Biblical Contradiction: Crucifixion

[Dauphin]

Hi,

I’m having trouble answering the following question:

*What was the day when Christ was Crucified? *

*a) The first three Gospels record that Christ was alive on the “day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed (sacrificed).” (Lk. 22:7). That evening Christ ate with his disciples the Passover Seder (A Jewish ceremonial dinner or supper held on the first night of Passover to commemorate the Exodus.) (Lk. 22:14). Thereafter, Christ spent the night on the Mount of Olives, praying (Lk. 22:40). On the next day Christ was brought before Pilate, tried and crucified. (Lk. Chapter 23). (see Mt. 26:20-30; Mk. 14:17-25; Lk. 22:14-23) *
**

*Briefly, Christ was Crucified the day following the Passover Seder. *
**

*b) Apostle John records; when Christ was lead from Caiaphas unto the Pilate’s Headquarters, the Jews did not enter the Hall of Judgment “lest they should be defiled” to “eat the Passover” (18:28). “And it was the preparation of the Passover” (19:14) when the verdict for the Crucifixion was delivered by Pilate and Christ was taken to the place of his Crucifixion and “they crucified him.” (19:18). *
**

*Briefly, Christ was Crucified on the day of the Passover Seder. *

Since the Crucifixion happened ONCE, which record is to be considered as not trustworthy?

This and some other apparent contradictions in the Bible are really getting me down. The Catholic Church teaches biblical inerrancy, but I’m quickly losing faith. In my medieval history class, the professor talks about contradictions in the Bible as if no one can question that they exist. I’d appreciately it if someone could direct me to a list of comprehensive Catholic answers to every apparent contradiction. I’d also appreciate prayers to strengthen my faith. This has really put me in a spiritual rut…

 

[Nita]

Hello Dauphin,

I think you will find the following excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI’s Holy Thursday 2007 sermon very interesting. (Quoted from 4/11/07 L’Osservatore) Underlining is mine.

Quote:

• There is an apparent discrepancy in the Evangelists’ accounts, between John’s Gospel on the one hand, and what on the other Mathew, Mark and Luke tell us.
  
  According to John, Jesus died on the Cross at the very moment when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the temple. The death of Jesus and the sacrifice of the lambs coincided.
  
  However, this means that He must have died the day before Easter and could not, therefore, have celebrated the Passover meal in person—this, at any rate, is how it appears.
  
  According to the three Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper of Jesus was instead a Passover meal into whose traditional form He integrated the innovation of the gift of His Body and Blood.
  
  This contradiction seemed unsolvable until a few years ago. The majority of exegetes were of the opinion that John was reluctant to tell us the true historical date of Jesus’ death, but rather chose a symbolic date to highlight the deeper truth: Jesus is the new, true Lamb who poured out His Blood for us all.
  
  In the meantime, the discovery of the [Dead Sea] Scrolls at Qumran has led us to a possible and convincing solution which, although it is not yet accepted by everyone, is a highly plausible hypothesis. We can now say that John’s account is historically precise.
  
  Jesus truly shed His blood on the eve of Easter at the time of the immolation of the lambs.
  
  In all likelihood, however, he celebrated the Passover with his disciples in accordance with the Qumran calendar, hence, at least one day earlier; He celebrated it without a lamb, like the Qumran community which did not recognize Herod’s temple and was waiting for the new temple.
  
  Consequently, Jesus celebrated the Passover without a lamb—no, not without a lamb: instead of the lamb He gave Himself, His Body and His Blood. Thus, He anticipated His death in a manner consistent with his words: “No one takes [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord” (Jn 10:18).
  
  At the time when He offered His body and His Blood to the disciples, He was truly fulfilling this affirmation. He Himself offered His own life. Only in this way did the ancient Passover acquire its true meaning.
  
  At the time when He offered His Body and His Blood to the disciples, He was truly fulfilling this affirmation. He Himself offered His own life. Only in this way did the ancient Passover acquire its true meaning.*

End quote.

(I think the Pope is using the word “Easter” for “Pasch” or Day of Passover, and not for Day of Resurrection.)

Nita

 

[Dauphin]

Thanks! That’s a very satisfying answer compared to the others I’ve seen.

The fact that we didn’t have this answer for the first two Christian millenia drove home to me an important point: I have to take the inerrancy of the Bible on faith. It’s not for me to judge based on my limited knowledge. So many saints didn’t have this answer, but their faith in the inerrancy of the Bible proved, in this case, to be justified.

There are still many other apparent contradictions, but before tackling them I’ll be sure to put them in the proper perspective and in the context of faith.

 

[patg]

…The Catholic Church teaches biblical inerrancy…

This is not really true.

Take a look at *"*The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" and "Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels", both documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (and available online).

Another good reference for such questions is "Biblical Fundamentalism - What Every Catholic Should Know" by Ronald Witherup.

 

[rpp]

  	 				...The Catholic Church teaches biblical inerrancy...

Actually, what patg posted is not really true and certainly misleading. The Church teaches the the Bible is inerrant, but it also teaches that it is not a history textbook nor a treatise on the natural world. It is a book which teaches spiritual truth.

 

[patg]

Actually, what patg posted is not really true and certainly misleading. The Church teaches the the Bible is inerrant, but it also teaches that it is not a history textbook nor a treatise on the natural world. It is a book which teaches spiritual truth.

Yes, so therefore it is not considered to be generally inerrant - it is the church’s position that the bible teaches the truth related to salvation, faith, and morals and *not *the truth of science, history, math, biology, etc.

As I said, the references I provided deal with issues of inerrancy and literalism.

 

[Pax]

Dauphin,

Another element related to the Qumran calendar and the observance of the Passover is the that the community at Qumran was made up of the Essenes. The Last Supper was observed by Jesus and the apostles in the Upper Room. Archaeologists have determined the location of the Upper Room…it was located in an Essene corner of the city of Jerusalem.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

One should note that eyewitnesses to the events read all four gospels. If there were real contradictions they would have discussed them at the time. It would seem that what appear to be contradictions to us, 1900+ years later, probably had a reasonable explanation at the time. [It is not, as one sister explained to me, that evolution has made us much smarter than the people of the time; so we perceive these problems better ]

 

[scottm]

One should note that eyewitnesses to the events read all four gospels. If there were real contradictions they would have discussed them at the time. It would seem that what appear to be contradictions to us, 1900+ years later, probably had a reasonable explanation at the time. [It is not, as one sister explained to me, that evolution has made us much smarter than the people of the time; so we perceive these problems better ]

Woo-ooo!!! Right on, bro!

Here’s another thread on the same topic.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=177972

 

[rpp]

Yes, so therefore it is not considered to be generally inerrant - it is the church’s position that the bible teaches the truth related to salvation, faith, and morals and *not *the truth of science, history, math, biology, etc.

As I said, the references I provided deal with issues of inerrancy and literalism.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Church teaches that the Bible most certainly is inerrant. The Church also teaches that we should take a literal, not literalist, interpretation. Please patg, I understand from previous posts on other threads that you do not really believe the Bible, but to claim that your lack of belief is what the Church teaches is misleading.

 

[patg]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Church teaches that the Bible most certainly is inerrant. The Church also teaches that we should take a literal, not literalist, interpretation. Please patg, I understand from previous posts on other threads that you do not really believe the Bible, but to claim that your lack of belief is what the Church teaches is misleading.

Wrong, wrong, wrong…

Maybe you just need to explain what the real difference is between the words you used: “but it also teaches that it is not a history textbook nor a treatise on the natural world. It is a book which teaches spiritual truth.”

and the words I used: “it is the church’s position that the bible teaches the truth related to salvation, faith, and morals and not the truth of science, history, math, biology, etc.”

Maybe you are saying that while it is not a "history textbook nor a treatise on the natural world", it is inerrant when it it does speak of anything related to those things? That is definitely not Church teaching and anyone who thinks so might benefit from the documents I mentioned (especially the book on Biblical Fundamentalism).

Please rpp, I understand from previous posts that you do not really believe the Church’s statements on the Bible, but to claim your own beliefs as what the Church teaches is misleading.

 

[rpp]

Please rpp, I understand from previous posts that you do not really believe the Church’s statements on the Bible, but to claim your own beliefs as what the Church teaches is misleading.

Patg, You are the one who say we cannot believe the Bible. The Church teaches that the Bible is authoritative on matter of faith.

Do not throw my words back at me.

You are the one denying the Bible. That is not Catholic.

And what you have just said is false.

You are promoting a heretical view of the Bible and you falsely claim the Church teaches that the Bible cannot be trusted and contains errors. That is a contemptuous falsification of Church teaching.

You insulting manner of deny that truth of Bible is clear to everyone.

You are the only person who makes the ridiculous claim that the Church teaches the Bible is unreliable. If you are honest with yourself and humble enough, that should give you pause.

I am not holding my breath.

But then, I will never know what your answer will be either as I will make some adjustments to my profile.

 

[patg]

Patg, You are the one who say we cannot believe the Bible

Where did I say that?

The Church teaches that the Bible is authoritative on matter of faith.

I totally agree.

Do not throw my words back at me…

I’m only asking you to support them.

You are the one denying the Bible. That is not Catholic.

I don’t think you are listening.

And what you have just said is false.

You need to read the Church’s documents, none of which you have used to support your statements.

You are promoting a heretical view of the Bible and you falsely claim the Church teaches that the Bible cannot be trusted and contains errors. That is a contemptuous falsification of Church teaching.

You insulting manner of deny that truth of Bible is clear to everyone.

Not to the magesterium or the Pontifical Biblical Commission…and I’ve never denied the TRUTH.

You are the only person who makes the ridiculous claim that the Church teaches the Bible is unreliable. If you are honest with yourself and humble enough, that should give you pause.

I follow the magesterial teachings and the Pontifical Biblical Commission - what do you follow?

I am not holding my breath.

That’s good - use the time to learn what the church teaches.

But then, I will never know what your answer will be either as I will make some adjustments to my profile.

That’s ok, there are plenty of others who want to discuss the truth.

But first puleeeeese explain the difference between:

Maybe you just need to explain what the real difference is between the words you used: “but it also teaches that it is not a history textbook nor a treatise on the natural world. It is a book which teaches spiritual truth.”

and the words I used: “it is the church’s position that the bible teaches the truth related to salvation, faith, and morals and not the truth of science, history, math, biology, etc.”

 

[Dauphin]

Biblical Inerrancy:

Clement of Rome, (circa A.D. 30-96) in the late 1st century, wrote: “The holy Scriptures which are given through the Holy Spirit…nothing iniquitous or falsified is written.”

St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) said: “None of these [canonical] authors has erred in any respect of writing.” He also wrote: “Therefore, since they wrote the things which He [God] showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for his members executed what their head dictated.”

St. Gregory the Great (circa A.D. 540-604; Pope from A.D. 590-604) stated: “…we loyally believe the Holy Spirit to be the author of the book. He wrote it who dictated it for writing; He wrote it who inspired its execution.”

See also:

- Council of Florence (1438-1445)
- Council of Trent (1545-1563)
- Council of the Vatican (1869-1870)

Since the Church professes that the Holy Spirit is the author of every canonical book of the Bible, every statement contained therein is completely and absolutely true - without error of any kind. No Catholic is entitled to deny this.

 

[patg]

Biblical Inerrancy:

Clement of Rome, (circa A.D. 30-96) in the late 1st century, wrote: “The holy Scriptures which are given through the Holy Spirit…nothing iniquitous or falsified is written.”

St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) said: “None of these [canonical] authors has erred in any respect of writing.” He also wrote: “Therefore, since they wrote the things which He [God] showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for his members executed what their head dictated.”

St. Gregory the Great (circa A.D. 540-604; Pope from A.D. 590-604) stated: “…we loyally believe the Holy Spirit to be the author of the book. He wrote it who dictated it for writing; He wrote it who inspired its execution.”

See also:

- Council of Florence (1438-1445)
- Council of Trent (1545-1563)
- Council of the Vatican (1869-1870)

Since the Church professes that the Holy Spirit is the author of every canonical book of the Bible, every statement contained therein is completely and absolutely true - without error of any kind. No Catholic is entitled to deny this.

That really depends on what you mean by truth.

 

[Dauphin]

That really depends on what you mean by truth.

I used the word true, and defined it as “without error”. Any scientific, historical, spiritual, or moral truth posited in the Bible is absolutely free from error of any kind.

It is entire possible, however, to argue whether a certain passage pertains to scientific/historical truth, or is really an allegory which points to truth of a different kind. That being said, the Bible clearly makes many historical, factual pronouncements. The Church teaches dogmatically that each one of these is correct.

 

[patg]

I used the word true, and defined it as “without error”. Any scientific, historical, spiritual, or moral truth posited in the Bible is absolutely free from error of any kind.

That is not a definition I would use in relation to the bible because it is very limiting. It assumes that:

1. You can absolutely discern those things which are scientific or historical truth. If you assume everything is, you are ignoring the fact that many totally incorrect things were assumed in the common knowledge of the time to be scientific or historical truth while they were actually misconceptions due to lack of knowledge in those areas.
2. You ignore the fact that it is very possible and quite common for someone to teach deep and powerful truths using fiction as a literary form. The infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, for example, are, in the opinion of many scholars, complete fiction and yet they teach many profound truths about the nature of Jesus.
3. The Church does not teach this and clearly denies it in numerous documents.

It is entire possible, however, to argue whether a certain passage pertains to scientific/historical truth, or is really an allegory which points to truth of a different kind. That being said, the Bible clearly makes many historical, factual pronouncements.

Yes, many texts “sound like” factual pronouncements but there is no reason to assume this and many reasons to doubt it.

The Church teaches dogmatically that each one of these is correct.

Actually, the Church only does this for a tiny handful of events such as the birth, death, an resurrection. There is no dogmatic statement on the historicity or scientific accuracy of the vast majority of the text. As a matter of record, there are numerous official documents which emphasize this approach. Two of the best are “Dei Verbum” and “Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, both available online.