![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/12\/JesusCrucifixion6.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nChapter 8 of my book (available for free<\/strong>\u00a0online),\u00a0Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved<\/em><\/a>. See the\u00a0Introduction<\/a>\u00a0and ch. 1:\u00a0How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n The claim here is that Mark doesn\u2019t mention money as Judas\u2019 motive. He proposed a betrayal to the \u201cchief priests\u201d and then<\/em> they \u201cpromised to give him money.\u201d But in Matthew\u2019s account, the demand for money is seemingly mentioned by Judas upfront: \u201cWhat will you give me if I deliver him to you?\u201d \u00a0Mark records that he \u201cwent to the chief priests in order to betray him to them\u201d (Mark 14:10), but this doesn\u2019t exclude<\/em> a possibility that he said at the same time what Matthew records. Mark simply didn\u2019t record that part. But that means it is only the usual weak \u201cargument from silence\u201d in the rush to find a biblical \u201ccontradiction\u201d under every rock and to set Mark against Matthew in this regard. Whatever Judas said (and he must have said\u00a0something<\/em>), the chief priests were \u201cglad, and promised to give him money\u201d (Mark 14:11). Nothing in Mark\u2019s text makes it impossible<\/em> for filthy lucre to have been Judas\u2019 motivation, and when Matthew makes this explicit, it merely complements Mark\u2019s story (in a non-contradictory fashion). There are only so many reasons and motives for immoral people to do what they do. Usually they come down to very few (pride, envy, revenge, financial gain, etc.). That Judas\u2019 motive was financial is not only indicated (most explicitly) by Matthew, but also by John\u2019s report: \u201che was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it\u201d (John 12:6).<\/p>\n This is untrue. The shekel was made of silver, and was in use in Israel in the first century A.D. In the same book of Matthew, \u201cthe half-shekel tax\u201d was referred to in 17:24. If atheists won\u2019t accept that because it\u2019s from the Bible (a most irrational attitude, given the Bible\u2019s proven historical accuracy, again and again), then we can submit the Jewish first century historian Josephus, who referred to the half-shekel Temple tribute (Wars of the Jews<\/em>, VII, ch. 6. Sec. 6). Moreover, at\u00a0Horvat \u2018Ethry\u00a0in Israel (22 miles southwest of Jerusalem), between 1999 and 2001,\u00a0Boaz Zissu\u00a0and Amir Ganor of the\u00a0Israeli Antiquities Authority\u00a0discovered a\u00a0half-Shekel<\/em>\u00a0coin from the 2nd century A.D., with the words \u201cHalf-Shekel\u201d in\u00a0paleo-Hebrew\u00a0on it. It had a silver content of 6.87 grams. But there is more. Smithsonian Magazine<\/em>, in an article dated September 16, 2022, noted that an ancient Jewish silver quarter-shekel, dated 69 A.D., had been found at an auction in Denver. So much for this<\/em> atheist objection . . . I feel like I just crushed a grape with a sledgehammer.<\/p>\n John reports \u201cSo the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him. First<\/em> they led him to Annas;\u00a0for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year\u201d (John 18:12-13), who \u201cquestioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching \u201d (John 18:19). Note that this account specifically indicates sequence, by use of the word \u201cfirst.\u201d None of the Synoptic accounts have the word \u201cfirst\u201d or anything regarding sequence or chronology. Because of this use of \u201cfirst\u201d in John, there is no contradiction, and a synthesis is easily envisioned. John continues: \u201cAnnas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest\u201d (18:24). Then \u201cthey<\/em>\u00a0[implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]\u201d (18:28). And \u201cThey<\/em>\u00a0answered him, \u201cIf this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over\u201d (18:30). Note that Caiaphas was present at the judgment and \u201cmonkey trial\u201d of the Sanhedrin, as indicated by Matthew 26:57, 62, Mark (not named, but mentioned as the \u201chigh priest\u201d: 14:53-54, 60, 63, 66), and Luke (\u201chigh priest\u201d: 22:54). Therefore, it\u2019s seen that it\u2019s all the same overall story, told by four storytellers, with the expected differences in detail and emphases that we would expect in\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0four different accounts of the same incident. Matthew and John refer directly to Caiphas the high priest as being involved (Matthew mentions also the assembly, whereas John doesn\u2019t: not directly), but still indicates their presence by the two uses of \u201cthey\u201d in describing the Jewish leaders leading Jesus to Pilate. Mark and Luke don\u2019t name him, but note that the \u201chigh priest\u201d was involved, which is no contradiction. Nice try, but no cigar, I\u2019m afraid.<\/p>\n Clearly, both Matthew and Luke believe that Peter\u2019s denial occurred at roughly the same time as this \u201cbeating\u201d incident (during a portion of Jesus\u2019 kangaroo court trial). Neither specifically note that the Peter incident was\u00a0before<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0after<\/em>\u00a0the other in time, so there is no undeniable contradiction. Nor is it necessary to even\u00a0know<\/em>\u00a0that detail. Witnesses (or Peter\u2019s own report) wouldn\u2019t have known exactly\u00a0what<\/em>\u00a0was happening inside the building or\u00a0when<\/em>\u00a0any given thing happened, since they were outside of it. Chronology in the Bible, in any event, was not viewed in a strictly linear fashion, like we do today (that\u2019s much more of\u00a0 Greek thing than a Hebrew \/ Semitic thing). Topical similarities are relatively more important.<\/p>\n Some Bible critics claim that there is a contradiction between guards beating Jesus in one account, and the Sanhedrin doing so in the other, and in the two chronologies presented. But is there,\u00a0really<\/em>? Luke describes them as \u201cthe men who were holding Jesus.\u201d But earlier in his text, he reveals that the same men were \u201cthe chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him\u201d (Luke 22:52), who \u201cseized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest\u2019s house\u201d (Luke 22:54). Therefore, they weren\u2019t\u00a0merely<\/em>\u00a0\u201cguards\u201d (we know for sure). Matthew is less specific in the immediate context: \u201cthose who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas\u201d (Matt. 26:57). But earlier he, too, identifies them as, specifically, \u201cthe chief priests and the elders\u201d (Matt. 26:47). Matthew mentions, in harmony with Luke, that there were \u201celders\u201d (Matt. 26:57) and \u201cchief priests\u201d (Matt. 26:59) at the trial. Luke likewise mentions those two categories of people at the trial (Luke 22:66). Everything is exactly the same except that Luke added the non-contradictory additional category of \u201cofficers of the temple\u201d among those who seized Jesus. Neither uses the word \u201cguard.\u201d That\u2019s merely a guess. But granted, these people were \u201cholding\u201d Jesus, and so that is guarding him. In any event, it\u2019s the same groups of people in both accounts: those who were part of the council.<\/p>\n The harmonization of the two accounts seems clear and obvious: some of the \u201celders\u201d and chief priests\u201d who were among those present at the trial went out to seize Jesus, having obtained information as to his whereabouts from Judas. Matthew states that Judas \u201cwent to the chief priests\u201d (Matt. 26:14) to betray Jesus. Luke reports that \u201che went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them\u201d (Luke 22:4). And so he noted that \u201cchief priests and officers\u201d (acting on this information) seized Jesus (Luke 22:52, 54).<\/p>\n We find the same in Mark. Judas went to the \u201cchief priests\u201d (Mark 14:10), and the ones who seized Jesus were \u201cfrom the chief priests and the scribes and the elders\u201d (Mark 14:43): the same three groups of people who were in the assembly (Mark 14:53). Mark\u00a0does<\/em>\u00a0say that \u201cguards\u201d struck Jesus (Mark 14:65), but there is no reason to not believe that they were from among the assembly. Furthermore, John states that Judas came with \u201ca band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees\u201d (John 18:3; cf. 18:12). The same people were guarding him \u2014 were close to him \u2014 during the trial (while they were part of\u00a0 the deliberations) and struck him in mockery and hatred. They were part and parcel of the council. Thus, no inexorable contradiction whatsoever is present. Yet some atheists are quick to claim \u201ccontradiction!\u201d They almost always offer a superficial analysis (nothing like what I have just provided). They don\u2019t demonstrate or prove how they can\u2019t\u00a0possibly<\/em>\u00a0be harmonious accounts. Such analyses lack logical rigor.<\/p>\n Jesus was not totally <\/em>silent before Pontius Pilate in the books of Matthew and Mark. In both cases, the atheist ignored the verse immediately before the ones he cited showing that Jesus was silent the whole time:<\/p>\n Matthew 27:11<\/strong> Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, \u201cAre you the King of the Jews?\u201d Jesus said, \u201cYou have said so.\u201d<\/p>\n Mark 15:2<\/strong> And Pilate asked him, \u201cAre you the King of the Jews?\u201d And he answered him, \u201cYou have said so.\u201d (cf. Luke 23:3)<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 answers had the same meaning in Jewish idiom as saying, \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cyou have spoken the truth, and what I would say.\u201d Mark even adds, \u201cJesus made no further <\/em>answer\u201d (15:5). So how is it that the atheist can ignore Mark 15:5 and 15:2 and make the claim that Jesus said \u201cnot a single word\u201d before Pontius Pilate? One can only shake one\u2019s head in befuddlement at such a lack of comprehension of a Bible passage and plain English. But bias can do strange things to even the most brilliant minds. The many words in John\u2019s account could have happened a little later or earlier or in a separate encounter, but in any event there is no undeniable contradiction present.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n To the contrary, a Roman official releasing a prisoner based on the desire of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59 ff. It records the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, saying to Phybion, the accused, in 85 A.D.: \u201cYou would have deserved to be scourged, . . . but I am granting you to the multitude.\u201d Moreover, Lucceius Albinus, Roman Procurator of Judea from 62 until 64, was described as doing something like this by the Jewish historian Josephus: \u201cAlbinus . . . was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; . . . as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; . . .\u201d (Antiquities<\/em>, XX, ch. 9, sec. 5).<\/p>\n According to Bible scholar A. T. Robertson (in his Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>), various shades of purple and scarlet were available in the first century, and it was not always easy to distinguish them. I\u2019ve gotten into friendly disputes several times with my daughter about what color something was. We simply saw it differently. The Gospel writers were human like the rest of us. Color can be a very subjective thing. But there is also an interesting Greco-Roman history of these color terms. Matthew 27:28 uses the term chlamys<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0paludamentum<\/em>,\u00a0which was military garb worn by emperors in their role as military leaders, and by other officers (Pliny, xxii. 2, 3). Two Evangelists call it \u201cpurple\u201d but the ancients often called this color \u201ccrimson\u201d or described as \u201cpurple\u201d any color with red<\/em> in it. Moreover, Latin writers used \u201cpurple\u201d to describe any bright<\/em> color. The English \u201cpurple\u201d comes from the Latin\u00a0purpura<\/em>, which in turn derived from the Greek word\u00a0porphura<\/em>, which specifically referred to mollusks that produced a crimson dye.<\/p>\n The online Jewish Encyclopedia<\/em>, 1906,\u00a0\u201cCrucifixion\u201d), notes that \u201chighway robbery\u201d and \u201cpiracy\u201d (which involves theft or robbery) were punished by crucifixion. Encyclopedia Britannica<\/em> (\u201cCrucifixion\u201d) also states that \u201cpirates\u201d were crucified. If atheists demand contemporary proof, that\u2019s easy to find. First century Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Felix, Procurator of Judea from 52-60 A.D., who was appointed by Nero, and who presided over Paul\u2019s trial for a time (Acts 24:24-27): \u201cas to the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified, . . . whom he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated\u201d (Wars of the Jews<\/em>, II, ch. 13, sec. 2). One wonders where this atheist came up with his<\/em> alleged facts? Is he unable to search Josephus? I found this reference on Google in about a minute; maybe less.<\/p>\n It could have been that the two reviled him initially, and in the course of doing that, one of them thought the other was too harsh on Jesus, and reconsidered and started defending him (and\/or what Jesus may have said \u2014 unrecorded \u2014 persuaded him otherwise). Such a thing sometimes happens in arguments and discussions. Human beings can change their minds. Matthew and Mark don\u2019t say they reviled Him \u201cthe entire time\u201d or never ceased doing so, etc., so the possibility for a change of heart and mind exists, and seems to be a perfectly plausible explanation. In any event, no contradiction is unarguably established.<\/p>\n Matthew doesn\u2019t present these as Jesus\u2019 last words, because four verses later it states: \u201cAnd Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit\u201d (27:50). Luke provides the actual words he said when He \u201cyielded up his spirit\u201d: and we know that those were his last words because in the same verse (Lk 23:46) it immediately adds: \u201cAnd having said this he breathed his last.\u201d Mark adds in 15:37: \u201cAnd Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.\u201d This is perfectly harmonious with Luke 23:46 as well, which also noted that Jesus was \u201ccrying with a loud voice.\u201d All three Synoptics have Jesus talking loud and then dying. Luke provides the actual words. This is\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0a contradiction! John reads: \u201cWhen Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, \u2018It is finished\u2019; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.\u201d Here all we need do is note that Jesus said one more thing before He \u201cgave up his spirit\u201d: as all the Synoptics agree. Luke\u2019s \u201chaving said this\u201d strongly indicates that He died right after having said, \u201cFather, into thy hands I commit my spirit!\u201d The absence of these words in three Gospels is not contradictory. They\u2019re all harmonious. Our beloved critic could have figured all this out if he did the slightest amount of analysis of all these passages. This isn\u2019t calculus or nuclear physics.<\/p>\n Matthew never\u00a0claims<\/em>\u00a0that the centurion saw the temple veil tearing. Matthew 27:54 states that he \u201csaw the earthquake and what took place . . .\u201d The Temple veil was mentioned four verses earlier. \u201cWhat took place\u201d doesn\u2019t have to refer to absolutely\u00a0everything<\/em>. It simply means (in what I submit is the obvious, straightforward, common-sense interpretation) what the centurion saw in\u00a0front<\/em>\u00a0of him, including an earthquake and \u201cdarkness over all the land\u201d (27:45). That\u2019s more than enough for him to think that divine signs were occurring.\u00a0This is quite a desperate argument, like so many of these charges.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The centurion could have said all those things. The Synoptics simply report them a little differently, as we routinely expect from different reports of the same thing; this is actually a mark of\u00a0truthfulness<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0trustworthiness<\/em>, not inaccuracy. Mark adds just one word to Matthew\u2019s description, and the two are clearly referring to the same thing. But the four texts are harmonious and not contradictory. We must always keep in mind the logical principle of \u201cthe silence of some verses is not the same thing as a denial.\u201d John\u2019s not mentioning a centurion who said this is no evidence that it didn\u2019t happen. It\u2019s only evidence that either: 1) he didn\u2019t recall it, or 2) his sources were not aware of it or 3) he decided not to include it, if he knew of it, for whatever reason. But it doesn\u2019t annihilate the report of the other three Gospels, because it doesn\u2019t\u00a0deny<\/em>\u00a0their report, which would<\/em> actually be a contradiction.<\/p>\n We have some\u00a0possible<\/em>\u00a0clues about the time of each described observance. In terms of the order of things mentioned in the text, Mark refers to the female onlookers three verses (15:40) after he notes Jesus\u2019 death (15:37), which is an indication that they were there at the time of his death. Matthew utilizes the same order of report: Jesus\u2019 death (27:50) \/ description of the women (27:55-56). It\u2019s the same again in Luke: Jesus\u2019 death (23:46) and noting the women and other \u201cacquaintances\u201d present (23:49). John, on the other hand, seems to place his scene shortly after Jesus was nailed to the cross, since he talks about the soldiers dividing up Jesus\u2019 garments: \u201cWhen the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts\u201d (19:23) and right after mentioning that, he describes \u201chis mother, and his mother\u2019s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene\u201d who were \u201cstanding by the cross\u201d (19:25). Where there is\u00a0overlap of mentioned women\u00a0(present near the cross and at a \u201cdistance\u201d), it\u2019s still not undeniably contradictory, since that would require variant assertions of a person being in two different places\u00a0at a given particular time or the entire time<\/em>.\u00a0 For example, Mary Magdalene was mentioned as being close to the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, and further off (in Matthew and Mark). She could simply have moved (possibly being\u00a0forced<\/em>\u00a0to move by the Roman soldiers) from one place to the other: perhaps earlier by the cross and later (up to the time of Jesus\u2019 death) at a distance. Two different things were being recorded: observance from afar, and observance much closer to the cross. And even overlap of the women mentioned is not a contradiction unless the claims contradict and are incoherent and confused with regard to the\u00a0specific times and locations<\/em>\u00a0involved.<\/p>\n Wrong. Mark 14:50 contains nothing about the crucifixion at all. It records that the disciples \u201cforsook him, and fled\u201d at the time of the arrest<\/em> of Jesus.<\/p>\n The ultimate sentence of crucifixion could not have been made by the Jews in any event. Only the Romans could put a man to death in that place at that time (see John 18:31). Thus Matthew records that the Sanhedrin concluded that Jesus \u201cdeserves death\u201d (26:66), but they couldn\u2019t\u00a0and didn\u2019t sentence<\/em>\u00a0him. They had to send him to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (Matt. 27:1-2), who \u201cdelivered him to be crucified\u201d (27:26). Atheists who claim otherwise are dead wrong in their assessment of what Matthew taught in this regard. The story in Mark is precisely the same. The Sanhedrin unanimously \u201ccondemned him as deserving death\u201d (14:64), sent him to Pilate (15:1), who alone could sentence him, and Pilate \u201cdelivered him to be crucified\u201d (15:15). Luke is no different. The Sanhedrin judged him (as supposedly a blasphemer) in effect by saying, \u201cWhat further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips\u201d (Luke 22:71). They \u201cbrought him before Pilate\u201d (23:1), and we see them still trying to get him killed (23:2, 5, 10, 14, 18, 21, 23). But Pilate<\/em> decided (23:24-25). No essential difference whatsoever exists in the three accounts, and certainly no contradiction. But then atheists try to find a contradiction over against the Gospel of John, which reports that Annas: \u201cthe father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year\u201d (John 18:13), \u201cquestioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching\u201d \u00a0(John 18:19). Annas \u201cthen sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest\u201d (18:24). Then \u201cthey<\/em>\u00a0[strongly implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]\u201d (18:28). And \u201cThey<\/em>\u00a0answered him, \u201cIf this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over\u201d (18:30). This disposes of the false contention that John didn\u2019t mention Jesus before the Sanhedrin. A for effort, but E for results . . .<\/p>\n Mark and John were using a different time system. John followed\u00a0Roman\u00a0time, where a day ran from midnight to midnight. Mark utilized the\u00a0Jewish\u00a0conception of time, in which a day began at 6 PM and the morning of that day at 6 AM. Thus, Mark was expressing the thought that Jesus was crucified at 9 AM. John was communicating to his readers that Jesus\u2019 trial included the time of 6 AM, before his crucifixion.<\/p>\n Those who make this argument do so presumably in part because of the KJV rendering of John 13:2: \u201cAnd supper being\u00a0ended, the devil having\u00a0now<\/em>\u00a0put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon\u2019s son,\u00a0to betray him.\u201d The unfortunate rendering there is the word \u201cnow.\u201d Modern translations (KJV derives from 1611 and utilized inferior ancient manuscripts) virtually unanimously agree that the event\u00a0had<\/em>\u00a0happened earlier<\/em>: \u201cthe devil\u00a0had\u00a0<\/strong>already<\/em>\u00a0put it into the heart\u00a0of Judas\u201d (RSV, NRSV, ESV; my italics); \u201calready . . .\u201d (NIV, NASB, Amplified, ASV, Young\u2019s Literal Translation, NEB, REB, Barclay, NAB, Phillips, Beck, Wuest). With this clarification, the alleged \u201ccontradiction\u201d vanishes. Jesus also confirmed before the Last Supper: \u201cDid I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?\u201d (John 6:70).<\/p>\n It could have been from any number of sources: from Jesus\u2019 mother, who was present at the crucifixion, Mary, mother of James and Joseph, Mary, mother of the sons of Zebedee, Salome, or Mary Clopas.\u00a0All these women were present at the cross. Or he could have gotten the information from, say, a Roman centurion eyewitness and earwitness who later became a Christian, or from any number of onlookers, who were willing to talk about what they saw and heard (not necessarily all Christians). Or he got it from an oral tradition passed down. There could have even been a tradition based on things Jesus taught during his post-Resurrection appearances. His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus alone appears to have lasted several hours: all likely taken up in theological \/ spiritual\u00a0conversation (Luke 24:13-31). Luke in Acts (1:3) says that these appearances of the risen Jesus lasted \u201cforty days\u201d and Paul says Jesus \u201cappeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time\u201d (1 Cor. 15:6). All of these things are possible.<\/p>\n But purchases that were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath and holy days. We know this from the Jewish talmudic source,\u00a0Mishnah Shabbath\u00a0<\/em>23.4[:] \u201cOne may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom<\/em>, to furnish what is necessary . . . for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter.\u201d A techoom<\/em> was a distance of 7,500 feet, which a man was allowed to travel on the Sabbath or holy day. Burial preparation is precisely this type of work which is exceptional and permitted even within Mosaic Law.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n He could do so (as could anyone) by simple observation. He saw what has been verified by medical science; and this is an excellent verification of the trustworthiness and accuracy and (we also say) inspiration of Holy Scripture. Jesus, after he died, had a hemothorax<\/em>, which is a collection of blood in the space between the chest wall and the lung\u00a0(the pleural cavity). This came about as a result of the severe flagellation that he endured. In a dead body, blood separates into two layers, with the heavier red cells on the bottom and a light watery plasma above. A spear wound would have resulted in the red cells (blood) pouring out, followed by plasma (mostly water). It\u2019s the consecutive, non-simultaneous draining of the blood first, then water, that made it easy to identify by a \u201clay\u201d onlooker (with the clear fluid being accurately identified as \u201cwater\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n *****\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n*<\/p>\n