Accusation of contradictions in the Crucifixion story

[Peter_Dawson]

Really? I don’t recall reading that the Bible is the “perfect history book”. I thought the Psalms were songs or prayers…

God mistaking facts intentionally – that sounds weird. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless…I guess…

Hi, granny.

Read my own words, which you yourself brought into your own post, carefully.

My words are that God “misstates” facts intentionally.

Not “mistakes” facts intentionally.

 

[grannymh]

Hi, granny.

Read my own words, which you yourself brought into your own post, carefully.

My words are that God “misstates” facts intentionally.

Not “mistakes” facts intentionally.

My mistake. Thank you. I’ll repeat my thought since it still applies.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Here is an example of facts intentionally misstated in the inspired text of the Bible, posted in the Maccabees thread…

**1 Chronicles 2:13-15: David was the “seventh” son.

1 Samuel 16:10-11: Jesse presents his “seven” sons, THEN he presents his eighth, David.

Probably, 1 Samuel 16:10-11 is the intentional misrepresentation, because since “eight” is the type, or symbol, meaning “saved,” making David #8 makes him king of the “saved” – like Christ. I.e., David is made #8 to make him a Christ picture. **

 

[grannymh]

In fact, sometimes God misstates facts intentionally.

The following is a correction to post 20. It should read:

“In fact, sometimes God misstates facts *intentionally.” *-- that sounds weird. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless…I guess…

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The following is a correction to post 20. It should read:

“In fact, sometimes God misstates facts *intentionally.” *-- that sounds weird. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless…I guess…

Well, friend in Christ, I just posted an example.

There are many.

Sometimes God prefers to teach good theology, not accurate facts.

 

[grannymh]

Well, friend in Christ, I just posted an example.

There are many.

Sometimes God prefers to teach good theology, not accurate facts.

And the Catholic Church is guardian of the Deposit of Faith which consists of Divine Revelation. … regardless.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

And the Catholic Church is guardian of the Deposit of Faith which consists of Divine Revelation. … regardless.

But that role is not equal to a veto power over inspiration. That role is slave of the same inspiration which inspired Scripture. That which is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven because Heaven inspires that which is bound on Earth. In the end, inspiration operates both. The Magisterium and Scripture are therefore co-terminal – or, they should be.

Some here might ask, Well, suppose inspired Scripture and the papacy do disagree?

The answer is, “The papacy can change its mind. Scripture can’t.”

That’s why I threw out for everyone’s consideration the incident in which Pope Liberius condemned his own prior teaching.

Note that Scripture doesn’t do that, per se.

But it does contradict itself on historical facts a great deal.

Why?

Because God frequently misstates facts intentionally, to teach theology.

 

[patrick457]

Here’s my humble take on this:

1. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke there is no mention of the three Mary’s or John at the foot of the cross. It is only in the Gospel of John he says that this is mentioned. He states that it seems like **the author of John was doing a clean-up act ** for this discrepancy in the other gospels by adding the three Mary’s and John at the foot of the cross.

The young man then said that the reason for so many discrepancies is that none of the apostles/disciples of Christ were witnesses to the crucifixion and that it is only in Matthew and Mark that the women were mentioned looking at the crucifixion from afar.

Then he went on to say that Christians will often try to reconcile this by saying that the women, the Mary’s and John were at first looking from a distance and simply moved forward to the foot of the cross.

If you’ll look at the Gospels, John describes Jesus as being still alive when the women are near His cross - but when the Synoptics talk about the women standing from a distance, Jesus is spoken of as already being dead.

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachtani?” (that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’) But some of those who stood there, when they heard it, said, “This man is calling for Elijah!” And immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed staff, and gave it to Him to drink. But the rest said, “Leave Him alone! let us see if Elijah will come to save Him.” [Another took a spear and pierced Him in the side, and water and blood flowed out.*] And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit.

…When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and what took place, they were extremely terrified and said, “Truly this was Son of God!” And many women were also there, watching from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and ministered to Him. Among them were Mary the Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

• Early and important MSS (א B C L Γ pc) have this sentence at the end of this verse. This comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34 that it was undoubtedly lifted from the Fourth Gospel by early, well-meaning scribes and inserted into Matthew 27:49. Consequently, even though the support for the shorter reading (A D W Θ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat sy sa bo) is not nearly as impressive, internal considerations on its behalf are compelling.

-Matthew 27:45-50, 54-56

And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?” (which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’)
And some of those who stood by, when they heard it, said, “Look, He is calling for Elijah!” Then someone ran, filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed stick, and gave it to Him to drink, saying, “Leave Him alone! Let us see if Elijah will come to take Him down!” But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed His last - and the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Now when the centurion (who stood in front of Him) saw the way He breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was Son of God!” There were also women, watching from a distance, among whom were Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses, and Salome; who, when He was in Galilee, also followed Him and ministered to Him, and many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem.

-Mark 15:32-41

And it was about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. The sun was obscured, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, ‘into your hands I entrust my spirit!’” Having said this, He breathed His last.
Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he praised God and said, “Certainly this man was innocent!” And the whole crowd that had assembled for this spectacle, seeing what had taken place, beat their breasts and returned. And all those who knew Him stood at a distance, and the women who followed Him from Galilee saw these things.

-Luke 23:44-49

Now standing beside the cross of Jesus were His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary of Clopas, and Mary the Magdalene.* When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that very hour that disciple took her to his own. After this Jesus, knowing that all things were now consummated, said (in order to consummate the Scripture), “I thirst!” A jar full of sour wine was there, so they put a sponge soaked in sour wine on hyssop and brought it to His mouth. Therefore when He had received the sour wine, Jesus said, “Consummated!” And He bowed His head and gave over the spirit.

*The Greek here is ambiguous as to whether there were three or four women; whether Mary of Clopas is the same person as “His mother’s sister”. It is impossible to be certain, but when John’s account is compared to the synoptics it is easier to reconcile the accounts if four women were present than if there were only three. It also seems that if there were four women present, this would have been seen by the author to be in juxtaposition to the four soldiers present who performed the crucifixion.

-John 19:25-30

 

[patrick457]

1. In Mathew, Mark, Luke it shows Simon the Cyrene carrying the cross…

Yet in John only Jesus carried the cross…no Simon in sight…

In John’s gospel (19:16-18), we are told:

Then he handed Him over to them to be crucified. Therefore they took Jesus, and bearing His own cross, He went out to the place called “Skull Place” (which is called in Hebrew Golgotha), where they crucified Him, and with Him two others - one on one side and one on another side, and in the middle Jesus.

The original Greek for the italics above has kai bastazōn eavtō ton stavron, which could also be rendered as “bearing the cross by Himself”. John’s omission of Simon may have been due to the emphasis - evident during his version of the Passion story - on Jesus being in complete control of His destiny, an emphasis which we see early on in John:

“For this the Father loves me – because I lay down my life that I may again take it back. No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

John 10:17-18

There could also be a subtle anti-Gnostic polemic here. Some Gnostic groups, desirous of having the Savior suffer no pain or death, contend that Jesus did not actually suffer - instead of Jesus, the soldiers actually crucified Simon of Cyrene. Therefore, early Christians might have understood this passage as an emphasis that Jesus did suffer and was crucified - since He is the one that carried His own crossbeam.

From another viewpoint, it is likely that John is here describing how the procession started (emphasis on the “He went out”) - with Jesus carrying His own crossbeam as is customary. What the Synoptics relate, meanwhile, is what happened later - when Jesus grew too weak.

1. That only in the Gospel of John is the killing blow of the **spear thrust ** spoken of and that this was never mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Furthermore he says it is ridiculous to think that it **only took 3 hours for Christ to die on the cross ** and that the author of John needed to do clean-up for this discrepancy again by adding the spear thrust to the crucifixion story.

The spear did NOT kill Jesus in John. This is where he gets things totally mixed up.

Then the Judeans, because it was the Preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs; but one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and blood and water came out immediately. And he who has seen gave witness (and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe.
These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his shall be broken,” and again another scripture says, “They shall look on him whom they pierced.”

-John 19:31-37

It’s not ridiculous to say that Jesus died within a span of somewhere between 3-6 hours, though it is quite surprising (as crucifixions were designed to be a slow, painful death - with emphasis on slow). Pilate himself showed surprise that Jesus died rather quickly:

And when evening had already come, because it was the Preparation (that is, the day before the Sabbath), Joseph of Arimathea came - a prominent councillor, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God - and went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that He was already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had already died. And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.

Mark 15:42-45

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Here’s my humble take on this:

If you’ll look at the Gospels, John describes Jesus as being still alive when the women are near His cross - but when the Synoptics talk about the women standing from a distance, Jesus is spoken of as already being dead.

Thanks for the quotes Patrick. I’ll have to look at the Greek on the differences you mention for the women – I haven’t looked that closely in the past. A couple of comments on the translation, though;

-Mark 15:32-41
And it was about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. The sun was obscured, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, ‘into your hands I entrust my spirit!’” **Having said this, He breathed His last.
**

It is this phrase, which corresponds in John’s Gospel to Jesus uttering the singular word TeTele-s-tai. ( consummate ) In John’s Gospel, that word is the name of something, not an action happening.

Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he praised God and said, “Certainly this man was innocent!” And the whole crowd that had assembled for this spectacle, seeing what had taken place, beat their breasts and returned. And all those who knew Him stood at a distance, and the women who followed Him from Galilee saw these things.

That quote is clearer, circumstantially, than the reference I made earlier. I think does make sense – that if Jesus were to use a name of his father – that it would reinforce his innocence. People of wickedness do not call on God – they blaspheme everyone.

-Luke 23:44-49

Now standing beside the cross of Jesus were His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary of Clopas, and Mary the Magdalene.* When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that very hour that disciple took her to his own. After this Jesus, knowing that all things were now consummated , said (in order to consummate

I like your translation – but the highlighted word is probably not the same in the second position – it has a few extra letters in Greek…

Doing a search of τελειω in other Greek sources shows it quite clearly to mean the goal of consecration – as in the hands of a priest.
Particularly Aaron and his children. It shows up commonly in the LXX and other works in that context but almost in no other. In the NT John uses it here, and in 17:23.

Paul is the only other writer who appears to use it at all in the NT fully spelled.

See Hebrews 5:14 – most translaters arbitrarily say “solid”. But I think Paul means food made to be of value.

The exact word and spelling is used in the LXX Sirach 7:32 - and has nothing to do with acts occurring at the time of sacrifice – rather it is speaking about events which went before that made the words of blessing at sacrifice have value and effect…

The construction in John is identical execpt a substitution of " scriptures" for “words of blessing”

So, I think that what John is literally saying is more along the lines of:

Afterward, Jesus seeing everything consumate already,
In order that the scriptures be of value, he said: I thirst.

A jar full of sour wine was there, so they put a sponge soaked in sour wine on hyssop and brought it to His mouth. Therefore when He had received the sour wine, Jesus said, “Consummated!”

That word, consummated, though – is not a past tense verb. It is a perfect participle – which means he is not telling of an action, but rather is using it like a name or title. Eg: pronouncing it consummate, rather than consumated. ( eg: it is closer to the being “good” than to the verb doing “well” )

The word, since it has to do with a state of being which is permanent past present and future – could also be a play on the personal name of his Father but in Greek, eg: a personal reference to the being-ness of his father.

Mark records the words as “Father, into thy hands…”
So, I tend to think John was just being very polished in his choice of words (or lawyerly… ).

Thanks for the quotes. I really appreciate your comments too.
–Andrew.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for the quotes Patrick. I’ll have to look at the greek on the differences you mention for the women – I haven’t looked that closely in the past. A couple of comments on the translation, though;

It is this phrase, which corresponds in John to him uttering the singular word TeTele-s-tai. It is the name of something – and here Peter uses a generic reference to the father.

That quote is clearer, circumstantially, than the reference I made earlier. But, it does make sense – that if Jesus were to use a name of his father – that it would reinforce his innocence. People of wickedness do not call on God – they blaspheme everyone.

, said (in order to consummate

I like your translation – but the word is probably not the same in the second position – it has a few extra letters.

Doing a search of τελειω in other greek sources shows it quite clearly to mean the goal of consecration – as in the hands of a priest.
Particularly Aaron and his children. It shows up commonly in the LXX and other works in that context but almost in no other. In the NT John uses it here, and in 17:23.

Paul is the only other writer who appears to use it at all in the NT.
But in the OT it is used quite often.

See Hebrews 5:14 – most translaters arbitrarily say “solid”. But I think paul means food made to be of value.

The exact word and spelling is used in the LXX Sirach 7:32 - and has nothing to do with acts occurring at the time of sacrifice – rather it is speaking about events which went before that made the words of blessing at sacrifice have value and effect…

The construction in John is identical execpt a substitution of " scriptures" for “words of blessing”

So, I think that what John is literally saying is more along the lines of:

Afterward, Jesus seeing everything consumate already,
In order that the scriptures be of value, he said: I thirst.

That word, consummated, though – is not a past tense verb. It is a perfect participle – which means he is not telling of an action, but rather is using it like a name or title. Eg: pronouncing it consummate, rather than consumated. ( eg: Jesus pronounced it “good.” )

The word, since it has to do with a state of being which is permanent past present and future – could also be a play on the personal name of his Father but in Greek, eg: a personal reference to the being-ness of his father.

Mark records the words as “Father, into thy hands…”
So, I tend to think John was just being very polished in his choice of words (or lawyerly… ).

Thanks for the quotes.

[/INDENT]

Really good observation, if I might say (though you did mix up the names a bit, if I may be so bold to say)!

As for the women, the Syriac Peshitta interestingly takes the position that there were four:

Qāymān hway din lāwth Ziqifeh d’Yēšū’ emāh, u’hāthāh d’emāh, u’Maryam hāy da’Qelyāwpā’, u’Maryam Magdālitā’.

Now standing at the cross of Jesus were His mother, and the sister of His mother, and Mary - that of Clopas, and Mary the Magdalene.

 

[DeusVeritas]

I want to thank everyone for their in-depth and well thought out responses to the points I posted in my original post. There were many counter arguments that I had not heard of before in reference to the alleged contradictions in the gospels on the crucifixion.

THANKS AGAIN and God bless you all!!