![\"Marko](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Marko-Marina-Author-Bart-Ehrman.png\" "\\"Marko")
<\/span><\/p>\nWritten by Marko Marina, Ph.D.<\/a><\/p>\n Author | Historian<\/p>\n Author | Historian | BE Contributor<\/p>\n Verified! See our guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n Verified! See our editorial guidelines<\/a><\/p>\n \nDate written: January 23rd, 2025<\/p>\n\nDate written: January 23rd, 2025\n Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. – Dr. Bart D. Ehrman<\/p>\n \u201cMarko, what about the contradictions in the Bible? I\u2019ve never read it, but I\u2019ve heard there are a lot of inconsistencies.\u201d A friend asked me this question a few months ago, sparking a conversation that reminded me of the Bible\u2019s extraordinary influence.<\/p>\n It evokes strong opinions, even for those who have never opened its pages. To some, it\u2019s a source of ultimate truth; others meet it with skepticism or distrust. Yet, both views often overlook an important reality: the Bible isn\u2019t a single book<\/strong> but a collection of vastly different texts, written over centuries by multiple authors<\/a>, reflecting diverse cultures, traditions, and theological concerns.<\/p>\n This diversity has inevitably led to biblical contradictions. For example, the Gospels offer differing accounts of the life of Jesus, and the Old Testament contains multiple perspectives on the same events or laws.<\/p>\n While these inconsistencies in the Bible are undeniable, they don\u2019t necessarily diminish its religious significance. In fact, many fine scholars \u2014 both believers and skeptics \u2014 approach these contradictions not as flaws but as windows into the texts’ historical, cultural, and theological development.<\/p>\n Therefore, this article will explore 50 biblical contradictions<\/strong>, ranging from the Old Testament to the New. Along the way, we\u2019ll examine the significance of the biggest inconsistencies in the Bible, not only to understand the texts better but also to appreciate the complex tapestry of beliefs, traditions, and debates that shaped them.<\/p>\n Before we explore biblical contradictions, we must first define <\/strong>what we mean by the term “contradiction.” Understanding this concept is essential for our discussion. The Merriam-Webster<\/a> dictionary offers the following definition: \u201cA contradiction is a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other (a round square is a contradiction in terms).\u201d<\/p>\n In the context of the Bible, contradictions occur when there are two or more accounts of the same event or concept that differ so significantly they cannot both be true at the same time. It\u2019s important to distinguish contradictions from mere differences (we\u2019ll cover both categories).<\/p>\n For example, the fact that Matthew\u2019s Gospel describes the visit of the Magi while Luke highlights the role of shepherds (in birth narratives<\/a>) isn\u2019t necessarily a contradiction. It\u2019s simply a matter of differing emphases or perspectives. <\/p>\n However, if two accounts of the same event directly conflict <\/strong>in a way that defies reconciliation, such as one, for instance, saying an event happened in Galilee and another placing it in Judea, then we are dealing with a true contradiction.<\/p>\n As noted, biblical contradictions are, first and foremost, a reminder of the complex and multifaceted history of the Bible’s composition. To deny them is to undermine the literary significance of the Bible. Jon B. Gabel et. al. notes in the book The Bible as Literature<\/a>:<\/p>\n (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!<\/em>) <\/p>\n If one insists on looking at the Bible as a unified and homogeneous work, planned from the beginning, then one is forced not only to ignore what is known about its origins and composition but also to explain away a host of textual problems\u2014duplications of material, omissions, interpolations, contradictions\u2014that are most sensibly accounted for as the result of multiple authorship over a long period. Far from simplifying the problems<\/strong>, the dogma that the Bible is a unity multiplies and magnifies<\/strong> them.<\/p>\n After clearing the ground and defining our terms clearly, we can start looking at the biggest inconsistencies and differences in the Bible, reaching the number 50!<\/strong> Let\u2019s get going.<\/p>\n But before we get right into it, I wanted to invite you to check out Bart D. Ehrman\u2019s course In the Beginning: History, Legend, and Myth in Genesis<\/a>. In the six online lectures, Dr. Ehrman provides scholarly insight into the Book of Genesis, demonstrating the fine line between authentic history and mythological elements! <\/p>\n [tcb-script] (function(){ console.log(“Init Widget…”); var API_URL=’https:\/\/dynamic-product-insertion.vercel.app’; var c=document.querySelector(‘.dynamic-product’); if(!c){ alert(“Widget Error: Container .dynamic-product not found!”); return; } var m=c.dataset.mode||’match’; var s=window.location.pathname.replace(\/\/$\/,”).split(‘\/’).pop(); c.innerHTML='<div style=”padding:20px;text-align:center;color:#666;”>Widget Loading…<\/div>’; fetch(API_URL+’\/api\/product?mode=’+m+’&slug=’+encodeURIComponent(s)+’&referrer=’+encodeURIComponent(window.location.href)) .then(function(r){return r.json()}) .then(function(p){ var u=p.affiliateLink+(p.affiliateLink.includes(‘?’)?’&’:’?’)+’utm_source=blog&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=’+encodeURIComponent(s); var h=p.hook||p.description||”; var f=p.isFree; c.innerHTML='<style>.dp-c{position:relative;border-radius:12px;overflow:hidden;margin:30px 0;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,”Segoe UI”,Roboto,”Helvetica Neue”,Arial,sans-serif;min-height:340px;box-shadow:0 8px 30px rgba(0,0,0,0.4)}.dp-bg{position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;background-image:url(“https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/erhman-new-york-time-best-sellers.jpg”);background-size:cover;background-position:center;filter:brightness(0.35);transition:transform 10s ease}.dp-c:hover .dp-bg{transform:scale(1.05)}.dp-ov{position:absolute;bottom:0;right:0;width:200px;height:auto;opacity:0.85;pointer-events:none;z-index:2}.dp-ct{position:relative;z-index:3;padding:48px 40px;color:#fff;text-align:center;max-width:600px;margin:0 auto}.dp-lb{color:#f7941d !important;font-size:13px;font-weight:800;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:2px;margin-bottom:16px;display:inline-block;padding:4px 12px;background:rgba(247,148,29,0.15);border-radius:4px;border:1px solid rgba(247,148,29,0.3)}.dp-tt{color:#FFFFFF !important;font-family:Georgia,”Times New Roman”,serif;font-size:32px;font-weight:700;margin:0 0 16px;line-height:1.2;text-shadow:0 2px 10px rgba(0,0,0,0.5)}.dp-hk{color:#e0e0e0 !important;font-size:17px;line-height:1.6;margin:0 auto 32px;max-width:480px;font-weight:400}.dp-btn{display:inline-block;padding:16px 40px;background:linear-gradient(to bottom, #f7941d, #df800d);color:#fff !important;text-decoration:none;border-radius:50px;font-size:15px;font-weight:700;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:1px;transition:all 0.3s;box-shadow:0 4px 15px rgba(247,148,29,0.4);border:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,0.2)}.dp-btn:hover{background:linear-gradient(to bottom, #ffbe4d, #f7941d);transform:translateY(-2px);box-shadow:0 8px 25px rgba(247,148,29,0.6);color:#fff !important}@media(max-width:600px){.dp-c{min-height:auto}.dp-ct{padding:40px 24px 100px 24px}.dp-tt{font-size:26px}.dp-hk{font-size:16px;margin-bottom:24px}.dp-btn{padding:14px 32px;width:100%;box-sizing:border-box}.dp-ov{width:140px;right:-20px;opacity:1}}<\/style><div><div><\/div><img src=”https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bart-Lecturing.png”\/><div>’+(f?'<div>FREE COURSE!<\/div>’:”)+'<h3>’+p.title+'<\/h3><p>’+h+'<\/p><a href=”‘+u+'” target=”_blank” onclick=”fetch(”+API_URL+’\/api\/track\/click’,{method:’POST’,headers:{‘Content-Type’:’application\/json’},body:JSON.stringify({productId:”+p.productId+”,postSlug:”+s+”,mode:”+m+”,referrer:window.location.href})}).catch(e=>console.error(e))”>’+(f?’GET FREE ACCESS’:’LEARN MORE’)+'<\/a><\/div><\/div>’; }) .catch(function(e){ console.error(e); c.innerHTML='<div style=”border:1px solid red;padding:10px;color:red”>Widget Error: ‘+e.message+'<\/div>’; }) })(); [\/tcb-script] <\/p>\n Our exploration into the biggest contradictions in the Bible (and differences!) begins with an example that, in a sense, binds the Old Testament with the New Testament in a paradoxical way.<\/p>\n In Ecclesiastes 1:4, we read that \u201cthe earth remains forever,\u201d a sentiment echoed in Psalm 104:5, which praises God for laying the foundations of the earth so firmly that \u201cit should never be moved.\u201d<\/p>\n However, this view contrasts sharply with certain passages in the New Testament that foresee the destruction of the current earth and the creation of a new one. For example, 2 Peter 3:13 describes the hope for \u201cnew heavens and a new earth, where righteousness dwells,\u201d and Revelation<\/a> 21:1 envisions \u201ca new heaven and a new earth\u201d after the first has passed away.<\/p>\n Another example that reminds us of the discrepancies in the Bible can be found in the story of Noah and the Ark. In Genesis 6:19-20, God commands Noah to take two of every kind of animal \u2014 one male and one female \u2014 onto the Ark to preserve their species. However, in Genesis 7:2-3, the instructions are more specific, stating that Noah should take seven pairs of clean animals (suitable for sacrifice) and one pair of unclean animals.<\/p>\n So, which is it? This discrepancy reflects differing traditions within the text, likely stemming from the merging of multiple sources behind the composition of Genesis. As Robert Alter explains in his Commentary<\/a>:<\/p>\n As scholarship has often noted, two versions of the Flood story, the Priestly and the Yahwistic, are intertwined in a somewhat confusing fashion<\/strong>… Abraham ibn Ezra and other medieval exegetes rescue consistency by proposing that when God directed attention to the clean-unclean distinction, He had to add the difference in numbers because more animals needed to be sacrificed. (Noah, like his counterpart in the Mesopotamian Flood stories, does in fact offer a thanksgiving sacrifice after the waters recede.) But the tensions between the two versions, including how they record the time span of the Flood, persist, and there are some indications that the editor himself struggled to harmonize them.<\/p>\n In exploring other biblical contradictions, we are (for now) staying with the Book of Genesis, which begins with two distinct accounts of creation<\/strong>. In Genesis 1:1-2:3, it unfolds in a structured, ordered sequence over six days, culminating in the creation of humanity (male and female) together on the sixth day.<\/p>\n In Genesis 2:4-25, however, the narrative is more focused on human formation<\/strong>. Here, man (Adam<\/a>) is created first from the dust of the ground, followed by vegetation, animals, and finally, a woman (Eve) as a helper. This portrayal is more intimate and anthropocentric, with God personally shaping Adam and breathing life into him.<\/p>\n In 2 Kings 24:4, we encounter a stark declaration: \u201cThe LORD was not willing to forgive,\u201d specifically regarding the sins of King Manasseh, who led Judah into idolatry and shed innocent blood. <\/p>\n This statement stands in tension with the broader biblical theme of God\u2019s mercy and willingness to forgive, as seen in passages like Psalms 103:3,10, which praise God for forgiving iniquities and not treating humanity as their sins deserve.<\/p>\n The contradiction deepens when we compare 2 Kings with 2 Chronicles. In the latter (2 Chronicles 33:19), we learn that Manasseh eventually repented, humbling himself before God, who then restored him.<\/p>\n However, repentance and restoration are entirely absent from the account in Kings, which portrays Manasseh\u2019s sins as the ultimate reason for Judah\u2019s destruction \u2014 a punishment that fell upon generations long after his reign.<\/p>\n In the book of Ezra, we encounter a numerical inconsistency regarding the temple vessels that King Cyrus of Persia returned to the Jews for their use in rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. Ezra 1:9-10 provides a detailed inventory:<\/p>\n This totals 2,469 items. Yet in Ezra 1:11, the text states that the total number of vessels returned was 5,400. This represents another example of the contradictions in the Bible, deriving from the difference between the listed items and the sum provided.<\/p>\n Attempts to harmonize <\/strong>this contradiction by suggesting that not all items were included in the detailed list seem unlikely<\/strong>. Verse 10 explicitly states, \u201cand 1,000 other devices,\u201d implying that all categories of vessels were accounted for.<\/p>\n Who Changed the Bible and Why?<\/span><\/p>\n Join Bart Ehrman as he reveals how scribes altered passages\u2014sometimes shifting core Christian beliefs\u2014and what it means for understanding Scripture.<\/p>\n 4 lectures plus exclusive bonus content<\/em><\/p>\n Another contradiction arises in the accounts of the Levite cities allocated to the descendants of Aaron. In 1 Chronicles 6:42-45, 11 cities are listed, but the text states there should be 13 in total. These cities include Hebron, Libna, Jattir, Eschtemoa, Holon, Debir, Aschan, Beth Shemesh, Geba, Alemet, and Anatot. The discrepancy between the stated total and the actual list creates an inconsistency within the text.<\/p>\n The parallel account in Joshua 21:13-19 provides a different list of 13 cities<\/strong>, with variations and additions. Notably, this list includes Ajin, Jutta, Gibeon, and Almon, which are absent in Chronicles, while Aschan and Alemet do not appear in Joshua\u2019s account.<\/p>\n In 2 Kings 22:14, we read about Hilkiah the priest consulting the prophetess Huldah, who is described as the wife of Shallum, son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas<\/strong>. However, the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 34:22 provides slightly different details about Huldah\u2019s family.<\/p>\n Here, her husband is named Shallum, but his lineage includes Tokhat and Hasra <\/strong>instead of Tikvah and Harhas. Even in the original Hebrew, these differences in names are clear and distinct.<\/p>\n A notable example of the contradictions in the Bible arises when comparing the accounts of Passover celebrations<\/strong> under the reigns of King Hezekiah and King Josiah. <\/p>\n In 2 Kings 23:21-23, it\u2019s stated that during Josiah\u2019s reign, the Passover was celebrated for the first time since the era of the judges, explicitly noting that no such observance occurred during the time of the kings of Israel and Judah.<\/p>\n However, in 2 Chronicles 30, we find an account of an earlier Passover<\/strong> celebrated under King Hezekiah. This celebration is described as extraordinarily large and marked by great joy, involving participants from both Judah and remnants of the northern kingdom of Israel.<\/p>\n A fascinating example of a biblical mistake relates to the identity of the scribe<\/strong> who served during King David\u2019s<\/a> reign.<\/p>\n In 2 Samuel 8:17, the scribe is identified as Seraiah. Later, in 2 Samuel 20:25, the same position is ascribed to someone named Shevah. Meanwhile, 1 Chronicles 18:16 lists Shawsha as the scribe during David\u2019s reign. The differences in names are evident even in the original Hebrew, which creates a clear inconsistency in the record of this key position.<\/p>\n This contradiction may be the result of scribal errors<\/a> in the transmission of the texts, as the names are phonetically similar, suggesting possible confusion during copying.<\/p>\n A perplexing biblical contradiction emerges in the account of weaponry among the Israelites. In 1 Samuel 13:19-22, we are told that during Saul’s reign, there was not a single sword <\/strong>or spear among the Israelites, except for those belonging to Saul and his son Jonathan.<\/p>\n However, this claim is difficult to reconcile with other passages<\/strong>. In the period of the judges, only a generation or so earlier, swords appear to have been commonplace. Judges 8:10 describes Gideon defeating 120,000 enemy swordsmen, and Judges 20:2,15,17 detail a vast Israelite army equipped for battle, implying they were well-armed.<\/p>\n The story of Jacob and Esau, as told in Genesis 27 and beyond, is a rich narrative full of theological and literary significance. However, as noted in Gabel\u2019s Bible as Literature, it also exhibits several biblical contradictions and narrative inconsistencies, likely due to the blending of multiple sources.<\/p>\n One notable inconsistency lies in the methods Jacob uses to deceive his father, Isaac. The narrative presents two separate strategies: Jacob wears Esau\u2019s clothes \u2014 which smell of the open country \u2014 and covers his arms with goatskins to mimic Esau\u2019s hairy skin. While both methods are effective, the dual explanation seems redundant and suggests the merging of two versions of the story<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Each may have originally featured a single method of deception, but they were later combined into the unified account we have today.<\/p>\n Another contradiction emerges in Jacob\u2019s departure from home after the deception. In one account, he flees to Harran to escape Esau\u2019s wrath, acting on his mother Rebekah\u2019s advice (Genesis 27:42-45). <\/p>\n In another, Jacob travels to Harran to find a wife, following his father Isaac\u2019s command (Genesis 28:1-5). These differing motivations for Jacob\u2019s journey point to distinct narrative strands, each with its theological emphasis \u2014 one focusing on familial conflict and another on divine providence in securing the lineage of the patriarchs.<\/p>\n As we, in our exploration of the contradictions in the Bible, slowly shift focus to the New Testament, I’m reminded again of Gail Evans’ assertion<\/a> that each biblical contradiction \u201cis not so much the hard and fast word of God, but a collection of scrolls, written by various people\u201d who often had different views about the relationship between humans and what they consider to be the Supreme Being or God.<\/p>\n The accounts of Jesus\u2019 baptism in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveal fascinating examples of discrepancy in the Bible regarding the words spoken by the divine voice from heaven. While all three narratives describe this pivotal event, the exact wording and audience of the voice differ, reflecting unique theological emphases and textual traditions.<\/p>\n In Matthew 3:17<\/strong>, the voice appears to address the gathered crowd, proclaiming: \u201cThis is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bart Ehrman, in his book Jesus Interrupted<\/a> (an excellent study of numerous contradictions in the Bible), notes: \u201cThe voice appears to be speaking to the people around Jesus, or possibly to John the Baptist, informing them who Jesus is.\u201d<\/p>\n In Mark 1:11<\/strong>, however, the voice speaks directly to Jesus: \u201cYou are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.\u201d Here, the statement is more intimate, suggesting a personal affirmation of Jesus\u2019 identity and mission.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Luke 3:22<\/strong> presents an even more intriguing variation. In some of the oldest manuscripts, the voice says: \u201cYou are my Son; today I have begotten you.\u201d This wording echoes Psalm 2:7 and carries significant theological implications, suggesting a moment of divine appointment or recognition of Jesus\u2019 sonship at his baptism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The life of the apostle Paul<\/a> provides another example of biblical contradiction when comparing his travel narrative in Galatians with that in the Acts of the Apostles. In Galatians 1:17-2:9, Paul emphasizes that, after his conversion, he did not go to Jerusalem immediately.<\/p>\n Instead, he traveled to Arabia and then returned to Damascus<\/a>. He states that he visited Jerusalem only three years later<\/strong>, staying for 15 days and meeting only Cephas (Peter) and James. He explicitly notes that he did not meet any other apostles at that time. <\/p>\n Afterward, he went to Syria and Cilicia, and 14 years later, he returned to Jerusalem for the apostolic council, possibly corresponding to the events of Acts 15.<\/p>\n In Acts<\/a> 9, however, Paul\u2019s movements after his conversion appear different. According to this account, Paul stayed in Damascus for many days, preaching the gospel before fleeing due to a plot against his life. He then traveled to Jerusalem, where he met Barnabas and was introduced to the apostles, with no mention of his journey to Arabia.<\/p>\n The text suggests he stayed in Jerusalem for a longer period, preaching openly before leaving for Caesarea and then Tarsus. Later, Barnabas brought him from Tarsus to Antioch, where Paul began his missionary work.<\/p>\n The two accounts differ significantly in timing, locations, and the people Paul met<\/strong>, creating challenges for harmonizing the narratives.<\/p>\n In his Commentary<\/a>, therefore, Joseph Fitzmyer rightly points out that \u201cLuke [Fitzmyer believes that the name of the author of Acts is Luke] says nothing about Paul’s journey to Arabia or his return from there to Damascus (see Gal I: 17). Nor does he indicate that the “considerable time” (9:23) was actually “three years” (Gal 1:18).\u201d<\/p>\n Did You Know?<\/strong><\/p>\n How a Chat with My Uncle About Judas\u2019 Death Turned Into a Lesson on Harmonizing Contradictions<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n A few years ago, I had an unforgettable conversation with my uncle, who firmly believes the Gospels contain no contradictions and provide absolute historical truth on every level. When he passionately asserted this, I brought up one of my favorite examples: The infamous contradiction about Judas\u2019 death<\/strong> (see below).Faced with the conflicting accounts in Matthew and Acts, my uncle confidently explained that Judas hanged himself, but the rope broke, and he fell. I couldn\u2019t help but smile, not because I was trying to be smug, but because this explanation wasn\u2019t his own. It was first proposed by none other than <\/em>St. Augustine <\/em><\/a>in the 5th century! Harmonizing these two accounts, however, creates a brand-new story, one that exists in neither source.Even more amusingly, this explanation breaks the laws of physics. In the Greek original of Acts, the verb \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 <\/strong>(prenes) indicates that Judas fell headlong (literally: Face-first). If someone hangs themselves and the rope breaks, they\u2019d fall feet-first, not on their head. And yet, my uncle, like Augustine before him, found a way to reconcile these contradictions, even if it meant bending the rules of gravity and historical methodology. It was a great reminder that when it comes to harmonizing texts, you can make just about anything fit \u2014 if you try hard enough. But whether you\u2019re inventing new stories or defying physics, that\u2019s no longer the realm of historical inquiry; it\u2019s creative apologetics at its finest!<\/strong><\/em> <\/em><\/p>\n One of the most well-known examples of the contradictions in the Bible lies in the differing <\/strong>genealogies of Jesus<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>presented in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Both Gospels trace Jesus\u2019 lineage, but they do so in significantly different ways, with notable discrepancies in names. <\/p>\n The differences in the lists of names are striking. For example, Jesus’ grandfather in Matthew is Jacob, whereas it\u2019s Heli in Luke (Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23). <\/p>\n Similarly, the genealogies diverge dramatically in the generations following David. Matthew traces Jesus’ descent through Solomon, emphasizing the royal line, while Luke follows Nathan, another son of David, presenting a priestly or prophetic lineage.<\/p>\n Some have suggested that Matthew provides Joseph\u2019s legal lineage, while Luke traces a biological or maternal line. However, Bart Ehrman, in Jesus Interrupted, notes: \u201cIt is an attractive solution, but it has a fatal flaw. Luke explicitly indicates that the family line is that of Joseph, not Mary (Luke 1:23; also Matthew 1:16).<\/p>\n The Gospels present differing accounts of what happened to Jesus immediately after his baptism. In the Synoptic Gospels<\/a> Jesus goes directly into the wilderness, where the Devil tempts him.<\/p>\n In contrast, the Gospel of John omits any mention of Jesus\u2019 temptation in the wilderness. Instead, John describes a sequence of events in which John the Baptist, on the day after witnessing the Spirit descending on Jesus during his baptism, publicly identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:29-34).<\/p>\n This is one of my favorite contradictions in the Bible, as it vividly illustrates the complexities of the Gospel and Acts narratives. The accounts of Judas Iscariot\u2019s death in Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:18-19<\/strong> differ both in the details of what happened and the description of his death. <\/p>\n In Matthew, Judas is said to have felt remorse after betraying Jesus, returned the 30 pieces of silver to the temple, and hanged himself in despair<\/strong>. The chief priests used the returned money to buy a potter\u2019s field, which came to be known as the \u201cField of Blood.\u201d<\/p>\n In Acts, however, Judas\u2019 death is described quite differently. Here, Judas is said to have acquired a field with the payment he received for his betrayal, and his death occurs when he falls headlong (Greek: \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), bursting open and spilling his intestines. The verb \u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2 indicates, without a doubt, a headfirst fall!<\/p>\n In his Commentary on Acts<\/a>, Charles K. Barrett concludes:<\/p>\n It is evident that Matthew and Luke report different traditions, which have in common only the belief that Judas died an unhappy death and knowledge of the existence in Jerusalem of a field called Blood Field, which had at some earlier stage come to be associated with Judas (for it is most unlikely that Matthew and Luke should both, independently, have made the association).<\/p>\n This example of biblical contradiction was at the heart of an online debate between Bart D. Ehrman and Matthew Firth that you can check out here<\/a>! What is this inconsistency all about? <\/p>\n In Mark 5:22-23 and Luke 8:41-42, Jairus approaches Jesus, pleading with him to heal his daughter, who is described as gravely ill but still alive. Jairus says: \u201cMy little daughter is dying\u201d (Mark 5:23). However, while Jesus is on his way to Jairus\u2019 house, a messenger arrives to report that the girl has died, leading to the dramatic miracle<\/a> where Jesus raises her from the dead.<\/p>\n In Matthew 9:18, the story takes a different turn. Here, Jairus tells Jesus from the outset<\/strong> that his daughter has already died: \u201cMy daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live\u201d (Matthew 9:18). It\u2019s a small contradiction, but indeed a contradiction!<\/p>\n We know that Jesus died by crucifixion<\/a>. However, on what day? In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is crucified on the day of Passover <\/strong>(Nisan 15), following the Last Supper, which is described as a Passover meal. This timeline situates Jesus’ death after the Passover lambs were sacrificed.<\/p>\n In contrast, John\u2019s <\/strong>Gospel places Jesus\u2019 crucifixion on the day before Passover <\/strong>(Nisan 14), at the same time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in preparation for the festival (John 19:14).<\/p>\n Another biblical mistake comes from Mark 2:26, where Jesus references an event from 1 Samuel 21:1-6. In Mark\u2019s account, Jesus recalls how David, in need of food, entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, \u201cin the days of Abiathar <\/strong>the high priest.\u201d <\/p>\n The problem lies in that, according to 1 Samuel, the high priest at the time of this event was Ahimelech<\/strong>, Abiathar\u2019s father. Abiathar became high priest later, following Ahimelech\u2019s death. This discrepancy has prompted much scholarly debate.<\/p>\n However, most critical scholars<\/a>, unburdened by the radical understanding of inerrancy<\/a>, see it as a simple error or misattribution by the author of Mark.<\/p>\n There is another contradiction in the Bible related to Jesus\u2019 death. It centers on the timing of the tearing of the temple curtain. In Matthew <\/strong>27:50-51, the moment is described as happening immediately after Jesus’ death<\/strong>: \u201cAnd when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment, the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.\u201d<\/p>\n However, in Luke\u2019s account, a slight difference in the sequence arises. Luke <\/strong>23:45 mentions the tearing of the curtain just before Jesus cries out<\/strong>: \u201cFather, into your hands I commit my spirit.\u201d This subtle shift in timing creates a discrepancy between Luke and the other Synoptic Gospels.<\/p>\n A subtle and funny contradiction emerges in the accounts of Peter\u2019s denial of Jesus and the role of the rooster\u2019s crowing. <\/p>\n In Mark <\/strong>14:30, Jesus predicts: \u201cTruly I tell you, today \u2013 yes, tonight \u2013 before the rooster crows twice <\/strong>you yourself will disown me three times.\u201d True to the prediction, Mark\u2019s Gospel records the rooster crowing twice as Peter denies Jesus three times (Mark 14:68, 72).<\/p>\n In contrast, the other Gospels \u2014 Matthew <\/strong>(26:34), Luke <\/strong>(22:34), and John <\/strong>(13:38) \u2014 simplify the prediction, stating that Peter will deny Jesus three times before the rooster crows, with no <\/strong>mention of a second crowing<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Jesus’ birth stories in Matthew and Luke contain several examples of the contradictions in the Bible that scholars have noted since the work of Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century. Let\u2019s take a look!<\/p>\n In Matthew\u2019s Gospel<\/strong>, the hometown of Mary and Joseph is implied to be Bethlehem<\/strong>. The narrative begins with Jesus\u2019 birth in Bethlehem and continues with the family fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod\u2019s massacre<\/a> (Matthew 2:1-15). Only later, after returning from Egypt, do they settle in Nazareth, presented as a new location chosen to avoid Herod\u2019s successor (Matthew 2:22-23).<\/p>\n Luke<\/strong>, however, explicitly states that Mary and Joseph were living in Nazareth <\/strong>before Jesus\u2019 birth. The couple travels to Bethlehem for a census, as Joseph is said to be of the house of David (Luke 2:4-5). After Jesus is born in Bethlehem, the family returns directly to Nazareth, with no mention of Egypt or Herod\u2019s massacre (Luke 2:39-40).<\/p>\n Another notable contradiction between Matthew and Luke concerns the family\u2019s movements after Jesus was born. In Matthew<\/strong>, the Holy Family doesn\u2019t return to Nazareth immediately. Instead, they flee to Egypt <\/strong>to escape King Herod\u2019s order to kill all the male infants in Bethlehem.<\/p>\n In Luke\u2019s Gospel<\/strong>, however, there is no mention of Herod\u2019s massacre or a flight to Egypt. After Jesus is born, the family completes the required purification rites in Jerusalem (Luke 2:22-24) and then returns directly to their home in Nazareth<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The visitors who come to see baby Jesus differ significantly between Matthew and Luke. In Matthew\u2019s account, magi <\/strong>(wise men) from the East follow a star to Bethlehem, bringing gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to honor the newborn \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d (Matthew 2:1-12).<\/p>\n Luke, on the other hand, introduces humble shepherds who are visited by an angel announcing the birth of the Savior. The shepherds then go to Bethlehem to see Jesus, glorifying and praising God for what they had witnessed (Luke 2:8-20).<\/p>\n This difference but also other contradictory elements are analyzed in depth <\/strong>by Raymond E. Brown in his magnificent and enormous book The Birth of the Messiah<\/a>. For those ready to immerse themselves in all the nuances and details of the birth narratives, it is a must-read.<\/p>\n Another discrepancy that Bart Ehrman highlights in his book Jesus Interrupted involves two seemingly contradictory sayings of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Mark. In Matthew 12:30, Jesus states, \u201cWhoever is not with me is against me,\u201d drawing a clear line between allegiance and opposition. Yet, in Mark 9:40, he appears to express the opposite sentiment: \u201cWhoever is not against us is for us.\u201d These sayings, while similar in structure, convey starkly different messages.<\/p>\n The description of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15<\/strong> differs in emphasis from Paul\u2019s account in Galatians 2:1-10<\/strong>. In Galatians, Paul emphasizes his independence from the Jerusalem apostles, presenting the council as a private meeting where his mission to the Gentiles was endorsed.<\/p>\n The book of Acts, however, portrays the event as a public council where the apostles collectively and in harmony decide on guidelines for Gentile converts, such as abstaining from food sacrificed to idols.<\/p>\n Among the inconsistencies in the Bible, one stands out! In Acts 5:34-39<\/strong>, Gamaliel, a Pharisee, refers to Theudas and Judas the Galilean as examples of failed revolutionary leaders. However, this raises a historical issue, as Josephus<\/a>, the Jewish historian, places Theudas after Judas the Galilean, suggesting that Luke (the author of Acts) may have confused the chronological order<\/strong>.<\/p>\n One of the most interesting examples of the contradictions in the Bible emerges when comparing Paul\u2019s seemingly supportive views on women\u2019s roles in the church with a passage often attributed to him but suspected by scholars to be a later interpolation.<\/p>\n In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35<\/strong>, Paul is quoted as saying: \u201cWomen should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.\u201d In Romans 16<\/strong>, however, Paul commends several women for their roles in the early Christian community. He praises Phoebe as a deacon (Romans 16:1), Junia as \u201coutstanding among the apostles\u201d (16:7), and others such as Priscilla, who worked alongside him in ministry.<\/p>\n Many scholars<\/a> argue that may not be original to Paul\u2019s letter. They note that the verses disrupt the flow of the surrounding text, where Paul discusses orderly worship, and that some manuscripts place the passage in different locations.<\/p>\n In Acts 7:15-16<\/strong>, Stephen, during his speech before the Sanhedrin, claims that Abraham <\/strong>purchased a burial place in Shechem from the sons of Hamor. This account introduces several significant problems when compared to the Old Testament narrative. <\/p>\n According to Genesis 23, Abraham purchased a family tomb in Machpelah near Mamre from Ephron the Hittite, where Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob were all eventually buried.<\/p>\n On the other hand, Genesis 33:18-19 and Joshua 24:32 state that the burial site in Shechem was purchased by Jacob <\/strong>from the sons of Hamor and that it was Joseph, not Jacob, who was buried there.<\/p>\n Another possible biblical contradiction is related to the historical implausibility of Abraham interacting with the sons of Hamor. <\/p>\n According to Genesis 34<\/strong>, Hamor and his son Shechem lived during Jacob\u2019s lifetime, a period long after Abraham\u2019s death. This discrepancy makes it unlikely Abraham could have purchased land from them.<\/p>\n Additionally, the text of Genesis 23 does not indicate that Abraham owned other burial sites, and it seems illogical that Jacob would buy a tomb already owned by his grandfather.<\/p>\n In 2 Kings 6:23<\/strong>, we read that after a miraculous intervention where the prophet Elisha spares captured Aramean soldiers, the text concludes: \u201cSo the bands of Aram stopped raiding Israel\u2019s territory.\u201d<\/p>\n This statement suggests a cessation of hostilities between Aram (Syria) and Israel. However, in the very next verse (2 Kings 6:24<\/strong>), the narrative takes an opposite turn<\/strong>, as Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, gathers his entire army and lays siege to Samaria, the capital of Israel.<\/p>\n![\"contradictions](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/contradictions-in-the-Bible.png\" "\\"contradictions")
<\/span><\/p>\nDefining Our Terms: What is a Contradiction?<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-down.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/span>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/quote-up.png\" "\\"quote")
<\/span><\/p>\nBiblical Contradictions: List of 50 Biblical Inconsistencies<\/h2>\n
#1 – The Earth Does Not Last Forever<\/h3>\n
#2 – The Number of Animals Noah Took on the Ark<\/h3>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n#3 – Two Creation Stories<\/h3>\n
#4 \u2013 Does God Forgive People?<\/h3>\n
#5 \u2013 How Many Items?<\/h3>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Paths-in-Biblical-Studies-Black-Text.png\" "\\"Paths")
<\/span><\/p>\n#6 \u2013 Levite Cities: 11 or 13?<\/h3>\n
#7 \u2013 The Prophetess Huldah and Her Family: A Case of Differing Names<\/h3>\n
#8 \u2013 The Passover Celebrations of Hezekiah and Josiah<\/h3>\n
#9 \u2013 Who Was David\u2019s Scribe? Three Different Answers<\/h3>\n
#10 \u2013 The Mysterious Disappearance of Swords in Israel<\/h3>\n
#11 \u2013 Contradictions in the Story of Jacob and Esau: Method of Deception<\/h3>\n
#12 \u2013 Contradictions in the Bible: Jacob\u2019s Departure from Home<\/h3>\n
#13 \u2013 What Did the Voice at Jesus\u2019 Baptism Say?<\/h3>\n
#14 \u2013 Conflicting Accounts of Paul\u2019s Journeys<\/h3>\n
#15 \u2013 The Genealogy of Jesus<\/h3>\n
#16 \u2013 Where Was Jesus the Day After His Baptism?<\/h3>\n
#17 \u2013 The Death of Judas: Two Contradictory Accounts<\/h3>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n#18 \u2013 Was Jairus\u2019 Daughter Already Dead?<\/h3>\n
#19 \u2013 On What Day Did Jesus Die?<\/h3>\n
#20 \u2013 The High Priest Abiathar in Mark 2:26<\/h3>\n
#21 \u2013 Was the Curtain in the Temple Torn Before or After Jesus\u2019 Death?<\/h3>\n
#22 \u2013 How Many Times Will the Rooster Crow Before Peter Denies Jesus?<\/h3>\n
#23 \u2013 The Hometown of Mary and Joseph<\/h3>\n
#24 \u2013 Where Did the Family Go After Jesus\u2019 Birth?<\/h3>\n
#25 \u2013 Who Visited Baby Jesus?<\/h3>\n
#26 \u2013 Who Is For Jesus and Who Is Against Him?<\/h3>\n
#27 \u2013 The Council of Jerusalem<\/h3>\n
#28 \u2013 Gamaliel\u2019s Speech in Acts<\/h3>\n
#29 \u2013 Paul\u2019s Views on Women: Silence or Leadership?<\/h3>\n
#30 \u2013 Stephen\u2019s Account of Abraham\u2019s Tomb in Acts: A Historical and Textual Contradiction<\/h3>\n
#31 \u2013 Stephen\u2019s Account of Abraham\u2019s Tomb in Acts: A Historical and Textual Contradiction<\/h3>\n
#32 \u2013 Did the Arameans Stop Invading Israel?<\/h3>\n
#33 \u2013 Who Instigated the Census: God or Satan?<\/h3>\n
![\"biblical](\"https:\/\/www.bartehrman.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/biblical-contradictions.png\" "\\"biblical")
<\/span><\/p>\n