ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.

II. Having discussed the specifications of contradiction between John's Gospel and the Synoptics, we now take up those in which the latter are said to contradict one another.

1. From the days of Celsus, the first infidel writer, till the present day, the genealogies of our Lord given by Matthew and Luke have furnished material for objections to the Gospel narratives. It was acknowledged even then that they present some difficulties of interpretation, but the ever varying objections of unbelief have from that day to this been successfully answered.1 We shall state and answer briefly those most commonly urged in modern times; and though not in the direct line of the present chapter, some that are directed against Matthew alone.

It is said, first, that Matthew deliberately leaves out the names of four kings between David and Jechoniah, which is true; second, that inasmuch as the period between Jechoniah and Jesus is about six hundred years, and in that period he gives only thirteen names, he must have left out several names here; and this is true; third, that although he has left out names in two divisions of his list, he says that all the names in each are fourteen; and this is also true.2 But while this last statement is true, it is not inconsistent with the other two; for it is of Matthew's own list that the remark is made, and not of those from which he copied. Of his list it is true that it contains three divisions of fourteen each, if we count as he does by repeating the name of Jechoniah at the beginning of the last. And what of his having out names? If it were necessary to give all the names in order to make good the purpose for which he quoted any, the omission would invalidate his argument; but his purpose in this part, as all admit, is merely to show that Jesus was descended from David; and this is done, no matter how many names are omitted, provided those which he gives are certainly in the line of descent. That they are, down to Jechoniah, is known to us by the books of Kings and Chronicles; and whether they are from Jechoniah to Joseph, could have been known in Matthew's day by any one who would take the trouble to consult the sources which he used. If we were called to say why Matthew made these omissions, we might, or we might not give a satisfactory reason; but whether there is a good reason or not, the facts in the case do not invalidate in the slightest degree the evidence which he gives of the ancestry of Joseph and of Jesus.3

But the chief objection urged against the genealogy is the alleged contradiction between Matthew and Luke as to the father of Joseph. It is demanded, "How can Joseph have been at the same time a son of Jacob and of Heli?" The answer is easy to any one acquainted with Jewish usage as to genealogical terms. There are four ways in which one man could be son of another in Jewish usage: when he was son in our sense of the word; when he was a grandson; when he was son by a levirate marriage; and when he was a son-in-law. Of the second, there are many examples in the Old Testament. Of the third, we have one unquestionable example in this very genealogy as given by both Matthew and Luke, and we have a law providing for it. The law is, that if a man take a wife and die childless, his brother, which means in this instance his nearest kinsman, shall take the widow and raise up seed to his brother (Deut. xxv. 5-10). The example is that of Obed, son of Boaz. The latter took Ruth, the childless widow of his kinsman Mahlon, son of Elimelech, "to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance," and begat Obed. In compliance with the law, Obed was the levirate son and heir of the deceased Mahlon, and inherited the land of Elimelech, his grandfather on that side (Ruth i. 1-5; ii. 1; iii. 12, 13; iv. 1-6, 9-11, 13, 17). While his ancestry by the blood line goes back through Boaz to Judah, as it is traced by Matthew and by Luke (Matt. i. 3-5; Luke iii. 32, 33), if any one had seen fit to trace the line by which he inherited the lands of Elimelech, he would have written, Obed son of Mahlon, son of Elimelech, and so on back to Judah.4 In other words, Obed had two fathers, just as Joseph had; and two lines of genealogy meeting in Judah, just as Joseph had two lines meeting in David. This shows one way, then, in which Joseph might have been son of Jacob and also son of Heli. He might have been real son of one and levirate son of the other, or he might have been real son of one and grandson of the other. As respects the question of contradiction, it matters not which of these is the true relationship; for the appearance of contradiction is removed in either case, and the question of contradiction is the only one with which we are now concerned.

The fourth sense of the word son mentioned above has not so much Scripture evidence in its favor, yet it has some; for king Saul repeatedly called David his son, though he was his son-in-law.5 As the Hebrew has no distinctive word for son-in-law, but uses for this and similar relationships a word which means a kinsman by marriage, the term son might well be employed in this way; and Saul's use of it shows that at least it was not unauthorized. Joseph, then, might have been son-in-law of Heli, and son of .Jacob; and thus in another way the appearance of contradiction is removed. In this case, too, Jesus would inherit the blood of David through his mother; and to set forth this fact would be an adequate motive for the insertion of Luke's genealogy.

Against all three of these explanations, any one of which being accepted, the charge of contradiction must be abandoned, the objection has been persistently urged, that they all involve the use of the term son in two or more different senses in the same connection. This is true as to our own usage, but not as to the Jewish usage; for in Jewish usage the term has, as we have seen, a range of meaning which covers all these relationships, and one has to determine by the context, or by what is known in each instance from other sources, which one of these it designates. We have a parallel to it in the word begat as used in Matthew's genealogy. When he says that David begat Solomon, he employs the word in the sense which we attach to it; but when he says in the same sentence that Uzziah begat Jotham, where three intervening generations are omitted, he uses the word in a different sense from ours, but in the same Hebrew sense; for in Hebrew' it means nothing more than that one is the progenitor of another, as son means that one is the descendant of another.

It has been urged, as a still further objection to the preceding explanations, that the same difficulty which attaches to the parentage of Joseph attaches also to that of Shealtiel, who is called son of Jechoniah, and also son of Neri (Matt. i. 12; Luke iii. 27); and that this involves the supposition of two levirate marriages, or something of the kind, in the same genealogy. This is true; but what of it? As we have just seen, there is still another instance higher up in the list where a levirate marriage certainly took place, and why should it be thought strange that such should be the case in a family whose genealogy is traced through two thousand years? Indeed, there would have been still another of the kind in this very list, if Judah had complied with his promise to Tamar in regard to his son Shelah; for in that case her son Perez would have been begotten in a levirate marriage by Shelah, instead of being begotten by Judah himself.6

We now see that while there has been from almost the beginning a difference of opinion as to the exact sense in which Joseph was the son of Jacob and also of Heli, and this because of the ambiguous use of the word son by Hebrew writers, this very ambiguity precludes the charge of contradiction, and lifts these genealogies above the reach of the weapons of unbelief.

2. Luke represents Joseph and Mary as residing before the birth of Jesus in Nazareth, and as returning to this their' home after the birth in Bethlehem (i. 26, 27; ii. 4, 39). Matthew says nothing of this previous residence in Nazareth, and it is claimed that, in contradiction to Luke, he represents them as having resided permanently in Bethlehem until after the flight into Egypt, when they resorted to Nazareth through fear of Archelaus.7 It is true that Matthew represents them as being in Bethlehem when the child was born, and as at first purposing to live there after the return from Egypt; and from this we might, if we had no Gospel but Matthew's, infer that Bethlehem had been their home; just as, if we had no narrative but Mark's, we would not know that they had been in Bethlehem at all; but the inference would only be an assumption grounded on the silence of the writer; for Matthew says absolutely nothing as to the place of residence before the birth (i. 18-25). The argument then is this: Luke says that the residence of the couple was Nazareth; Matthew does not say where it was; therefore Matthew contradicts Luke! If we wished to extend the line of argument, we might add: Matthew and Luke say the child was born in Bethlehem; Mark does not say where he was born; therefore Mark contradicts both Luke and Matthew.

3. The next alleged contradiction, taken in order of time, is that between Matthew and Luke about the movements of Joseph soon after the birth of Jesus. Luke represents him as taking the child, at the end of forty days, to Jerusalem for presentation in the temple; and he says that "when they had accomplished all things that were according to the commandment of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" (ii. 22-39, comp. Lev. xii. 1-4). It is claimed that if this preceded the flight into Egypt (the only tenable supposition), the latter incident, and the coming of the wise men which led to it, are contradicted by Luke's assertion that from the temple they went immediately back to Nazareth.8 But unfortunately for this assertion, Luke does not say that they went "immediately" back to Nazareth. He uses no adverb of time, and no expression of any kind to indicate how soon the return to Nazareth took place. The interval, whether long or short, is passed over in silence, and it may therefore have been either a long one or a short one. There is nothing to prevent the interval from being long enough for the arrival of the magi, the flight into Egypt, and the return therefrom. The accounts do "admit of being incorporate into one another," and therefore there is no contradiction between them.

4. In the accounts by Matthew and Luke of the healing of the centurion's servant there are two apparent discrepancies which have been habitually treated by unfriendly critics as contradictions. First, Matthew says that the centurion "came to him, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented;" while Luke says that he sent unto Jesus "elders of the Jews, asking him that he would come and save his servant." Second, Matthew says that when Jesus proposed to go to the house and heal the servant, the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof;" while Luke says that when Jesus was now not far from the house, the centurion "sent friends to him, saying to him, Lord, trouble not thy sell: for I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof." This should never have occasioned the least trouble to any one inclined to do justice to the two writers. It is one of the most common features of condensed narration to represent a man as saying what he says through another who speaks in his name. This is what Matthew does in his condensed account of this cure; while Luke, wishing to bring out in the boldest relief the great faith of the centurion, and in connection with it two traits of his character left out of view by Matthew, his generosity and his liberality, names the messengers through whom he prefers his request, and quotes from their lips the statement, "He is worthy that thou shouldst do this for him: for he loveth our nation, and himself built us our synagogue." His faith is brought out fully by the fact that he in the first place thought himself unworthy to come in person to speak to Jesus, and in the second place thought himself unworthy that Jesus should come under his roof. The latter he did not think of till Jesus was already near his house, when he began to realize what was about to take place, and shrank from it. This appearance of discrepancy, then, like so many others, grows entirely nut of the more elaborate account given by one of the writers, in carrying out the different purpose for which he mentions the incident.

5. There are several instances in which Matthew speaks of two persons or things in a transaction, while Luke and Mark in describing the same speak of only one; and these have been treated even by eminent critics as grave discrepancies. For example, Matthew says there were two demoniacs healed in the land of the Gadarenes (viii. 28); two blind men healed at Jericho (xx. 30); and two asses brought to Jesus for his ride into Jerusalem (xxi. 7); while Mark and Luke mention only one in each instance. It is obvious at a glance that there is no contradiction here, and that the difference lies only in this, that Mark and Luke mention the more fierce of the two demoniacs, saying nothing of the other; that they mention by name the blind man who was well known (Mark x. 46), saying nothing of the one who was not; and that they mention the ass which Jesus rode, saying nothing of the one which he did not ride. It is a difference characteristic of these two writers as distinguished from Matthew. The latter, for instance, uses the plural number of seeds in the parable of the sower (xiii. 4-7), and of the servants sent for fruits in the parable of the wicked husbandmen (xxi. 34-37), while Mark and Luke in each instance use the singular (Mark iv. 3-7; Luke viii. 5-7); and in case of the cures in Decapolis, Matthew speaks of a multitude being healed (xv. 29-31), while Mark selects a single one of the number and describes the process of his cure (vii. 31--viii. 3). Instead of being contradictions, they are examples of the more specific style of delineation employed by Mark and Luke.  

6. Another alleged contradiction, as trivial, and yet as gravely set forth as the preceding, is found in the remarks ascribed to Jairus concerning his little daughter when he asked Jesus to heal her. In Matthew he says, "My daughter is even now dead;" in Mark, "My little daughter is at the point of death." This case is a fair representative of several others in which remarks apparently inconsistent are ascribed to the same person. In all such cases fair dealing requires us to allow both remarks to have been made if we fairly can; and surely we can in this instance; for the child was so nearly dead that she died before the father, accompanied by Jesus, returned to the house; and how natural it would be for the father, knowing the extremity she was in, to say in the vehemence of his entreaty, "My daughter is at the point of death; she is even now dead; but come and lay thy hands on her, and she shall live."  

7. The place of curing the blind man at Jericho, whether as Jesus entered the city, apparently stated by Luke, or as he went out, expressly stated by Matthew and Mark, has long been held up as a palpable contradiction; but on examination we shall find that, instead of being such, the incident furnishes no mean evidence of the extreme exactnesss of these writers. If we examine Luke's account closely, we find that he does not, as would appear at first glance, locate this cure at the entrance into the city; on the contrary, his representation implies that it was effected elsewhere. Notice, first, that as Jesus drew nigh to the city, the man was sitting by the wayside begging. Second, he ascertained by hearing, his only way to learn it, that a multitude was passing by. This he could know only by the noise they were making, or by the fact that many had passed by and still they were passing. But they were not making a noise, as appears from the fact that when he began to make a noise they rebuked him and insisted that he should hold his peace. They were evidently intent, at least those near Jesus, on hearing the Master's words. He knew that it was a multitude, then, by the number that had already passed, while others were still passing; and he asked what it meant. When he learned that Jesus was passing by, he cried out for mercy, and it was "they that went before" who rebuked him, and told him to hold his peace. How could this be, when they who went before had already gone far past the man before he began to cry out? It could only be by a change of relative position, in which the blind man had got before the multitude, so that he cried out as they approached him again, and was rebuked by those in the front of the moving column. Luke, in giving compactness to his recital, has passed in silence over this change of position, leaving it as an unimportant detail, to be discovered or not by inference from his description. And as to the place of healing, he leaves this in the dark, but the accounts of Matthew and Mark step in, and in the most incidental way supply the missing link by saying that it was as he went out of the city. This not only fills out Luke's account, but it furnishes time and oportunity for the change of relative place which Luke's account implies; for it gives the man time to get around to the gate of exit while Jesus and his large following were passing through the city. Furthermore, the next paragraph in Luke, in which he resumes the march of Jesus and his company where he had ceased to trace it when he began the account of the blind man, shows that while passing through Jericho he stopped, apparently for a meal, at the house of Zacchaeus, thus giving ample time for the blind man's movement. The fact now apparent, that the two narratives of Matthew and Mark thus supply a missing link in that of Luke, so that the three combine to complete the story where they appeared to be inconsistent, furnishes striking evidence that all three are strictly accurate. The different parts of a broken story fit one another only when the story is true.

8. The Lord's prediction of Peter's denial is made to represent two contradictions, one as to the time of it, and one as to the terms of it. It is said that while Luke and John unequivocally represent it as being uttered at the supper, Matthew and Mark say it was uttered on the way to the mount of Olives.9 The former part of this statement is true (Luke xxii. 31-34, 39; John xiii. 36-38; xiv. 31); but the latter is not. Matthew and Mark both follow the account of the Lord's supper with the statement in identical words: "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives;" but then, as if they had forgotten an item and returned to it, they mention the prediction, and, returning the thread of the narrative where it was broken, they say, "Then cometh Jesus with them to a place called Gethsemane," which place, as we know by the topography, was the first point at which they touched the mount of Olives. Really, then, the prediction, according to their accounts, took place within the room of the supper. (Matt. xxvi. 30-36; Mark xiv. 26-32.)

As regards the terms of this prediction, all have it that the three denials should occur before the cock should crow, except Mark, who has it, "Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice." Now no two of the writers quote the words exactly alike; and this shows that at least three of them quote them freely, not giving the exact words. In such cases the most precise form, if any, is likely to be the exact one. In this instance, Mark's being the most precise, we may presume that he quotes the very words of Jesus, and that the others quote the idea without aiming at exactness. The idea expressed in all is that the denial should take place about the time of cock-crowing. Now it is well known by every one who has often listened to this morning music, that almost invariably an early cock crows, but is not answered for a while by others. After an interval another crows, then another, and finally there is a chorus from all the (rocks in (he neighborhood. Jesus located the three denials between the first two crowings and the general chorus; Mark reports him literally, while the others give the substance, but all indicate the same time. There is no contradiction, then, but only free quotations without change of the thought.

9. No two of the Gospels quote the inscription on the cross in precisely the same words, and heir it is claimed that we have another contradiction. In order to see the exact amount of difference between the several quotations, we place them side by side.

At a glance it is seen that the essential part, that which constituted the accusation, that he claimed to be "the King of the Jews," is the same, word for word and letter for letter, in all (bur, the difference being only in the way of designating the person who made the claim. In this then' are three variations not differing at all in meaning, and two of them agreeing in all but the use and non-use of the name Jesus. In meaning, then, there is no difference whatever; and the slight difference in form may be accounted for either by supposing that all but one aimed only at quoting the substance of the part designating the person, or that this part was variously written by Pilate himself. Latin was doubtless his native tongue, and the Hebrew and Greek forms of the inscription were translations. At least two of the variations may have been made by him or his scribe in translating, and another may have been made by one of the Evangelists in translating from his translation. Seeing, then, that the essential part is perfectly preserved by all, that the unessential part is preserved without change of meaning by all, and that there are three ways of accounting for the slight verbal variations in the latter part without charging either ignorance or inaccuracy on the writers, all appearance of contradiction passes away.

10. Much more plausible than the last is the charge of contradiction between Matthew and Luke respecting the conduct towards Jesus of the robbers who were crucified with him. Matthew and Mark both say, in almost identical terms, that "the robbers that were crucified with him east upon him the same reproach" (Matt, xxvii. 44; Mark xv. 32). Luke says that "one of the malefactors that were hanged railed on him," but that the other rebuked him, and called on Jesus to remember him when he came into his kingdom. It is held that there is here a contradiction, and that the conduct ascribed to the penitent robber is incredible. Now if, as is very commonly affirmed, Luke's statement had been that only one robber railed at him,10 the contradiction would be real; but he does not so assert. He merely asserts that one of them did so, and was rebuked by his fellow; and this is not inconsistent with the supposition that both had done so at an earlier moment. It can not be denied that Matthew-and Mark may speak of what took place at the beginning, and Luke of what occurred at a later hour of the time spent on the cross. This being so, both of the robbers may have joined in the railing at first, and one may have continued it to the end, while the other may have ceased, and toward the close have rebuked his fellow. As this is possible, we must give the writers the benefit of it before we pronounce them contradictory. But this is not only possible, it is even probable; for we can readily discover motives which were likely to lead to this result on the part of the one who repented. In the first agonies of crucifixion, the consideration that it was the execution of Jesus which led to their being crucified that day, most naturally excited the wrath of both against him, and caused them to echo the outcries of the mob. It was quite unnatural that one of them should continue these outcries persistently; but it was most natural that, as the weary moments wore away, and unavoidable reflections about death and eternity came over them, in connection with the remembrance of their past criminality, they should cease to reproach their fellow-sufferer, and turn their thoughts to God. Luke's representation as to one of them is just what we should expect of both; and instead of being surprised at the change which come over one, we should rather be surprised that it did not come over the other also. Indeed this is the very feeling expressed by the penitent robber himself: "Dost thou not even fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? and we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing amiss." Reflection upon their own wickedness in contrast with the innocence of Jesus, and indignation at the continued obduracy of his fellow, are the two thoughts of this rebuke. Seeing, then, that this is a most rational hypothesis, suggested by the circumstances of the persons, the accounts are relieved of all ground for the charge of inconsistency, and the alleged conduct of the penitent robber is thus far freed from all improbability. As to the appeal which he made to Jesus, "Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom," it is a much worthier ground for surprise than that he should have railed at Jesus at first and afterward repented. It implies belief that Jesus was yet to come in his kingdom, though now he was in the agonies of death, and the petitioner believed that he would soon be dead. This belief, as has been truly remarked, transcended that of the apostles themselves.11 Is it incredible? If not, how had the robber acquired it? It is not incumbent on us to trace the process by which he had acquired it; it is only necessary to show that it is possible for him to have done so. His remark to his fellow robber, "This man has done nothing amiss," implies much previous knowledge of Jesus; for In; could not have learned it by the events of that day, even had he been a free man. He must have learned it before his imprisonment. Even while he was carrying on his nefarious business of highway robbery, he may have mingled very often in the crowds which gathered about Jesus, and by this means become well instructed in his teaching. He may, indeed, have believed on him as many wicked men now believe; and it is not going farther than facts often witnessed at the present day, to suppose that he had, under the influence of that faith, abandoned his course of crime before he was arrested and condemned for it. Such opportunities may certainly have been within his reach, and although they would scarcely enable him to understand the doctrine of the kingdom fully, they may have enabled him to form the conception of it expressed in his dying petition. It is not necessary to suppose that this conception was altogether correct. It probably was about this: that the kingdom which Jesus had failed to establish on earth he would, by some means and in some undefined way, establish in the spirit world into which he was about to enter. The thief may have had a very vague idea as to the nature of that kingdom, and yet, from the strong evidences which Jesus had given of his power and goodness, have believed that something called a kingdom would yet be established, and that, whatever it was, and wherever it was to be, there would be life and peace within it. In the greatest act of Abraham's faith, his conception was a mistaken one; for he believed that God would raise up Isaac from the dead, whereas God did not intend that Isaac should die; yet the faith of Abraham was the more highly commended on this very account. So, whatever may have been the dying robber's conception of the kingdom, he believed that Jesus, notwithstanding his death, would establish one, and this procured for him the blessing. After all, then, the repentance and faith of the penitent robber is not so wonderful as the obduracy of the one who continued to rail at the Son of God in the very agonies of his own death.

We have now considered all of the alleged contradictions between our four Gospels which we think worthy of attention in this work, except those in the accounts of the resurrection. There are no others, I believe, that can not be disposed of an easily as we have disposed of these, and as satisfactorily; there are none which a thoughtful young person, after studying these, can not dispose of without assistance: we shall therefore turn next to some which are said to exist between the Gospels and Acts of Apostles, and between the latter book and some of Paul's Epistles. 

1 In finding fault with our Lord's genealogy, there are certain points which occasion some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancies between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skillful manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews. And he thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that the carpenter's wife could not be ignorant of the fact, had she been of such illustrious descent." (Origen against Celsus, b. ii., c. xxxii.).

2 Strauss, New Life, ii. 11, 15; Francis Newman, Phases of Faith, 65, 66.

3 A probable reason is, that the list was divided into three divisions of fourteen names each, to aid the memory of the early preachers among the Jews, who would be constantly called on to prove the descent of Jesus from David, and who, not always having the book at hand, would need to have the names memorized.

4 As Elimelech was of Bethlehem-Judah, and was the owner of lands there, he must have been a lineal descendant of Judah.

5 1. Sam. xxiv. 16; xxvi. 17, 21, 25.

6 See the account of Judah's family, Gen. xxxviii. 6-15; 25-29; and compare Luke iii. 33; Matt. i. 3.

7 Strauss, New Life. ii. 21.

8 Strauss, New Life, ii. 92; Newman, Phases of Faith, 79.

9 Strauss, New Life, ii 323, 324.

10 "According to the first and second Gospels, the robbers joined with the chief priests and scribes and elders and those who passed by in mocking and reviling Jesus. This is directly contradicted by the third Synoptist, who states that only one of the malefactors did so." (Sup. Rel., iii. 416).

11 "This exemplary robber speaks like an Apostle, and in praying Jesus as the Messiah to remember him when he came into his kingdom, he shows much more than apostolic appreciation of the claims and character of Jesus." (Sup. Rel., iii. 416). "Here then we have a criminal, who undoubtedly came now for the first time into contact with Jesus, understanding without preliminary instruction the doctrine of a suffering and dying Messiah." (Strauss, N. L., ii. 75).