What is Faith?

[Keith Broaders]

Faith is the belief in something that a person wants to believe is true without compelling evidence.

The evidence that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark , Luke and John are true is based on the assumption the tesimonies of four unidentified men made 40 years after an the death of Jesus are absolutely true. 

In a court of law, only the testimonies of eye witnesses are considered credible.   A person that was not present when and where an event took place is not a credible witness.

How can a critical thinker accept the testimonies of four unidentified  men that simply repeated a story that they had  heard over 40 years ago.

Many of the statements made by the authors of the Gospels made contradictory claims which would cause a critical thinker to question the authenticity of what was written.

The statement "in the latter days even the elect will be deceived" comes from Jesus' warning in Matthew 24:24

[Keith Broaders]

Yes, there are differences in the accounts of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that some scholars and critics interpret as contradictions, while others view them as variations in perspective or emphasis. These differences arise because the Gospels were written by different authors, at different times, for different audiences, and with distinct theological purposes. Below, I’ll outline some commonly cited examples of apparent contradictions, followed by explanations often provided by scholars who argue these are not contradictions but complementary accounts. I’ll aim to be concise yet comprehensive, presenting both sides fairly.

Commonly Cited Contradictions

1. The Genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1 vs. Luke 3)
   • Difference: Matthew and Luke provide different genealogies for Jesus. Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage through Joseph back to Abraham, listing 42 generations, while Luke traces it back to Adam, listing 77 generations, with different names between David and Joseph.
   • Critics’ View: These genealogies conflict, as they list different ancestors and imply different lineages for Jesus through Joseph.
   • Defenders’ View: A common explanation is that Matthew traces Joseph’s legal lineage (as the adoptive father), while Luke traces Mary’s biological lineage or a different legal line. Another view is that one genealogy accounts for levirate marriages (where a man marries his brother’s widow to continue the family line).
2. The Timing of Jesus’ Crucifixion (Mark 15:25 vs. John 19:14-15)
   • Difference: Mark states Jesus was crucified at the “third hour” (9 a.m.), while John says Pilate was still judging Jesus at the “sixth hour” (noon).
   • Critics’ View: This is a direct contradiction in the timeline of the crucifixion.
   • Defenders’ View: Some argue John used Roman time (counting from midnight, making the sixth hour 6 a.m.), while Mark used Jewish time (counting from 6 a.m.). Others suggest John’s “sixth hour” refers to the entire trial period, not the exact moment of crucifixion.
3. The Women at the Empty Tomb (Matthew 28:1-8, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-10, John 20:1-2)
   • Difference: The Gospels differ on who visited Jesus’ tomb after his resurrection and what they saw:
     • Matthew: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary” saw an angel.
     • Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome saw a young man in white.
     • Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others saw two men in dazzling clothes.
     • John: Mary Magdalene alone initially went to the tomb and saw no one until later.
   • Critics’ View: The number of women, their identities, and the figures they encountered (one angel, two angels, or a young man) are inconsistent.
   • Defenders’ View: The accounts are complementary, not contradictory. Each Gospel may emphasize different women or details without denying others. For example, John focusing on Mary Magdalene doesn’t exclude others being present. The “young man” or “angels” may reflect different descriptions of the same divine messengers.
4. The Cleansing of the Temple (Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46, John 2:13-16)
   • Difference: John places the temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, while Matthew, Mark, and Luke place it during the final week before his crucifixion.
   • Critics’ View: This suggests a contradiction in the timing of a major event.
   • Defenders’ View: Many scholars propose Jesus cleansed the temple twice—once early in his ministry (John) and once later (Synoptics). Others argue John arranged events thematically, not chronologically, to emphasize Jesus’ authority.
5. The Last Supper and Passover Timing (Synoptics vs. John)
   • Difference: Matthew, Mark, and Luke depict the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g., Mark 14:12-16), while John suggests it occurred before Passover, with Jesus crucified as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered (John 19:14).
   • Critics’ View: The timing of the Last Supper and crucifixion contradicts between John and the Synoptics.
   • Defenders’ View: Some propose different calendars were used (e.g., a Jewish sectarian calendar vs. the official temple calendar). Others suggest John’s account is symbolic, aligning Jesus’ death with the Passover lambs to emphasize his role as the sacrificial lamb.

Broader Perspectives

• Critics’ Argument: These differences indicate the Gospels are not historically reliable, as they reflect conflicting traditions or theological agendas rather than a unified account. Some argue the authors drew from oral traditions or earlier sources (e.g., the hypothetical Q source for Matthew and Luke) and shaped them to fit their audience’s needs, leading to discrepancies.
• Defenders’ Argument: The variations reflect the authors’ unique perspectives, audiences, and purposes, not errors. The Gospels are theological biographies, not modern historical documents, and minor differences in detail (e.g., number of angels or exact timing) don’t undermine the core message of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Eyewitness accounts often vary in detail, and the Gospels’ consistency on major events supports their reliability.

Context and Analysis

• Historical Context: The Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death (Mark ~60-70 CE, Matthew and Luke ~80-90 CE, John ~90-100 CE), based on oral traditions and possibly earlier written sources. Each author tailored their account:
  • Matthew: Emphasizes Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, fulfilling Old Testament prophecies.
  • Mark: Focuses on Jesus’ actions and suffering, written for a Gentile audience.
  • Luke: Highlights Jesus’ compassion and universal message, aimed at a broader Greco-Roman audience.
  • John: Emphasizes Jesus’ divinity and spiritual significance, with less focus on chronology.
• Cultural Context: Ancient biography allowed flexibility in arranging events or selecting details to convey theological truths, unlike modern expectations of precise chronology or verbatim reporting.
• Harmonization: Many scholars and theologians attempt to harmonize the accounts, suggesting explanations like multiple events, different timekeeping systems, or selective reporting. Critics argue harmonization sometimes stretches plausibility to reconcile differences.

Conclusion

While there are clear differences in the details of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whether these constitute contradictions depends on one’s perspective. Critics see them as evidence of historical or editorial inconsistencies, while defenders view them as complementary accounts shaped by theological and cultural contexts. For a deeper dive into specific examples, you could provide a particular passage or event, and I can analyze it further or check relevant sources for additional insight.