” Now, I’ve seen online reports from less than reputable sources charging that the Bible contains as much as 40,000 contradictions. Now, I don’t know how one would even begin to count something like that, but anyway; to take a moderate-by-comparison analysis, there was a graphic published in 2010 by “Project Reason” and commissioned by outspoken atheist, Sam Harris, which purports to visualise 439 contradictions across the chapters of the Bible, leading one publisher of this graphic to conclude: “to anyone who thinks the Bible’s the last word on anything, remember this: It isn’t even the last word on itself…”

So what are we to make of all of this? Because if Ehrman is right and the Bible is “filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions…” then it does put Christians in a difficult position, insofar as we consider the Bible to be the authoritative word of God “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).

Well, this is one of those subjects that is imbued with many assumptions. So in response to the question, How do Christians respond to the charge: ‘The Bible is full of contradictions?’ I want to suggest there are at least three different elements we need to keep in mind.

First: let’s get clear about ‘contradictions’

Charles Dickens begins his classic book A Tale of Two Cities with one of the most impressive paragraphs I’ve ever read:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…”

But we might be inclined to sit back and ask: ‘Well, Mr Dickens – which is it?! The best of times or the worst of times?! The age of wisdom, or the age of foolishness?!’ Being good textual critics we could shut the book and charge A Tale of Two Cities is “filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions…” That is, after all, what a contradiction is: two mutually exclusive claims about something, someone or some occurrence. But we don’t tend to do that with Dickens. Why? Well, because with a little work we come to see from the context of that opening paragraph that Dickens is using oppositional language to make a particular about conflict. This is good literature, not formal contradiction; Dickens gets our attention from the opening line and draws us into the moment of his message; his words invite us, the readers, to read more, to dig deeper and think harder about what he is saying.

You see? There is a significant difference between an apparent contradiction and a formal contradiction: an apparent contradiction is just that – apparent, appearing as though – it is not a formal contradiction per se but rather a paradox. And paradoxes are effectively used by authors to create reader-tension that draws us into the authors message giving us a greater depth and breadth and appreciation of their meaning. By contrast, a formal contradiction – mutually exclusive claims that cannot be reconciled – they don’t attract intrigue, they repel us in suspicion about the coherence, trustworthiness and reliability of the account in question.

Well, all of that to say – like Dickens, the writers of the Bible sometimes use language to draw us into the meaning and significance of their message.

So, still here under this first element ‘let’s get clear about contradictions,’ let me give three examples of apparent contradictions or paradoxes in the Bible, that critics like Sam Harris charge as formal contradictions.

First, apparent contradictions come in the form of author omissions.

Take the words of Jesus as an example. Most NT scholars recognise that we don’t have ‘the precise words’ of Jesus in the gospels (what theologians call ipsissima verba), rather what’s recorded by the gospel writers is the ‘very voice’ (ipsissima vox), that is, the gist, the summary significance of Jesus’ teachings recorded for us in the gospels. Now, on the level of language this seems obvious enough as Jesus would have spoken Aramaic and we have English translations from Greek autographs. But it also explains why we find different writers omitting or abbreviating different elements from their accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry. Take the example of the story of the centurion’s servant. In Luke’s telling of the story, the centurion sends Jewish elders to speak with Jesus (Luk 7:1-10), but Matthew omits that detail and reports it as though the centurion himself went to Jesus to speak with him directly (Matt 8:5-13). Now, in those days there wasn’t any real functional difference between a centurion and their emissary, so the historical context acquits the charge of contradiction here. But think about this in a modern context: at the moment we’re getting some new floor boards installed into our living room, and the builder had to take a sample piece into the timber mill to get them to match it. The builder came over to our house, handed me the quote to check over and, if happy, make the call and order the timber. When I rang up the timber mill, I remember clearing saying ‘Hi mate, I recently got a quote for some floor boards and I’d like to place the order with the following order number…’ Now, I omitted the detail of the middle-man, the builder who sourced the quote, but it’s not a lie or a contradiction to say that I did, in fact, get a quote for floor board. That’s a straight forward example of omission.

A Second example of apparent contradictions can be seen in the form of author interpretations.

Again, when we consider that the Gospels are written in Greek and the fact that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, the very art and science of translation at that point involves interpretation on part of the author as languages don’t necessarily have equivalent words or phrases that can be matched one-to-one. So right away that could account for some minor discrepancies, say in the gospel accounts where the authors reference the same saying or act of Jesus. But more than that, the Biblical authors – writing, in most cases, after the events had taken place – often include points of theological significance for particular reasons, depending on their intended audience.

Take the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount as an example. Luke records Jesus as saying, “blessed are you who are poor” (Luk 6:20), whereas Matthew records Jesus as saying “blessed are the poor in spirit” (5:3). Now, it is possible that Jesus said both statements and Luke and Matthew wrote down the difference; or, as I think, it seems entirely reasonable that what we have here is a difference in emphasis given the respective purposes of Luke and Matthew which don’t contradict one another but complement one another to give a complete account of Jesus’ teaching. I mean, for one thing Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Mount is briefer than Matthews. And for another, it seems likely that his emphasis on materiality is intended to meet his readers where they’re at. And for Matthew part, his account doesn’t exclude the materially or financially poor – that would be a contradiction, by the way – rather, what it does do is emphasise the spiritual dimension of Jesus’ words. You see, omissions, abbreviations, compressions, partial reporting’s, we need not think of them as ‘deceptions’ on part of the author, but rather different emphases, different perspectives by the authors about the something that actually took place.

And a Third example of apparent contradictions can be seen in the form of an author’s organisation.

Consider the example of Jesus cleansing the temple. According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus cleansed the temple during the final week leading up to His crucifixion, but according to John, Jesus cleansed the temple early on in his ministry. Now, is this a contradiction? Well, it’s possible as some argue that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, but I think it’s more likely that here again we have an example of Biblical authors, in this case John, reorganising his testimony to draw our theological significance. You see, in the cleansing accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke they all make reference to Jesus saying that His house (the temple) is a house of prayer for all peoples – Jew and Gentile – which harkens back to something written by the Old Testament prophet Isaiah. John doesn’t record that in his account; instead, he connects the temple cleansing with Psalm 69 which is a prophetic picture of Jesus’ death – “For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.” And just to be clear, willingness to accept difference in chronology is not an exercise of incredulity; in the first generation after the time of the NT, we have the writings of a guy named Papias who tells us he accurately wrote down what the Apostle Peter said (what Mark recorded in his gospel), but he tells us he didn’t write it down in chronological order! That’s significant. Ancient writers weren’t necessarily beholden to chronology like we are today, rather they often used devices like presentation and structure – organisation – to get their message across to their readers.

So that’s a first element I think we need to consider – let’s get clear about ‘contradictions’ – because often times what’s charged as a contradiction turns out to be no contradiction at all.

Second: let’s get real about witness testimony

Imagine for arguments sake that you were called up for jury duty to render judgement over an alleged assault. And the defendant calls upon two eyewitnesses to back them up and, one by one, these eyewitnesses give the exact same account, verbatim. Now, eyewitness testimony is compelling legal testimony, but rarely if ever do two or more eyewitnesses recall things exactly the same because people are susceptible to their own individual first-hand perspectives, and memories are susceptible to a variety of differences and biases. So hearing two eyewitness testimonies that are exactly the same is suspicious – it makes us question their independence because in all likelihood they’ve colluded or co-in-sided their stories. You see, where apparent contradictions or paradoxes draw us in to dig deeper and think harder about independent testimonies, exact same accounts, like formal contradictions, repel us with suspicion to the degree that the witnesses seem to have colluded with one another.

So that’s a second element to consider – let’s get real about witness testimony. And, I might add, I think this point is significant when we it comes to the Bible in particular, because remember: the Bible is not a single book, it is a collection of 66 books written by over 40 authors in 3 languages on 3 continents across some 1,500 years. And while it arguably presents a basic unifying message about our relationship to God, each other and the world around us, this unity is not given in uniformity. The 66 books contain different voices from different times, locations, languages and perspectives. But any lack of uniformity across the pages of Scripture do not necessarily deny the basic unity of the Biblical story as it concerns, again, our relationship to God, each other and the world around us. We aren’t left to throw our hands in the air or shrug our sceptical shoulders because it is still possible to know the unity of a message despite lack of uniformity in its various witnesses.

Thirdly and finally: let’s get specific about case examples

When I hear someone say a sweeping generalisation like, “The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions…” I like to ask: ‘What is the strongest example of a Bible contradiction?’ And the reason I ask for the strongest example is because often times when someone rebuts an apparent Bible contradiction, there is a tendency for critics to jump to the next and then the next and then the next, bombarding believers with quantity if not quality of alleged contradictions. By asking for ‘the strongest’ we can avoid that tendency because if you can answer the strongest one satisfactorily, then it puts others in their place.

Now, I’m not suggesting this is the strongest example of a contradiction, but to give just one short example: critics, again like Sam Harris, sometimes charge that there is a contradiction between Matthew’s account of ‘an angel’ at the tomb following Jesus’ resurrection (Matt 28:5) and John’s account which makes explicit mention of ‘two’ angels (John 20:12). Clearly, one is not two and two is not one so we seem to have a problem. Well, again, digging a little deeper and thinking a little harder we see that both accounts are situated in the same place, at the same time with the same characters, and Matthew never says ‘there was only one angel’; simply, his account references ‘an’ angel that spoke to Mary. These are not contradictory accounts they are complementary, because the further information in John’s account does not exclude the information we already have in Matthews giving readers a more complete perspective of the events as they happened.

And, again, that we do this all the time today goes to show the double standards of some critics. You know, if I said to you that last Tuesday night I went and tried the burgers at this new burger place in town, but then later on that evening you heard me telling someone else across the room that last Tuesday night I went on a date with my wife, it would be overly hasty to suppose that I am contradicting myself; I’m simply giving more information to that other person. After all, if you know me, you know I like burgers and it’s quite likely that I would take my wife out to a burger place.

So to bring this all together, there are at least three different elements that I think are helpful to keep in mind when thinking about how to respond to the charge ‘The Bible is full of contradictions?’:

• First: let’s get clear about ‘contradictions’
• Second: let’s get real about witness testimony
• And Third: let’s get specific about case examples

And, look, let me be real with you all: in saying all of that there are still passages which I find difficult to reconcile. There are even passages of incidental commentary which I think in all likelihood contain scribal errors in the translations we have today. But I remain a Bible believing Christian. Why? Because my faith does not rest on the proverbial straw of a minor peripheral discrepancy that would break the camel’s back of the grand unifying message of the Bible about our relationship to God, each other and the world around us. We can be sure of that message, and any questions I yet have are but invitations to dig deeper and think harder about the text of Scripture. And no matter who you are, l want to encourage you to do the same.

2 Timothy 2:15 “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth…”

1 Thessalonians 5:21 “…test everything; hold fast what is good.”