Answering the Charge that the New Testament Contains Contradictions:

Most supposed "contradictions" in the New Testament are really nothing of the sort, and may be rectified after closer examination. (See: Approaching Bible Difficulties). Many apologists who have gone before us have attested to this fact. Nevertheless, we are certain to encounter critics citing numerous apparent contradictions of which we may have no immediate answer.

It's important to be honest about what we can answer definitely and what we cannot. If you're a Christian faced with an unanswerable "contradiction" assure your critic that you'll research the matter and get back to him. He may challenge our entire belief system on the grounds that no immediate answer was given him. The following observations may help to put the critic's challenge in perspective even before the specifics of his particular objections are addressed:

Note what the critic is admitting by laying this charge:

1. He's admitting that one can be totally objective when reconstructing historic events. That's what he's claiming to do after all. We agree that history can be recorded objectively and accurately. We contend that the New Testament is a perfect example.

2. He's admitting that history can become corrupted over time, which is his charge against the New Testament. We agree. History can become corrupted over time, and it is the New Testament critic's reconstruction that's corrupted!

3. He must admit that time is a factor determining how corrupted history is likely to become. No matter what date he assigns to the New Testament documents, they are still far closer in time to the events they describe than today's modern critic.

4. He must admit that the New Testament documents, in particular, the Gospels, are independent sources. In a court of law, the number and consistency of the witnesses plays a critical role in determining the truth.

5. He must admit that the New Testament has not undergone significant change. Here the critic is in a catch 22. If he argues that the New Testament has been revised to meet the changing doctrines of the Church, we have to ask why these "glaring contradictions" were left unamended.

6. By pushing the composition of these "contradictions" back to a time when Rome was striving to stamp out Christianity, the critic must offer a plausible explanation as to why:

   • The Romans and the Jews didn't use the historic inaccuracies in the Christian holy books in order to stomp out Christianity in its infancy.
   • Many Christians choose to die for what was contained in the New Testament, "contradictions" and all. This fact alone would lead one to suspect that the recipients of the New Testament in that day had knowledge that we perhaps are not privy to. In other words, rather than assume that these apparent contradictions prove that we are knowledgeable about the New Testament authors' ignorance, perhaps it us who are ignorant of their knowledge.

The critic's position is that certain portions of the New Testament must be set aside as erroneous because they contradict other portions. Though no real contradictions exist, we could safely grant the critic this point. He must agree, however, that those portions of Scripture, which find unanimous agreement throughout the New Testament books, may be regarded as accurate history.

For example, at first blush, the resurrection accounts given in the four Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15 seem to conflict. The novice apologist may not be aware off-hand just how to present a plausible sequence of events consistent with all the data. No matter. These independent sources contain enough that does line up to warrant our belief in Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead.

Probable Cause?

In a court of law, the prosecution is obliged to provide a motive for the crime. In this case, the critic must be prepared to provide us with a reasonable explanation for the New Testament authors' corruption of history.

It is a well-established fact that until the fourth century, there was absolutely no political advantage in being a Christian. Tacitus and other historians from antiquity agree that Christians during this time faced severe persecution for their faith. We know the New Testament existed before the legalization of Christianity under Constantine because we have manuscripts dating from the second century (ie codex Sinaiticus, codex Vaticanus, papyrus 52, etc). We also have quotations from early church fathers such as Ignatius (AD 110), which quote extensively from the New Testament. The question begs repeating: What was the New Testament authors' possible motive for fabricating history?

It is worthy to note just what the critic stands to gain from his reconstruction of history. By "disproving" the New Testament, he can safely live his life unfettered by the moral code contained therein. What's more, many critics have gone on to author best-selling books featuring their particular historic reconstructions. These books find a very lucrative market in North America, where mainstream society would like nothing more than to be liberated from Christianity's moral bonds. Clearly, today's critic has a lot more to gain (in this world) by promoting his view of history than the New Testament authors.