Questions concerning the Gospel of Matthew

[gzmac]

Hello all,
I was recently brought into the Church this past Easter and have been eating up all the knowledge I can get. I sat down today and read the book of Matthew in one sitting - and had some questions that I’m hoping could be answered. The version of the Bible I own is the New American Bible (Revised Edition.)
So without further ado:

Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”
This seems to suggest that we should only pray in private, and not in public. Am I misinterpreting this?

Matthew 8:8: The centurion said in reply, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed…’
Is this where our saying “Lord, I am not not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but only say the word and my soul shall be healed,” comes from? If so, what is the significance of us repeating what the centurion spoke?

Matthew 17:12-13: " ‘but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist."
Would anyone mind explaining this to me? I’m having a hard time making sense of it.

And finally, not a specific verse, but more of a general question. In both the Profession of Faith and in the Apostle’s Creed, it is specified that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate/suffered under Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that Pontius Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, and the Gospel even says "he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’ " (Matthew 27:24.) Why then is such emphasis placed on Pontius Pilate? The way that I perceive it, the Church almost makes him out to be an evil man who wanted Jesus dead.

Any light that could be shed on any of these questions would be great!
Thanks in advance, and God Bless.

 

[hymin]

Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”

This seems to suggest that we should only pray in private, and not in public. Am I misinterpreting this?

Yes, St. Albert the Great, (a figure who knew the consensus of the Fathers) taught the teaching of St. Ambrose, that the inner room means the place of recollection in which the soul clings to God. Eyes closed, and senses perceiving inward - the verse places the importance of quiet places of prayer. See On cleaving to God by St. Albert the Great (free online)

The verse does not disallow more complex prayer such as public rosaries. We were exhorted to pray the rosary in public and priviate by Pope Leo XIII. (cf. Adiutricem, 31)

 

[ericc]

Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”

This seems to suggest that we should only pray in private, and not in public. Am I misinterpreting this?

This verse was intended for the previous verse 5 where the hypocrites were seeking publicity when they pray by doing it in highly visible public locations. But Jesus says God will hear you even in your most private corner.

Matthew 8:8: The centurion said in reply, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed…’

Is this where our saying “Lord, I am not not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but only say the word and my soul shall be healed,” comes from? If so, what is the significance of us repeating what the centurion spoke?

We say this for Holy Communion. We are supposed to have confessed our mortal sins before partaking of our Lord’s Body. But we are not sin-free, we may have venial sins. So we are telling Jesus we are unworthy to have him in us and asking him to forgive us.

Matthew 17:12-13: " ‘but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist."

Would anyone mind explaining this to me? I’m having a hard time making sense of it.

Malachi 4:5 prophesied that Elijah will come before the Lord. Jesus said John the Baptist was that Elijah. But it wasn’t a reincarnation as Luke 1:17 says it is the “spirit and power” of Elijah in
John the Baptist.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I have no quarrel with what the previous posters have said, but I will take a different, broader, approach to your question.

Your question is a variation of questions that appear on this forum constantly. In fact, I just replied in some detail to a more extreme question in the thread “Implications of contradictions.” In their more extreme form (yours is not one of those) I’m convinced they’re simply baiting the rest of us.

You are concentrating on the details of these passages instead of asking yourself “What’s the point of this story?” Almost always it’s a very general point: You should obey God. Creation is good. You should love other people. But the story to get that point across may be very detailed. You’re getting lost in the details, and the danger in that is that you lose the point of the story.

As I have done before, let’s take Aesop’s tale of the fox and the grapes. A fox saw some grapes in a vineyard. He tried to reach them but couldn’t. He went away thinking “I didn’t want those grapes anyway, they were probably sour.” Thus “sour grapes.”

What’s the point of the story? There could be several: You should be honest with yourself. You shouldn’t waste time trying to get what’s beyond your grasp. A lot of people make up excuses about why their failures don’t matter. And so on.

But of course you could make up a very elaborate story about the fox and the grapes: "It was a particularly sunny Tuesday morning when the young male fox wandered by Smith’s Vinyards on the big hill to the east of his den on his way to visit his lady friend Foxy… " and so on. You could expend a lot of energy trying to figure out exactly where Smith’s Vineyards were, and why it was Tuesday and not Wednesday, and the morality of the fox going to see his girlfriend Foxy, and the symbolism of the grapes, and so on and so on. A total waste of time. None of that is the point of the story. It’s all fluff, just unnecessary detail that could be changed or eliminated without affecting the moral (point) of the story at all. Do you see? Don’t waste your time on the details to the detriment of the moral of the story.

So let’s take your passages; what’s the moral of the stories?:
#1 Pray. Pray because you want to communicate with God, not because you seek approval from others.

#2 I understand that I am unworthy. But that’s OK, because God has the power to make me worthy. I must trust God.

#3 Men don’t always understand what God is trying to tell them. I should listen to what God is trying to tell me.

And of course you could have other interpretations, some of which might be better than these. If you haven’t noticed this, you should: although the Catholic Church has approved various Bible translations, there is no “official” interpretation of passages. Yes, you can buy 100 Catholic books about Genesis, but they will each say something a little bit different. All of these interpretations may be acceptable to the Church. There is no “official” interpretation. There are, of course, interpretations the Church rejects, officially, but that’s another matter.

Say you read the story in Kings, where Elijah has a contest with the priests of Baal, and the king massacres the priests of Baal at the end of the story. An acceptable interpretation of the story might be “You should have faith in God.” An unacceptable interpretation might be: “Massacre those who disagree with you.” So yes, you should read other interpretations so you don’t go off in unacceptable directions. But to spend the bulk of your time trying to puzzle out details is, literally, missing the point.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Ah, Pontius Pilate. Read the catechism, p. 32, about inspiration and revelation. The authors (whoever they were) of the New Testament were men of their time, writing as men. So what’s the big deal about Pontius Pilate?

Let’s make an analogy (not perfect, but for illustration). Robin Hood! Was he an historical figure or just a myth? Let’s say it was vitally important to you to convince people that Robin Hood was an actual historical figure. Then it would make perfect sense for you to link Robin Hood with an indisputable historical figure like King Richard. So you might begin your story with “Robin Hood was born in the reign of King Richard’s father, Henry II, and was persecuted by Richard’s brother John while Richard was off on Crusade…” You’ve now placed Robin Hood in a particular period in history and linked him with indisputable real people.

In other words, the business about Pontius Pilate fixes the event in a known time period. It makes it real. It counters the rumors that Jesus was a spirit, not a man, or that he was not put on trial or crucified at all, that some lookalike was substituted for him, etc.

Again, you need to ask yourself: What’s the point of this emphasis on Pontius Pilate? Clearly the authors had no vendetta against poor Pontius. He was not longer in the picture after Christ’s death. And a lot of scholars now believe that although he was governor of Judea, he wasn’t governor at the time of Christ’s death. Does that matter? No. The point of all this is that (contrary to the Gnostics and their Gospels, who were the main threat to Christianity as it developed), Jesus was an actual, historical person. That he lived just like other men. That was was arrested, tortured, tried, was crucified, died, and was buried. We don’t need to worry about Pilate’s guilt or innocence, or what his wife thought, or what color robes he wore, or his career after Palestine.

 

[abucs]

Matthew 17:12-13: " ‘but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist."
Would anyone mind explaining this to me? I’m having a hard time making sense of it.

As was said there was a prophecy about Elijah returning before the coming of the Messiah. There was also prophecy that the coming of the Messiah would be around the time of Jesus (2000 years ago), so there was lots of talk and discussion among the Israelites on whether Jesus could be the Messiah if Elijah hadn’t come back. In Matthew 17 the transfiguration mentions that Elijah met with Jesus and some of the apostles. This also may be a way to indicate that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, with the prophecy fulfilled. The apostles probably heard this ‘Elijah’ objection from Jewish people when they were preaching the gospel.

 

[daverod]

Matthew 17:12-13: " ‘but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist."

Would anyone mind explaining this to me? I’m having a hard time making sense of it.

Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased…

Who are the ‘they’ referred to here?

So also did the Son of Man suffer from these ‘they’ persons.

Matthew 8:8: The centurion said in reply, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed…’

Is this where our saying “Lord, I am not not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but only say the word and my soul shall be healed,” comes from? If so, what is the significance of us repeating what the centurion spoke?

A reminder of how we are as the centurion.

Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”

This seems to suggest that we should only pray in private, and not in public. Am I misinterpreting this?

1 Thessalonians 5:17
“Pray without ceasing.”

And finally, not a specific verse, but more of a general question. In both the Profession of Faith and in the Apostle’s Creed, it is specified that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate/suffered under Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that Pontius Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, and the Gospel even says "he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’ " (Matthew 27:24.) Why then is such emphasis placed on Pontius Pilate? The way that I perceive it, the Church almost makes him out to be an evil man who wanted Jesus dead.

Washing the hands towards innocent bloodshedding can be done by Governors as well as everyday citizens.

John 19:10-11
“Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”

Those/he that delivered an innocent man unto the Governor had the ‘Greater’ sin. Then Pontius Pilate had the ‘lesser’ sin. Sin is still sin.

 

[hymin]

Priests were required to give themselves in the oath against modernism. It is was discontinued by Blessed Paul VI, but yet it still presents the heart of the church:
In part, it said, “Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is but a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.” Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910

 

[promethian_rule]

I feel like your other areas have been more adequately addressed, but I feel like this particular one could use a little more explanation, and I prefer to jump in because I have the words of the centurion on a tattoo over my heart.

Matthew 8:8: The centurion said in reply, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed…’
Is this where our saying “Lord, I am not not worthy that you should enter under my roof; but only say the word and my soul shall be healed,” comes from? If so, what is the significance of us repeating what the centurion spoke?

In this passage, the Centurion approaches Christ and asks that Christ heal his servant. Christ consents to come and treat the servant, but the Centurion speaks up with the words you’ve quoted and goes on to say something a bit profound. In detail, a centurion was not just a servant, but a commander. A centurion would have subordinate officers, servants, and slaves in their household. The Centurion’s response recognizes something specific about Jesus, that the Centurion recognizes he doesn’t need Jesus to personally come to his home (and states that he’s not worthy of such a visit to his house anyway… in spite of his importance in the Roman army), since Jesus is so far above him (the centurion) in importance that He (Jesus) only has to speak the word and the servant would be healed.

Namely, the Centurion is recognizing two key things here:

1. No matter how important a person is, they are unworthy of God’s presence. This goes for us too… it doesn’t matter if you’ve been to confession today, we are unworthy of being in God’s presence and yet God chooses to come to us in the Eucharist anyway. God humbles Himself for us, and does not come to us because we “deserve” His doing so.
2. That the entire universe serves Christ. That Jesus has merely to issue the word and the universe will leap to obey. Just like the woman who was healed simply because she had faith that touching Jesus’ coat would heal her, so does the Centurion have faith in the total power of Christ (aka, beyond the fact that Christ could personally work miracles, and into the understanding that Christ has only to speak His Divine Will for a thing to be done).

You have correctly noted that these are the words we speak during mass, in reference to both of these principles. We are not fully worthy to receive communion by right, but God extends that privilege to us anyway. As such, Jesus does enter under our roof (into our body) via communion. Further, we state that Jesus has only to say the word to heal our soul of iniquities: that what makes us unworthy is dismissed by God in taking communion (reference the healing from venial sins being healed). SIDE NOTE: This does NOT counter the responsibility to attend confession for mortal sins before attending confession!

 

[Zaccheus]

Gzmac:

Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”
This seems to suggest that we should only pray in private, and not in public. Am I misinterpreting this?

Christ was saying “Don’t be like the hypocrites who put on a show of public prayer to be admired by others. When you pray, pray to God, not for human approval.”
He was not forbidding public prayer. He was telling us not to be hypocrites.

Gzmac:

And finally, not a specific verse, but more of a general question. In both the Profession of Faith and in the Apostle’s Creed, it is specified that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate/suffered under Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that Pontius Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, and the Gospel even says "he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’ " (Matthew 27:24.) Why then is such emphasis placed on Pontius Pilate? The way that I perceive it, the Church almost makes him out to be an evil man who wanted Jesus dead.

It actually says in Scripture that Pilate wanted to release Christ.
Pilate’s guilt is that he capitulated to the demands of the mob. He was afraid of what would happen to him if he refused the mob. Washing his hands was a way of evading responsibility for his act of cowardice and injustice.

Gzmac:

Any light that could be shed on any of these questions would be great!
Thanks in advance, and God Bless.

May the living God bless and keep you.

EDIT: Hm. I still don’t have the hang of the quote function. Getting better though. Gzmac, I hope this is helpful.

 

[promethian_rule]

EDIT: Hm. I still don’t have the hang of the quote function. Getting better though. Gzmac, I hope this is helpful.

Just put the little greater than sign (alligator mouth) facing to the left before each line you want to be included in the quote (not needed when one line spills over into the next, only when you insert a “carriage return” between lines. For a less keyboard-centric method, highlight the text you want to quote and then click the little “quote” marks above the typing field. This will insert the carrots for you for that section.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And finally, not a specific verse, but more of a general question. In both the Profession of Faith and in the Apostle’s Creed, it is specified that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate/suffered under Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that Pontius Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, and the Gospel even says "he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood. Look to it yourselves.’ " (Matthew 27:24.) Why then is such emphasis placed on Pontius Pilate? The way that I perceive it, the Church almost makes him out to be an evil man who wanted Jesus dead.

The Profession of Faith and the Creed stating a historical fact, that Jesus was killed under the jurisdiction of Pilate (this is supported as I understand it by at least one non-Christian historical source as well), does not equate to the Church making him out to be an evil man. I’ve personally always felt a little sorry for the guy. He clearly had very little idea who he was dealing with and it shook him up. In the end he acted as a public official would act, trying to keep order so he didn’t end up on his boss’ radar with his own head on the chopping block. I often wonder if his wife chewed him out when he got home or if he had second thoughts about the whole business during his life. I find him a very interesting person because he tried so hard to avoid having to kill Jesus; it seems like the sign of a basically fair and reasonable public official, because one more Jewish guy biting the dust was no big deal to a Roman really, but he seems to have felt strongly that the punishment needed to be justified under the law and that Jesus had done nothing wrong, and he was suspicious of why the Jewish leaders were dragging him into this.

I’d like to think Pilate made it to heaven after some time in Purgatory, because the way I see it, he could be most any mayor or governor, and Jesus seems to have made an impression on him, and somehow a bigger one on his wife.

 

[Zaccheus]

EDIT: Hm. I still don’t have the hang of the quote function. Getting better though. Gzmac, I hope this is helpful.

Thank you, Promethian. That helps.

 

[Nelka]

Ver. 6. Because he who should pray in his chamber, and at the same time desire it to be known by men, that he might thence receive vain glory, might truly be said to pray in the street, and sound a trumpet before him: whilst he, who though he pray in public, seeks not thence any vain glory, acts the same as if he prayed in his chamber. (Menochius)

 

[Zaccheus]

Ver. 6. Because he who should pray in his chamber, and at the same time desire it to be known by men, that he might thence receive vain glory, might truly be said to pray in the street, and sound a trumpet before him: whilst he, who though he pray in public, seeks not thence any vain glory, acts the same as if he prayed in his chamber. (Menochius)

Yes. What matters is purpose and intent.

 

[ericc]

And a lot of scholars now believe that although he was governor of Judea, he wasn’t governor at the time of Christ’s death.

Says who? Sources please.

Does that matter? No.

Sure it matters. We “whack” that poor guy every time we recite the Creed. If he wasn’t the guy that preside over Jesus’s trial and crucifixion, then the Gospels are wrong. Then the faith is based upon untruth. I am concern that we can simply accept error in Holy Scriptures without batting an eyelid. That is where non-believers jam their big foot into the crack in the door and start demolishing the rest of it. See there is an error there. Hence there could be errors elsewhere too. See the implications?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Says who? Sources please.

Well, for example “Chronos, Kairos, Christos” ed. Edwin Yamauchi, 1989 gives a different chronology. I’m not saying he’s right, I’m simply pointing out that such viewpoints exist.

The consensus is that Pilate was gov. of Judea from c. 26-36 AD.

But even if he weren’t, why would that matter? You seem to equate an error in a meaningless detail with an error in doctrine. If you want “errors” in the Bible, there are lots–begin by reading the four accounts of the resurrection in each of the four Gospels. Each one gives different details, some of which contradict the others. And John even puts the crucifixion on a different day. But so what? They all agree on the essentials: Jesus was crucified, died, was buried (physically), and rose from the dead (physically). The rest is just window dressing.

The whole point of my earlier post (and other posts here and there) is that you need to read Dei Verbum (Vatican II) and the paraphrase of that in the catechism pp. 32-33. The “truth” of the Bible is the essence of the stories–the moral or point of the stories, if you will. The details don’t matter. Sadly, an awful lot of time is spent on these threads arguing over the meaningless details.

But yes, there are some people (Bart Ehrman is a prime example) of people who feel that if one detail if wrong, the whole thing is wrong. These people are taking the Bible only at the literal level and ignoring the allegorical level, which the Church has ALWAYS insisted on.

 

[ericc]

The consensus is that Pilate was gov. of Judea from c. 26-36 AD.

And that would fit into the time period of Jesus trial. Why wasn’t he then the governor at his trial? In Lee Strobel’s The case for Christ", he interviewed Edwin Yamauchi who quoted Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum.

“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him.”. Yamauchi further said “But today there’s a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations.” . No, Pilate wasn’t in the interpolations. Elsewhere in the book, he agrees that “the biblical description is most likely correct” when commenting on Pilate’s weak position “in AD33 which is most likely when Jesus was crucified”. Yamauchi later summarized the historical evidence where he said “…fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius;…”

The Case for Christ came out in 1998, later than the Chronos, Kairos, Christos. Yamauchi was the editor of the book but I since I don’t have the book, I don’t know who the contributor is on the disagreement of Pilate being the Governor at Jesus’ trial. Perhaps you can elaborate. I don’t believe Yamauchi holds that opinion based upon what he said in “The Case for Christ”.

 

[ericc]

But even if he weren’t, why would that matter? You seem to equate an error in a meaningless detail with an error in doctrine.

You may think it is not important but I don’t share your view that the Word of God contains error. I have responded why it is important in my previous post. No the Church doesn’t share your view that the Bible contains errors. Since you quoted Dei Verbum, then let me quote you the part about error:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.

It says “without error”. It also didn’t say “it doesn’t matter”. You are saying some error is permissible? Many are quick to jump to conclusion that the Bible is in error when the Church hasn’t concede that it is so. I urge you not to propagate the idea that there is error in the bible. The Bible is a product of the Church and only she can determine whether there is error or not. None of us here can speak on her behalf.

Also, there is no “meaningless” detail about the Word of God. To you perhaps but keep that to yourself. Others may disagree. If Pilate wasn’t the governor at the trial, then the 4 gospels are not inspired then because they contain errors of fact. The Holy Spirit is the claimed author of the Bible and since God can not be the author of error since God knows everything profoundly, then the Bible surely can not be the word of God. You see how a simple admission of error can lead to all sorts of conclusion? Having a top view can be useful, but not at the expense of being ignorant about “details”. I didn’t equate error of details with error of doctrine. Not sure why you say that. I haven’t touched upon doctrine yet.

There are articles and books written to explain Bible difficulties. It may be useful to you. Please note that unknowns are not errors, different spectators seeing different snapshots from their POV is not error, language that allows flexibility in interpretations are not errors.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

It says “without error”.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. First, I don’t want to get into a debate about the dates when Pontius Pilate was gov. of Judea. I frankly don’t care. I was simply responding to the original poster’s comment that seemed to equate a fact such as that Pilate was gov. during the crucifixion with a religious doctrine, such as there is only one God. They are not equivalent. Perhaps we agree on that.

You go on to quote Dei Verbum, but then you completely ignore what it says!!! Read it again: “…without error THAT TRUTH WHICH GOD WANTED PUT INTO SACRED WRITINGS FOR THE SAKE OF SALVATION.” Does it matter to your salvation if Pilate was or was not the gov. of Judea in 30-33 AD? Absolutely not. Does it matter than Christ rose from the dead? Yes.

It seems to me there are at least three ways to read the Bible: 1) It’s all literally true. This leads to all sorts of problems. 2) It may not be quite as literal, but you try to reconcile “Bible difficulties” as you put it. God created the world in 7 days…but maybe a “day” was different for God, etc. etc. This seems to be your point of view. 3) The truth of the Bible lies in the theological points it conveys. This is my point of view–which is precisely what Dei Verbum and the catechism say.

Again, I’ll invite you to read the 4 different Gospel accounts of the Resurrection. It takes about 5 minutes. There are all sorts of differences and contradictions: who was in the party visiting the tomb, who arrived first, who greeted them at the tomb, where did Jesus first appear after his death, etc. etc. and on and on. Some are simply differences, but some of these differences are contradictions as well. In his book “What the Gospels Meant” Garry Wills goes through all these discrepancies and then writes “So what?” Exactly. So what? Those are all unimportant details. They don’t matter. Really!

There is another thread here (I see you have commented there as well), “Implications of Contradictions” where the poster points out that the stories of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 and Acts 22 contain contradictions. He also write that 1 Chronicles says David captured 7,000 horsemen and 2 Samuel says he captured 1,700 horsemen. Your posts responding to that correctly point out that the seeming contradictions could be explained by different points of view and/or the accounts of different sets of people or different times in the battle. I don’t have any quarrel with your responses there. But I think they’re unnecessary unless you are trying to write a military history of ancient Israel. They have nothing to do with the theological points the story is trying to illustrate.

But seriously, why would anyone care how many horsemen David took captive? It’s an unimportant detail. It DOESN’T MATTER!!! To obsess about such details (or try to reconcile them by ingeniously offering different scenarios) misses the point. Literally. It diverts you from the point of the story!