And the voice of God answered him (Acts 9)

Acts chapter nine is where the story really pivots and follows Paul, here still known as Saul. (I don't think we're ever given a specific time when or reason why he changes his name, but maybe I forgot and we'll get to it.) So Saul is working hard at persecuting Christians and apparently now the Jewish leaders have some pretext for throwing them in prison, although I don't think it's made real clear what that is. He gets a letter from the high priest explaining that he can do this and heads to Damascus. On the way to Damascus, he has a vision; a bright light shines from the sky and apparently the voice of Jesus speaks to him and convinces him to cease his persecution and become a Christian. He is temporarily blinded. Did the men with Paul hear the voice? There's a standard explanation for this apparent discrepancy, and that is that while the men heard the voice, they didn't hear the actual words that were spoken; it was just a noise to them. I don't know if there's anything in the Greek that supports that, but there it is. Were the men with Paul knocked to the ground? Yes, the response to this is that just because it's not mentioned in this chapter doesn't mean it didn't happen. The assumption is that the voice knocked them down, and then they stood up again.

So Saul has to be led to Damascus, and he remains blind for three days, during which time he doesn't eat or drink. It's not specified whether Saul had chosen to fast, or if he couldn't eat because of shock. Nearby, a Christian named Ananias has a vision in which "the Lord"--assumedly Jesus--speaks to him and tells him to go find Saul and lay hands on him to restore his sight. Ananias is hesitant, and essentially asks if going to Saul is safe. The Lord tells him that Saul is going to be some sort of super missionary, and Ananias goes. Ananias lays hands on Saul, giving him his sight and the Holy Ghost, and Saul is baptized. After spending a few days hanging out with the believers in Damascus, he starts preaching the gospel in the synagogue, and now the Jews want him dead, so he has to be snuck out of the city in a basket. Did Paul go to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion? There is no contradiction here, because there is no time frame given in Acts; it doesn't say "immediately" here. Did Paul visit all of the disciples when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion? Well, it never says "all", but Luke certainly makes it sound like it's more than two Apostles. I wouldn't say it's a clear contradiction, but it's certainly confusing, and the SAB page should say "Apostles" rather than "disciples" which is obviously not true.

The chapter ends with some miracles by Peter. He cures a man of palsy in Lydda, and raises a woman from the dead in Joppa. As with pretty much all miracles, the SAB marks these with "absurdity" and "science". Jesus said the disciples would do greater works than him, and it certainly seems that way.

Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan (2Samuel 24)

Once again, 2Samuel chapter 24 is almost certainly not chronological; this census was probably late in David's life, but not right at the end. Who tempted David to number Israel? As I mentioned in a previous chapter, there's no contradiction here if you understand the Jewish concept of Satan being the servant of God. God had a hand in this, but Satan did the actual tempting. Has God ever tempted anyone? While I think you can dismiss "lead us not into temptation" as a technicality, it leaves us with two verses to deal with, as I'm coming down on the side of "no". I think one of the hardest things in translation is the issue of how close in meaning the words "tempt" and "test" are. I don't know how this plays out in the Hebrew and Greek, but I suspect the line is blurry, especially when here we're comparing across languages. I guess the thing I'm left with is to say that taking the KJV literally, you would have to say there is a contradiction here. Is it OK to take a census? This is one where the answer is "it depends". It's generally understood (and it seems to be the case from context) that David took a census in order to find out how many fighting men he had, even though Israel was not at war. He either intended something that God disapproved of, or perhaps he was showing a lack of faith that God would protect him. Moses's censuses were for various reasons, and commanded by God, while Solomon's census was apparently of slaves to plan out a work project.

How many valiant men drew the sword in Israel and Judah as counted by Joab? Yes, this is contradictory, and I have no idea why. It's worth noting that while the SAB says these numbers are ridiculous, this is probably not active soldiers, but rather all men in Israel who could potentially serve in a battle. I already answered whether David sinned in 2Samuel chapter 22, where the answer was "yes". How many years of famine? Yes, a straight up contradiction.

Is God merciful? Wow, this is a deep question, and unfortunately highly subjective. I think it's most problematic when a number of verses say things like, "his mercy endureth forever." I think it can clearly be said that God's mercy is limited, which would contradict a claim like that. Are the claims that God is merciful opinion? I could claim that, but unfortunately, not only are many of these claims by prophets, but a handful are from God himself! I think the best I can say is that it's subjective, and a lot of people are going to find the verses in the "no" section to be rather convincing, but I would claim that in most of those cases it's clear from context that the things God did in them came after a great deal of mercy.

Does God repent? I actually addressed this extensively in Genesis chapter six, but it's worth revisiting. There are two different ideas embodied in the term "repent" that need to be delineated. One is the idea of changing one's mind about the rightness of a thing; the other is the idea of deciding to cease an action that one has been doing. The former is definitely something God does not do, while the latter is something God has done many times in the Bible. If one understands that this distinction exists, threre is no contradiction. How much did David pay for the threshing floor? Yes, a rather striking contradiction here.

And Ahithophel said unto Absalom (2Samuel 17)

So, there's not much in 2Samuel chapter 17 so I'll make it short. Ahithophel suggests a battle plan to take down David. Absalom wants to hear what Hushai thinks, and Hushai suggests a different plan. Everyone likes Hushai's plan better, supposedly because it's God's will for Ahithophel to be a failure. Hushai sends word to David to plan accordingly, and David successfully hides. Ahithophel commits suicide. The SAB marks this suicide as injustice, but I don't know what's unjust about suicide, as one does it to oneself. In my opinion, this is more absurd than unjust; I mean, Ahithophel gets rejected a total of one time, and he ends his life over it? What the heck? Who was Amasa'a father? I notice that in this chapter, Amasa's father is said to be Ithra, while in other places, it's Jether, but Ithra and Jether are just alternate spellings of the same Hebrew name. I don't think there's an easy answer, it's just an error in one place or the other.

And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah (2Samuel 10)

2Samuel chapter ten has a story that the SAB marks as absurd that I can see absurdity on multiple levels. David decides to send some emissaries to king Hanun because he apparently had a good relationship with his father. Hanun is told by his advisors that the men are spies, so he shaves half their beards and cuts off half of their clothes (although it's not really clear which half, probably the bottom). This of course sounds pretty absurd on the face of it, but there's something strange even if you understand that this was intended to embarrass the men. If Hanun really thought they were spies, why not kill them or imprison them rather than shame them? There's a lot of weird going on here.

So the Ammonites realize that David doesn't like them anymore, and they get some help from Syria to fight against the Israelites. It ends up being a very confusing battle, where the Israelite fighters show up, and the Syrians run away, so the Ammonites run away, too, and then somehow David comes face to face with the Syrians and they fight, with David being victorious.

How many men did David kill? You know, not only is this clearly an error, but the numbers in either case are pretty questionable. Didn't it say earlier in the chapter that there were 33,000 Syrians? Where did the extra ones come from? I guess they came with this guy Hadarezer in verse 16? Oh, Chronicles says Hadarezer is the king of Zoba, so who knows if these are new soldiers? I've got nothing here, honestly.

So, the battle ends, and Hadarezer's people serve Israel while the rest of the Syrians are too scared to fight anymore.

Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (2Samuel 8)

So, back to 2Samuel chapter eight, which was clearly a trap because the SAB sees a lot of violence and injustice, which is hard to deny here. You do have to realize that Israel is at war with all these nations, and nobody has invented the Geneva Convention yet. It's ugly. David is killing two-thirds of the Moabites (it seems reasonable to assume these are POWs) and enslaving the other third; which is a better fate? Hopefully the slaves were treated well, but we can only guess. Why does David hough the chariot horses? I don't know, as it seems pointless and cruel, although a bit of research suggests this doesn't kill the horse, but makes it unsuitable for war use. How many horsemen did David take? This may be a scribal error, or perhaps the writer of Chronicles felt that since there were thousands of footmen, there ought more likely have been thousands of horsemen; who knows?

Yes, God is giving David all of these violent victories, but in the end, it's about preserving Israel against violent enemies who probably would have done the same or worse to them. I don't know that there is anything else I can say about it.

Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech? I did some research, and there are actually two different Ahimelechs in the Bible, but this doesn't clear up the problem as Ahimelech the Hittite doesn't have a genealogy given, and is clearly nothing to do with this. It seems pretty evident that Ahimelech is the father of Abiathar, and this verse is in error; perhaps the verse in 1Chronicles 24 copied the error, as it was written later. However, the verse 1Chronicles 18:16 says, "Abimelech the son of Abiathar" which may not be a scribal error; Ahimelech may have had a grandson named Abimelech. In the Hebrew alphabet h and b don't look as much like each other as they do in the Latin alphabet.

He appeared first to Mary Magdalene (John 20)

John chapter 20 picks up the story on the following Sunday. There are definitely a lot of aspects of the story of Jesus's resurrection that are hard to follow among the four gospels, but at some point in the past, I made this rather difficult to read page about it: Resurrection harmony. As I allude to there, I believe that Mary Magdalene was the first of several women to arrive, perhaps even alone. So, let's knock out some supposed contradictions...

When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre? Mary Magdalene arrived before sunrise; some other women arrived shortly after. How many women came to the sepulchre? At least five, and I believe they came in at least two separate groups. The fact that some of the gospels fail to mention every single woman who came doesn't mean they weren't there. Was the tomb open or closed when the women arrived? It was open. The original Greek in Matthew supports the possible translation "had opened" suggesting he didn't put these verses in strict chronological order. When did the women discover that Jesus's body was missing? The answer is before talking to the angel(s). It doesn't seem like Mary Magdalene talked to an angel at all, actually. Matthew once again is missing some details as to chronological order, as he never mentions the women checking out the tomb. In Mark, they are already in the tomb, so they likely saw the body was missing before the angel actually spoke. Well, that's verse one, let's see what the rest of the chapter has for us.

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? Yes, he did, but they were still confused and a bit hesitant to believe, even after all they had seen Jesus do. Oh, and just a side note about verse eight, I always wonder what exactly it is that John "believed" if the very next verse says they didn't understand the resurrection yet.

Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when the when the women arrived? I'm sticking to the idea that the angel rolled away the stone before anyone got to the tomb, so Matthew is once again talking about something that happened when only the soldiers were present. Whom did the women see at the tomb? Yes, there's a contradiction here, but not necessarily as convoluted as the SAB implies. Once again, the verse from Matthew is talking about an event that happened before the women arrived. As for the rest of it, there seems to be some confusion about whether there were two or one, but whether it was angels or men, I think we're dealing with angels that happen to look like men, so they are described variously. Most likely the correct answer is two angels, one of whom spoke. Were the men or angels inside the tomb sitting or standing? Really? They probably changed position at some point.

To whom did Jesus make his first post-resurrection appearance? Definitely Mary Magdalene; none of the other verses besides the one in Mark mention chronological order. Did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus when he first appeared to her? No, not immediately. The event in Matthew happened later, and it's not particularly clear whether Mary Magdalene was even there. The story in Luke is a second-hand account that is unclear as to when it was heard about or what details were heard. Was Mary Magdalene happy or sad when she saw the risen Jesus? Sad. Once again, these are two separate events. Was it okay to touch the risen Jesus? Apparently it was. The explanation I have been told about this admonition Jesus gives Mary Magdalene is that she probably wasn't just touching him but clinging to him tightly and Jesus was trying to tell her she couldn't keep him. I'm not sure, but other translations do say, "Do not hold on to me..." I already answered the question of who God's children are and if Jesus is God in John chapter one. Did Jesus go to heaven after he died but before his ascension? Yes, this is an apparent contradiction, and one that I noticed myself. I am of the opinion that in the time between Jesus's death and resurrection, he was in Hell, but of course it may be that he went to Hell, set people there loose, and took them to Heaven. I think the thing you can definitely say is that Jesus has not ascended to Heaven for the final time, which would happen in about forty days.

Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection? There is no contradiction here. Once again there is a time issue with Matthew: nowhere in the Matthew passage does it say that was Jesus's first appearance. Were the disciples frightened or glad when they saw Jesus? Frightened initially, but once Jesus reassured them, they were glad. So both. I already answered when the Holy Ghost was given in John chapter seven, but verse 23 is an interesting one, because it sounds like Jesus is giving them the Holy Ghost right now rather than at Pentecost. A bit strange. How many disciples did Jesus appear to in his first post resurrection appearance? I know I addressed this some time previously, but because there were originally twelve Apostles, they are sometimes referred to as "the twelve" even after Judas was gone, and since Judas was gone, sometimes referred to as "the eleven". It's imprecise because they're not always together, and eventually there are more people referred to as "Apostles" (including Junia, a woman, if I am remembering correctly), but this convention is there anyway. The correct answer is ten Apostles, but there may actually have been other, lesser disciples present as well.

When did Jesus ascend into Heaven? The correct answer is 40 days after his resurrection. The verses given in the "on the day" section are not specific about how much time had passed. The other verses do not contradict 40 days. Should we believe in unseen things? Sometimes. The SAB says the second half of verse 29 is equivalent to "Blessed are they that believe stupid things without (or even contrary to) evidence." This is not what it means at all. There are more kinds of evidence than seeing something, a lot more. Right now, I can't see the chair I am sitting on, but I believe it exists, and I believe it will continue to support my weight without collapse. I have never seen Jesus with my eyes, but I have read about him in the Bible, and I have researched the evidence for the accuracy of the Bible to the original manuscripts, and I have witnessed things that make me think the God of the Bible is real. That's enough evidence for me to believe, it certainly is not enough for some people. Note that the Bible never condemns Thomas for doubting; it's not a sin to want more evidence. I already answered whether Jesus performed many signs in John chapter three.

As the SAB notes, this chapter ends in a way that sound like the end of the book, and it's likely chapter 21 is a later addition, but I will do a post on it, of course.

And they crucified him (John 19)

John chapter 19 opens with Jesus being scourged. The SAB says Jesus gets "whipped", but no, scourged isn't just the archaic term for whipped; it means something quite different. A whip is a thin strip of leather that mostly leaves burn marks on the back. A scourge is a thick strip of leather embedded with things like sharp rocks, pieces of broken glass, and metal spikes that would tear open the back. I've always thought it was strange that when people talk about Jesus's wounds, they tend to mention the four nail holes and spear hole in his side, but forget his back was most likely shredded. It's morbid, but I think it's important to understand fully the extent of the torture Jesus went through in his final hours.

Who put the robe on Jesus? and What color was Jesus's robe? All four gospels mention the robe, but apparently the details vary. On a technicality, it's likely that in Luke's telling of the story, when it says Herod did it, it's really probably meaning Herod supplied the robe and soldiers (probably Romans) actually put it on, but as I said in the last chapter, it's still very strange that only Luke mentions the visit to Herod. The robe was probably purple, as that would have been a royal color, but I have no idea why Matthew says scarlet.

So then there is some back and forth between Pilate and the Sanhedrin, wherein Pilate keeps saying he doesn't understand what Jesus is guilty of, and finally, the Jews tell him that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, which is blasphemy. Pilate goes back to Jesus and asks him why he's not defending himself, as Pilate definitely has the authority to put him to death. Jesus says Pilate's authority comes from God, and therefore those who betrayed him have a greater sin. Pilate presents Jesus as the king, but the Jews say, "We have no king but Ceasar!" So finally, Pilate has him taken away to be crucified.

When (at what time of day) was Jesus crucified? This is a weird one that I don't personally know the answer to, but what I have heard it said about this discrepancy is that there are actually two different methods of measuring time, the Jewish one and the Roman one. Supposedly Mark is using the Roman method while the other gospels use the Jewish method. I already answered what day Jesus was crucified in the last chapter.

Who carried Jesus's cross? Yes, there's a detail of the crucifixion that John fails to mention: the role of Simon the Cyrenian. There is no contradiction here; Jesus carried his cross part of the way, but after being scourged, he didn't have the strength to make it all the way, so the Romans grabbed a random guy from the crowd and made him help. I find it interesting that this is one of a few places in the Bible with what I suppose you'd call representation; Jesus was a Semite, Simon was a Hamite, and the Roman soldier with them would have been a Japhethite. What did the sign over Jesus's head say? Yes, all four of the gospels have a different sign, but they are very close. There is an interesting significance to the sign here in John, however. John says the sign was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; in Hebrew, "JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" would be four words, with the initial letters spelling "יהוה" which in the Hebrew Bible is the name of God. The chief priests in verse 21 are not just upset because they don't recognize Jesus as king, but because the sign is accidentally blasphemous.

Where did the women watching the crucifixion stand? I think this supposed contradiction is taking the words too literally. When the OT gospels say "afar off", I don't think it means they are very far away, as obviously they are within view of the cross. Furthermore, it may be that there were more women than the ones John specifies, and those specific four were close enough to the cross to talk to Jesus; certainly his mother was. I briefly discussed the idea of Jesus being gay in chapter 13.

What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink? and Did Jesus drink on the cross? Notice that Mark says two different drinks at two different times, and Jesus refuses the first, and the first was wine, which Jesus said he wouldn't drink again in this world at the last supper. Furthermore, while John says Jesus "received" the vinegar, it doesn't technically say he drank it; he may have simply tasted it. So, in summary, I would say Jesus was given both wine and vinegar, it's unclear what the makeup of the vinegar was, and while Jesus definitely did not drink the wine, he may have had a small sip of the vinegar.

What were the last words of Jesus? Yeah, everyone who has read the gospels knows this is an unclear point. I think it can be reasonably resolved, however. The witnesses of the crucifixion were standing in different places, so it makes sense that they heard different things. Note that Matthew says that Jesus cried out again, so he is not claiming that the quote he gave was Jesus's last saying; I would assume when he cried out, he said what Luke quotes. I would assume that John's "It is finished." was the actual last saying, but since it was quiet, only the people standing at the foot of the cross heard it.

Verse 36 says it's a fulfillment of scripture that none of Jesus's bones were broken. As I mentioned previously, Jesus is serving as the ultimate Passover lamb, and scripture says in Exodus 12:46 of the Passover lamb, "...neither shall ye break a bone thereof." The SAB argues that this is not a prophecy, but I think it's a matter of opinion, and Christians disagree.

The chapter ends up with Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, two members of the Sanhedrin who were secretly disciples of Jesus, preparing Jesus's body for burial and putting it in a nearby sepulcher.

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests (John 18)

John chapter 18 tells the story of Jesus's betrayal, capture, and some of what followed. Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss? I would say yes, he did, but John failed to mention that detail. So Jesus does identify himself, and as soon as he says, "I am he," the soldiers fall over, perhaps implying some sort of power to Jesus's voice. Peter draws a sword and strikes a servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. It's neen suggested that this indicates Peter went for the easiest target and hit him while he was walking away. Jesus rebukes Peter, and the soldiers take Jesus away.

Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first? There is something tricky going on here because of the nature of the relationship between these two priests. It's actually known somehow historically that Annas was the high priest, but Rome wasn't happy with him for some reason, so they forced the Jews to choose a new high priest, who was Caiaphas. However, a lot of the Jews still thought of Annas as the high priest, and he still had some authority. (This also explains the oddity in verse 19 of Annas being called the high priest: there were sort of two. See Luke 3:2) So when the gospels say Jesus was taken to the high priest without specification, it could be either man. Matthew does indeed specify Caiaphas, but none of the gospels besides John's mentions stopping by Annas at all; as John was the one Apostle who followed Jesus closely that night, it makes sense that John would have more details. What is a more interesting discrepancy is the fact that only one gospel mentions visiting Herod, and it's not John.

There are a lot of oddities to Jesus's trial that are actually illegal. Trials can't be at night; the accused cannot be made to testify against himself; in a capital trial, two witnesses are needed; and just as a cherry on top from the other gospels, the high priest is not allowed to tear his clothes. To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus? Yeah, there's no real way to get around this one; the gospels are very mixed up on the details of this aspect of the story, and I have no idea why.

Did Jesus have secret teachings? I think it's fairly straightforward to reconcile these verses. While Jesus explained the parables to his disciples, the parables themselves were not secret, and while Jesus kept his full identity a secret at the beginning of his ministry, he eventually went very public about it. As for the transfiguration, yesn that was secret, but there were no teachings involved. In short, everything Jesus had to say about himself he eventually said in public, and even in front of the Pharisees.

When (on what day) was Jesus crucified? This is an easy one, if you know Jewish custom. As I mentioned in another post, Passover is seven days long. What I didn't mention, but probably should have, is that there is a feast on both the first and second night. So the Passover meal talked about in John is the second one. The SAB makes note of the fact that Jesus here has a fairly detailed conversation with Pilate, although Matthew says Jesus said virtually nothing. It is interesting, and I wonder why it's not simply marked as a contradiction, since it's arguably so. Oh, it is, and I somehow missed it. Well, I don't have an answer anyway. Pilate asks Jesus, "What is truth?" which, as the SAB notes, is a good question, but it's probably noted for its irony, because Jesus said, "I am the truth..." Pilate offers to set free a prisoner, as is apparently the custom on Passover. He thinks the crowd will choose Jesus, but they choose Barabbas. ("Barabbas" is Aramaic for "son of the father" which some people have suggested may be meaningful. )

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings (John 13)

John chapter 13 opens with Jesus washing the Apostles' feet. This is a very touching scene, because this task would usually be done by a servant, so Jesus, now apparently on the day before his death, shows himself to be a servant of his disciples, which is generally a radical reversal of tradition. The SAB marks this as absurd, along with a few other things in the chapter, but I'm not sure why this one. If it's supposedly absurd for Jesus to do such a menial task, then it's right on target and gets the point. If it's absurd that Jesus strips down before doing it, I don't see why; he probably wanted to keep his clothes clean. Anyway, when he gets to Peter, they have an exchange of words in which Peter refuses to have his feet washed, Jesus tells him that it's necessary, Peter says Jesus should wash his hands and face, and Jesus says after bathing only feet need to be washed. I have heard a lot of Christians look for deeper meaning in this exchange, but I think Jesus is just plain talking about dirt; if you take a bath in the river and then walk back to the house, really only your feet are going to be dirty. (Okay, there is a touch of deeper meaning that John explains in verse 11, the implication that Judas is not clean because he was planning to betray Jesus.) Jesus puts his clothes back on and talks to the Apostles about what he did, explaining that as he acted like a servant to them, so they should act as servants to the other believers in the future. There are actually churches who take this literally and practice feet washing. I believe the Pope actually washes the feet of twelve people just before Easter every year; recently there was a story about Pope Francis choosing to wash the feet of twelve Muslim refugees as a gesture of interfaith goodwill and a heart for refugees. I'm not a Catholic, but I really like Pope Francis.

So then apparently John skips forward a bit towards the end of the Passover meal (it's easier to tell from context in the other gospels when this happens) and Jesus is talking about his betrayal. He speaks of Psalm 41:9 as prophecy, and the SAB brings up a couple points about the context of that Psalm. Jesus of course hasn't sinned against God the Father, so if the whole psalm is supposed to be prophetic, perhaps verse four speaks about Peter? As for having an "evil disease" people were just saying of Jesus that he was demon possessed, so that could certainly fit.

The SAB makes some allusion to John and Jesus being so close as a possibility once again for Jesus being gay. John is lying against Jesus's chest for a while here, and as I said back in 1Samuel where I was talking about David and Jonathan, it's not uncommon in other cultures for two heterosexual men who are good friends to be affectionate towards each other. I find it funny that America, where we're tolerant enough of homosexuality that we legalized same-sex marriage (as we should--it's not the government's job to say who we can marry or what consenting adults do in their own homes), is so homophobic that we see two men hugging and assume they are gay. Virtually everywhere else, men are affectionate.

When did Satan enter Judas? the SAB asks as Jesus reveals to John who the betrayer is. This is not a contradiction if you can accept that Satan enters into Judas more than once. Satan enters into Judas in Luke 22 when Judas decides to see what he can get for betrayal of Jesus, and enters into Judas again when he actually goes to commit the act. I really wanted to follow up with the discussion from a few posts ago about Jesus supposedly committing suicide. One should note that while the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't want to do it at Passover. Matthew 26:3-5

Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

So Jesus knows they don't want to get him during Passover, but in this passage, we see him force the matter: right after talking about being betrayed, he hands food to Judas, saying, "That thou doest, do quickly." Jesus is telling Judas, I know you're going to betray me; do it now. Jesus wants to be betrayed and killed during Passover (which lasts for seven days) for a few reasons. First, he wants to fulfill prophecy and become the ultimate Passover lamb, or as John the Baptist put it in John 1:29, "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Secondly, and related, Jesus wants to be killed by the Romans, so he will be crucified, as this fulfills scripture again (and his own prophecies about his death), and as the Passover lamb, his bones are not broken (if the Jews killed him, they would have stoned him to death, which certainly would have broken bones)(see also John 19:33). Why does dying during Passover mean that the Romans kill him? John 18:31-32

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Some have incorrectly assumed this meant that the Jews weren't allowed to put someone to death under Roman law, but note that they already tried to kill Jesus several times, and did kill Stephen in the Book of Acts. No, what's not lawful is touching a dead body during Passover (see Numbers 6:9). In the end, Jesus is carefully controlling the manner and timing of his death.

The SAB marks verse 35 as absurd, and you have to admit that historically, "love" hasn't been the hallmark of self-professed "Christians." Perhaps it's a sign that they weren't? There certainly are a lot of present-day "Christians" I question.

Did any of the apostles ask Jesus where he was going? Yes, but apparently by chapter 16, they had stopped asking. Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crows twice? I guess this is a genuine contradiction, but what difference does it really make? I mean the cock has to crow if it's going to crow twice.

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night (John 3:1-15)

John chapter three is mostly the story of Jesus having a conversation with Nicodemus. This conversation and Nicodemus himself are noteworthy, because in much of the Gospels, Jesus is seen in situations being in opposition to the Pharisees, but Nicodemus is "a man of the Pharisees". It's not commonly noted, but not all of the Pharisees were against Jesus, and at least two of them (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) performed actions indicating that they believed in him to some extent.

Did Jesus perform many signs and wonders? Yes, Jesus performed a lot of signs and wonders, he just refused to do any just for the sake of showing off. All of Jesus's miracles were performed because there was a need for them, but there were a few times when the Pharisees demanded that he do something on the spot to prove himself, and he refused. Of course, it's understood that the "sign of Jonas" was a reference to the prophet Jonah being three days in the belly of a whale; similarly Jesus would be three days in the grave. (Yes the latter "three days" is questionable, but I don't think this is the place for that subject.)

Must someone be born again to be saved? These discussions are always convoluted because there's a lot the Bible says on this subject, and a lot of subjects that are closely related. The specific issue of being "born again" is a particularly sticky point because John 3:3 is the only place in the Bible where the term appears, at which point it's not very well explained, and yet you'll find a lot of Christians who are very hung up on it. (Ask a Christian like that what it means, and they'll probably say something like, "If you are, you just know!") Nonetheless, how I would respond to what is touched on on the contradiction page is that being born again is believing in Jesus, and the SAB seems to understand that the point here is belief, as they group it together. The thing that seems like a sticking point is when the Bible talks about salvation through words and deeds; the solution to the confusion is understanding that if you have the right beliefs, you will speak the right words and perform the right deeds. A pastor friend of mine told me he teaches this subject with an illustration of a coin, where faith and beliefs are on one side, and good words and deeds are on the other; while they are two different things, they are just two aspects of the same state of being. This does open up a whole can of worms theologically with the question of which may be more important, and there are scriptures that seem to support either side, but I'm not going to get that deep here.

The SAB makes an interesting note on verse 8 about Jesus's statement "The wind bloeth where it listeth, and thou ... canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." I suppose in a scientific note, the SAB points out that it is quite possible to measure the wind. This is true, but I think what Jesus is saying still stands, even without the fact that methods of measuring the wind didn't exist in first century Palestine. Yes, you can tell what the wind is doing at a specific point in space and time, but just because that's possible, can you really tell where it's coming from or where it's going? Wind is very chaotic, and it's not visible, so you can't really have full knowledge of what the wind is doing in general. This article, which I just Googled and is very recent, talks about the technology used to measure wind, and how difficult it is.

"It's a demonstration of the feasibility for our future satellite mission we are pursuing where we hope to provide the 10-kilometer resolution," Zeng said.

The SAB has a lot to say about verse 12 in the footnote. it's a lot of science stuff linked to on other pages. Let's gather it up:

Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were created "from the beginning." But the universe is 13.8 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, and humans (depending on how you define "human") for a couple million years.

This comment is on a passage where Jesus is making a point about divorce by essentially quoting from Genesis 1. So, I'm guessing that the SAB is implying that Jesus is a young-earth creationist, which goes against modern science. Maybe, but just because Jesus is quoting Genesis doesn't mean you know what his view on creation is; Christians all accept Genesis as part of the Bible, but views on what it means vary greatly. Some believe in a literal seven-day creation that happened about 6,000 years ago; some believe that the seven days represent indefinite amounts of time that may be billions of years; some believe that Adam and Eve were not the first human beings, but the first ones to have a special relationship with God. I have a particular view that may not be widespread, but didn't originate with me, that I went over in Genesis 2. The point here is that I think the SAB is reading too much into Jesus quoting Genesis, and nonetheless, the first human beings in fact were male and female, which is what Jesus actually said in that passage.

Jesus believed the story of Noah's ark. He thought it really happened and had no problem with the idea of God drowning everything and everybody.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I hear a lot of Christians say, "Jesus says Jonah really happened!" just because Jesus mentioned Jonah being swallowed by a fish. Jesus knows his audience is familiar with the Old Testament, so it makes sense to use it as a common cultural reference; this doesn't mean that Jesus is necessarily saying it's all true. The SAB is doing the same thing here: if Jesus mentions Noah, he has to be signing off on the complete veracity of every single aspect of the complete story of Noah's flood! Again, this is a leap of logic that I don't think is warranted; at most, I'd say you can probably say that Jesus recognizes that Noah was a real historical person. It was my view going through that part of Genesis that the story is problematic scientifically and narratively; does that mean that Jesus, when making a point illustrated by the person of Noah, needs to pause to untangle all the problems of that story? Why would he? Jesus is making a point about urgency and danger, and illustrating it with the story of the flood; discussion of physics and meteorology would be a distraction.

Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (Orchids have the smallest seeds.) And there are no trees in the mustard family (Brassicaceae).

The SAB is completely missing the point on two levels. Jesus's parable of the mustard seed is trying to make a point about something spiritual. His use of the mustard seed as "the smallest seed" is not intended as a scientific statement of fact, but simply that the mustard seed was likely the smallest seed any of his audience would have been familiar with. And it's important that his audience is familiar with the mustard seed, because they would have known that the idea of a mustard seed growing into a huge tree was absolutely ridiculous! Jesus doesn't think this is normal, he's implying that the kingdom of heaven defies expectations! So to sum up the footnote on verse 12, Jesus is only wrong about those things if you make entirely unwarranted leaps of logic based on things he said in passing in various places in the Gospels.

Has anyone ever ascended into heaven? You know, I'm inclined to give this one to the SAB. I mean, I could be nitpicky about the stories of Enoch and Elijah (the Bible doesn't actually say Enoch went to heaven, but if he didn't, then what the heck is the Bible trying to say?) and try to weasel out of this, but honestly, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why Jesus overlooked these two men. I guess I can say that Jesus is making a generalized statement that he failed to mention the odd exceptions to, but it feels like the wording should be different; it just feels so absolute. It's probable that his point is that no man has ascended into heaven and come back to talk about it, because that's certainly true, but his wording is technically a contradiction with other parts of scripture as the SAB notes.

This is getting long, so I'll break it at the famous verse 16, and finish this post with the footnote on verse 14. I'll say once again that just because Jesus uses an illustration out of the Old Testament, it doesn't necessarily follow that he takes the referenced story literally, however in this case, I don't see a reason why he shouldn't. The SAB marks the story in Numbers 21 as both absurd and having scientific issues, but we're talking about two miracles, so to a nonbeliever, any miracle is going to seem absurd and nonscientific. I suppose there is the issue of God making a miracle that hurts people and following it by a second miracle to fix the first; yes, that seems absurd, but I think the reason for what happened was to teach the Israelites something about faith. The snakes came because of lack of faith, and they needed to have faith in God's strange cure to deal with it. (The story has more issues, but I'll save them for whenever I get around to blogging Numbers.) The important thing here is that Jesus is comparing himself to the bronze serpent of Numbers 21, because like the issue of faith I described above, people of the world are subject to the effects of Original Sin because of the lack of faith of Adam, and need to be cured by faith in looking to Jesus lifted up on the cross to pay the price for sin. More on this in verse 16 next post.

And king Herod heard of him (Luke 23)

The first question the SAB brings up on Luke 23 is Who put the robe on Jesus? This is a fascinating question because it highlights an even bigger question that the SAB fails to ask. Why is Luke's gospel the only one that mentions Jesus making a trip to see Herod? It's funny because the idea that Herod and his men put the robe on Jesus almost makes a sort of twisted sense--at least I can't see why the Romans would bother. Luke's gospel as a whole has a number of interesting little vignettes that are missing from the other three, and you end up wondering where Luke got his information. Perhaps as the only non-Jewish writer, he was able to get inside information from the Romans, but that's only speculation on my part.

Who carried Jesus' cross? This one is pretty simple: Jesus carried his own cross part of the way, and Simon of Cyrene carried it for the other part.

What did the soldiers give Jesus to drink? I think there were two points in time that the soldiers offered Jesus a drink. First, they offered him wine, which he refused, and the second time they offered him vinegar, which he took a little bit of.

What did the sign over Jesus say? Yes, it's very interesting that all four gospels get the sign different, but the essential message is the same.

Did both thieves revile Jesus? The general understanding of this supposed contradiction is that while both of the thieves reviled Jesus at first, one of them was moved for unknown reason to repent and defend Jesus. The SAB has a side-note on verse 43 that is worth addressing, even though I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. The thing is, there's a lot of speculation theologically as to what went on between the time Jesus died and the time he was resurrected. Some believe, and with fairly good reason, that when Jesus died, he didn't go to heaven, but rather went to a place known as Sheol where he preached the Gospel to all dead people who were waiting to go to the afterlife. This is more than I really want to go into here, but I do believe that it's written about in one of the later epistles. Actually, I guess the SAB talks a bit about it on the page for Did Jesus go to heaven after he died but before his ascension? Jesus seems to be saying to Mary Magdalene that he hasn't been to heaven, but he could simply mean that he hasn't made his final ascension yet. I'm almost babbling here, but the point in the end is I'm just not sure, so let's move on to a simpler question.

Can thieves go to heaven? I can answer this one! The contradiction page quotes 1 Cor. 6:9-10, which is a verse I have a love/hate relationship with. Yes, Paul mentions a whole list of sorts of people who can't go to heaven, but then in verse 11, he says, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." The important takeaway? Sin will keep us from heaven, but Jesus is in the business of forgiving sin. There will be no thieves in heaven, but there will be a whole lot of ex-thieves.

When did the Temple curtain rip? I don't think that any of these verses are trying to nail down an exact time; the idea is that the curtain ripped when Jesus died.(See comments for more musing on this topic.)

What were the last words of Jesus? I don't know.

What did the Centurion call Jesus when he died? The accepted understanding is that there were two centurions at Jesus' crucifixion, and they each had something to say when Jesus died.

From where were the women watching? I think that there was more than one group of women at Jesus' crucifixion, and while most watched from afar, a small group, along with the Apostle John, was much closer to the cross.

Who buried Jesus? The thing to understand here is that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus were members of the Sanhedrin who happened to be sympathetic to Jesus, so there is no contradiction here.

Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice (Luke 22)

Luke 22 opens with the intriguing question Did Satan enter Judas before or after the last supper? I suppose the SAB can see this as a contradiction, but it's quite possible that Satan entered into him more than once.

So then we come to the Last Supper, of course in the midst of which, Jesus gives his disciples bread that he says is "my body" and wine which he says is "my blood". The SAB marks this is violent for some reason; I guess they are assuming this is not bread and wine but actual flesh and blood? Even among Christians who believe in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine magically transform into flesh and blood) the Eucharist doesn't start out that way, so I can't see the violence there.

In verse 30, Jesus says the apostles will "sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The SAB asks which tribe Judas will judge. First of all, it doesn't say that each of them will get a specific tribe to judge; I assume they all will judge all the tribes jointly. Second of all, there's no reason to assume that this applies to Judas.

Now I have no idea why I didn't cover this in Matthew 26 or Mark 14 (I'm pretty sure this isn't a new note in the SAB), but in the book of Mark, Jesus tells Peter that the cock will crow twice when Peter will deny Jesus, which is different from the other three tellings of this story. The thing that may be especially interesting about this discrepancy is that Mark's gospel is considered by some scholars to have been written by Mark based on interviewing Peter about the events within it. So while this discrepancy is a minority reading, it's in the gospel that one would most expect to get the details right. Whichever version is right in the end, this seems to be a small but real contradiction. (The later note about Did the cock crow before or after Peter's denial? is of course closely related, and I would respond to it similarly.)

Is Jesus peaceful? I'm sure I've answered this many times, but it always could use another answer. Jesus was a peaceful person, and he came to bring peace between man and God, but in the end, the controversy that has ever since been brought up because of his teachings has led to a lot of violence. In this passage, Jesus is warning his disciples that with him dead and gone, things are going to be different, and they will need to defend themselves.

Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion? Sort of. You'll find that in each of the gospels he seems to suggest it, but immediately adds something like, "not my will but yours."

I don't know what to say about the note on verses 43-44. I'm sure the book in the footnotes of the page sheds some light on the matter.

Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss? It seems to be the case, although it also seems to be the case that John did not mention this fact in his gospel.

Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first? Some facts need to be clarified about these two men. First of all, they were both acting as high priest, because the Romans had ordered that Annas be made high priest, while the Jews still accepted Caiaphas. Secondly, Caiaphas was the father-in-law of Annas, so whether at home or at the temple, these two men may have very well been together.

However, I have to admit that To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus? is a question that just has a jumbled mess for an answer, and I've no idea why. In some sense it doesn't matter, but since it's largely accepted that some of the gospel writers copied from each other it seems strange that there would be so much discrepancy.

How did Jesus respond when questioned by the high priest? Well, while technically the gospels give different responses, they're awfully similar. I think a lot of believers know of these slight differences and aren't bothered by them, but I could be only speaking for me. It's been a long chapter.

For we have seen his star in the east (Luke 21)

Luke 21 opens with Jesus giving commentary on some people giving money at the temple; in particular, he points out a widow who puts in a tiny amount of money as having "cast in more money than they all." The SAB deduces from this that Jesus is in favor of progressive taxation, but as usual I think extending spiritual truths that Jesus teaches into the realm of politics is iffy. Still, there is perhaps a principle at work here, and it may tie in with his claim from two chapters ago that it's hard for rich people to enter heaven. As a political liberal, I'd like to think Jesus favors progressive taxation, I just don't know how strong of a case you can really make from this one passage.

Most of the rest of this chapter is a rambling speech about the second coming: when to expect it, what to expect when it's coming, what sorts of things will happen before it comes, etc. A lot of this stuff sounds very violent and horrible, but I don't think that Jesus is saying he endorses the bad parts, only that they will be coming so be ready. (There's an interesting sub-point in this that the SAB points out, but only in passing; Jesus says some people are going to be put to death and yet "there shall not an hair of your head perish." Seems like a contradiction in terms there, doesn't it?)

Should we look for signs in the heavens? This may come across as a bit iffy to a skeptic, but I think that despite the passage mentioning signs, there is no admonition to look for them. It's not clear from context what these "signs" will be, and I actually expect that they will be false signs to confuse people further in the midst of all the chaos already going on. Speaking of which, Does the bible condemn astrology? I'm sure I've addressed it before but in general, the Bible does condemn astrology. Note that the Genesis passage says, "let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years," which suggests to me that the passage is just pointing out the obvious that the positions of stars can work like a calendar. The Judges passage most likely is not talking about actual stars, but rather about angels, which in many prophetic passages are referred to as "stars". The passage here in Luke talks about signs, but once again, I think these may be false signs, which leaves only the Matthew verse to discuss. There are a couple of things to be said about the star of Bethlehem, one being that the people who followed it were not Jews. Secondly, and this is an interesting one that I recently read about in a Jehovah's Witness publication (although I'm not a JW, I read Watchtower Magazine and Awake! just because I find them fascinating), the star of Bethlehem somehow led them to the wrong king and put Jesus in mortal danger, so it has questionable value; the publication I was reading suggested it was a demonic sign, which I find a fascinating theory.

Will Jesus' second coming be visible to all? According to the note at the bottom of the page, I'm apparently not the only one who is interested in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as the SAB has taken from them in some way this possible contradiction from a verse in John. I think the solution to this contradiction is a simple one, as there is nothing particular that indicates the verse in John will be forever.

In verse 32, Jesus says "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." The SAB suggests this is failed prophecy since it didn't all happen within the lifetime of his listeners, but that's making the assumption that "this generation" refers to his listeners. It may very well be that Jesus is saying the generation that sees the signs won't pass away until the end of the world. (Note that he talks about a fig tree; some scholars have suggested that the fig tree is symbolic of the nation Israel, and thus the generation that sees Israel restored is the one that will see the end. This idea has gotten a bit less popular as the time span from the reestablishing of Israel has increased.)

Will the earth last forever? I would say that this one is a rather metaphysical question. I think the theological consensus is that the earth will last for all of time, but eventually time itself shall cease to exist. In any case, when the "new earth" is created something about it is going to be fundamentally different on a cosmic level.

Neither shoes, nor yet staves (Luke 9)

In Luke 9, Jesus sends the apostles out to do work such as healing the sick and casting out demons. In examining Jesus' instructions here and elsewhere, the SAB asks, Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? I dealt with this before, and it was a subtle one. My understanding of what seems to be a contradiction here is that Jesus told them not to bring an extra staff, and wanted them to wear sandals rather than heavy shoes.

Apparently some people thought that Jesus was John the Baptist back from the dead, and the SAB wonders if Herod was among the people believing this. I think there's room for that interpretation in the Luke passage; although Herod doesn't actually say it, he does seem to be worried by the rumors.

Verse 27 has the cryptic message, "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." This is an odd statement, and many people have interpreted it to mean that the second coming of Christ would be within the lifetimes of some of his apostles, but I don't think that's what it does mean. In all of the Gospels recording this claim, it is immediately followed by the event known as the Transfiguration, and many Christians believe that it was this event to which Jesus was referring, that is, seeing Christ transfigured was equivalent to seeing the "kingdom of God". (Luke says the Transfiguration was eight days after the speech, which disagrees with the other Gospels; I don't believe I have anything useful to shed light on the discrepancy.)

Shortly after this, Jesus cures an epileptic boy by casting a demon out of him. The SAB says that the Bible is implying that epilepsy is caused by demons, but all I think you can say is that the Bible is claiming it was in this particular case. For some reason, Jesus has some harsh words for his disciples for not being able to handle the demon on their own, I have no idea why.

A following passage that discusses casting out demons leads the SAB to ask two similar questions: Who can cast out devils in the name of Jesus? and Is casting out devils a sign of a true Christian? I don't think there's a real contradiction here, both really depend on a very particular interpretation of Mark 16:17, which in my opinion means that if you're a Christian, you should have the power to cast out demons, but that doesn't mean that if you can cast out demons you must be a Christian. Furthermore, I don't think that the people being discussed in this passage are necessarily not Christians, they're just not part of the main group of Jesus and his Apostles.

Did the Samaritans receive Jesus? This is a simple one to answer. Some of them did, some of them didn't. The story happening here is a different one than the one in John 4, and in this particular case, Jesus was not received. While I don't agree with the absurdity of Jesus' disciples asking to call down fire from heaven, I readily admit that it opens up some questions. Were they right in being angry? Would they have really been able to call down fire? What did Jesus' response to their request really mean? I don't know that anyone has answers to those questions. I sure don't.

Final note on this chapter: the man who asks Jesus, "Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father." doesn't have a dead father, he's saying "I'd like to follow you, but can I wait until my parents are dead?" Perhaps one can still consider it cruel for Jesus to deny the request, but it's not what the SAB makes it sound like.

It seemed good to me also (Mark 1)

Well, I disputed with myself for quite a while whether or not I should simply continue with the Gospels. On the one hand, it seems sort of logical, and on the other hand...well, there are a few reasons why not. My main reason had been repetitiveness. Years ago, a friend of mine who was not a Christian told me that she was going to read through the New Testament, straight from beginning to end. I actually advised her that this might not be the best idea, and that once you read Matthew, the act of jumping into Mark will have you saying, "Didn't I just read all this?" I think it's easier for a Christian who has some enthusiasm for the subject material, but for the casual reader, the first three books of the New Testament can get boring especially for this very reason.

In my case, as I would have to work my ways through the issues brought up by the SAB, it's probably bound to be boring to be covering the same issues all over again, and thus I would have a similar experience. There's going to be a lot or repetition, I think.

I'll admit that when it comes to Mark 1, there is the additional issue of what to do with the very first note the SAB presents, which is an unusual one. Generally, the SAB uses the King James version, and as such, sticks to it with admirable devotion. Here on the very second verse, however, the SAB points out an issue not with the KJV, but with the ancient documents on which the KJV may have been based. I'm not an expert in the ancient documents myself, but I am somewhat familiar with the expert being consulted here: Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is the sort of author that anyone who finds the SAB an enjoyable read would enjoy. Apparently once a devoted Christian (if I'm remembering his story correctly) he decided to embark on a course of study that would allow him to examine the original manuscripts upon which the New Testament is based. Rather than finding enlightenment as many do, he was shocked to find that these manuscripts were not telling the unified and clear story that he expected them to tell, and thereafter set forth on a career of publishing books that examined what he considered to be important errors, not in any particular translation, but in the manuscripts on which the translations are based.

Anyway, I've read at least one of his books, and while I found it interesting, I disagreed with the majority of his conclusions, although not all of them. I don't know if an author like Ehrman is proving anything quite so clearly as he supposes he is. Literary interpretation from any age can be a shaky subject, and I tend to think of Ehrman as being probably as convincing as I am, despite having some advanced degrees and far better knowledge of ancient languages. If you're at all of a curious or skeptical mind, he's probably worth reading, but I don't think I have anything to say regarding his footnote here.

So, to the repetitiveness: As I said in Matthew 3, I don't think that slight differences in wording really should bother people.

"What did Jesus do after his baptism?" I would say that as Mark says, he went to the wilderness for 40 days. The passage being used in the Gospel of John is not talking about the day after Jesus' baptism, but the day after John talked about Jesus' baptism; the time frame is far from clear there.

I answered at length in Matthew 4 concerning the timing of the calling of the disciples, mainly saying that I believe the story in John is a separate story than the calling here.

"Where was the home of Peter and Andrew?" This looks like a problem until you look at a map and see that Bethsaida is just the next town over from Capernaum, it looks like about two miles away by my map, making it easy to have left a synagogue in one town and go straight away to a home in the other.

"Are those who believe Jesus is the Christ of God?" You know, I may have to hand it to the SAB that this is a genuine contradiction; I don't know anything I could say here at all except that maybe John means human beings only? Who knows, so I'll leave it on an up for the SAB.

I know not this man of whom ye speak (Matthew 26:31-75)

The SAB has a trio of questions about Peter's upcoming denial, and before I even check, I seem to recall that there was some vagueness there. "Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crow twice?" and "Did the cock crow before or after Peter's denial?" and "To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus?" I think there are definite contradictions present in all but the second question, and that's because with the cock crowing twice, it just works out that way; that is to say in a way that I don't think the second question really adds anything to the problem of the first stated contradiction. I suppose I should put in an opinion as to which I think is right; normally if it's three to one, you'd think you'd go with the three, but it's generally understood that Mark's Gospel (the one in which the cock crows twice) was told mainly from Peter's point of view, which makes me lean towards the "twice" thing. As for the third question, again there does seem to be discrepancy, and I'd lean towards Mark's Gospel, but if anything can be said in defense of the discrepancy here, he was in the middle of a large crowd, and there may have been a lot of people talking to him in the end. Beyond that, I've got nothing on these.

"Did Jesus ask God to save him from crucifixion?" I can see how this could look like a contradiction, but there's something important in all of these passages in both columns. In every telling, Jesus says that in the end, no matter what his vulnerable human body might desire, he is there to do the will of God the Father, and that means going to the cross.

"Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss?" Well, three of the four Gospels say so, and the fourth Gospel doesn't say that he didn't, so I'm inclined towards "Yes." (The answer to the question of whether Jesus came to bring peace was addressed here with an answer of "It's complicated.")

"Was Jesus taken to Caiaphas or Annas first?" This one takes some explanation, and it may come up elsewhere. This was a unique situation in the history of Israel in which there were two high priests, one of which had been appointed by the people and the second of which had been put into the position by the Romans. Since both were serving as high priest, Jesus was probably taken before the both of them. It may not have been simultaneous, but essentially at the same time.

"Did Jesus say, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up'?" At first I was confused by this question, since I couldn't see the difference between the columns on the linked page; then I realized what it was: the verses in Matthew and Mark say that "false witnesses" attested to him saying this. I think you have to look carefully at the wording, and that in the John passage, Jesus is talking about the "temple" of his physical body, while the witnesses are making it to sound like he's talking about the physical temple building. I don't blame the SAB for calling this a contradiction, as it's pretty subtle.

"How did Jesus respond to the high priest?" This is another fairly subtle one, and I say that it's subtle because the three responses given are still very similar, from "Thou hast said" to "Ye say that I am" to the very straightforward "I am". All of them are answering in the affirmative, although as the SAB points out, the first two are less straightforward, but the second includes "I am" within it. A possibility is that Jesus said something like "Thou hast said that I am" and it got misheard in various ways, or he may have been asked multiple times and different responses got recorded by different authors but I'm not sure what is the best way to resolve this. As I've said previously slight difference in wording doesn't bother me in general, but this seems a bit more important, as it's a crucial moment in Jesus' trial. Leaving that hanging, however, it's worth noting that, as in modern law, a witness is not required to incriminate himself. It's one of a handful of things that made Jesus' trial illegal under Jewish law. (The SAB notes that the high priest rent his clothes, which I seem to recall also being against Jewish Law.)

There they made him a supper (Matthew 26:1-30)

So with Matthew 26, we're really getting close to the end of all of this, and Jesus is getting close to the end of his life. (The question as to whether he forewarned his disciples of his death I covered in Matthew 20.)

There's a story in verses 6-13 in which a woman pours some expensive ointment on Jesus' head, and there is a question of whether it was a wasteful thing to do. While I think the case can certainly be made that it was truly wasteful and could have been better spent on helping the poor, but there are a few things to note. The parallel telling of the story from the Gospel of John points out that it was Judas Iscariot in particular who was complaining, and the reason he was complaining was not that he cared about the poor, but because he wanted the money for himself. (The passage also says that the woman, who is there identified as Mary of Bethany, poured it on Jesus' feet, a contradiction the SAB missed, but I'm sure it'll be added soon after this post is published.) Also note that Jesus is making a point in two parts. First, that he's being anointed for burial, which shows that the woman has a deeper understanding of what's going on, and second, that since he's about to die, this is the last time the disciples will have a chance to do anything for/with Jesus before he's dead, while caring for the poor--while yes, it's important--is work that will never end.

Anyway, it's Passover, so Jesus and his disciples get together to have a traditional Passover supper (commonly known as a "Seder") which comes to be known as the "Last Supper". Jesus takes the occasion to reinterpret a lot of symbolic items from the Seder in respect to his death and resurrection. A lot of these are open to interpretation, and the SAB marks the passage with the "interpretation" icon, but I'm not just going to address the items the SAB brings up, but bring up a few others.

In verse 26, it says that Jesus takes bread, blesses it and breaks it, saying "Take, eat; this is my body." (This bread is very specific bread, as it happens. At a Seder, only unleavened bread is eaten (leaven being symbolic of evil) and there is a special thing done with some of the bread which I believe is symbolic of the Trinity and the death of Jesus. Three pieces of bread are set aside in a special pouch, and the middle one of the three (the afikomen) is broken, taken away and hidden, and then brought back to the table. This piece is put back together, and then everyone is required to eat a piece of it.) Then Jesus takes a cup of wine and tells them "Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood..." (This cup of wine is the third of four cups of wine that are had during the Seder, this one being known as the "Cup of Blessing".) So Jesus is taking traditional elements of the Seder and reinterpreting them in a messianic manner, which leads to the issue of various interpretations.

As the SAB points out, there is doctrinal difference among Christians over whether this is literally the body and blood of Jesus. Most Protestants consider it to be symbolic, while Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine will somehow become the actual body and blood when consumed. What the SAB apparently doesn't know (or I assume they'd mention it) is that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that communion is meant only to be taken on Passover (while most Christian churches will do it weekly or monthly). Admittedly, there could have been more clarity given, and it's a bit sad that despite the lack of clarity, pretty much every church is 100% convinced that their method and doctrine is correct, and others are mistaken, sometimes to the point of heresy.

The SAB asks "Is it okay to drink alcohol?" and I'll stand on my answer given in the middle of this post, which boiled down largely to a common sense stance of "It's okay in moderation."

And thou shalt bring it to thy father (Matthew 23)

Chapter 23's first issue is a familiar one, the question of whether we should let others see our good works. I'm standing by my answer in chapter 5, namely that it's not so much whether you're seen, but what your intentions are.

Next, it asks whether it is OK to call anyone "father". Frankly, this verse has always confused me, since Jesus doesn't seem to make exception for our earthly fathers, and I've actually met people who feel this is the right interpretation, although it seems absurd to me. I think that the best interpretation (my opinion) is that this verse and the following are saying that people of religious authority should not take fancy titles for themselves, and it has little to nothing to do with parenthood or slavery.

Then Jesus lets loose with some harsh language for his detractors (again I stand on my answer in chapter 5 concerning the term "fool") which I'd say you need to decide for yourself whether they deserve it. After all, in verse 31, when Jesus calls them "the children of them which killed the prophets" he's technically telling the truth. Now when he specifically mentions "Zacharias son of Barachias" there does seem to be a problem there, as the name "Barachias" doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the Bible, and the easily-identified Zacharias does seem to be the son of Jehoiada. I don't have any easy solutions for this one, the only things coming to mind are that "Barachias" may have been a grandfather or great-grandfather, or alternately (but more of a stretch) "son of Barachias" may have been some sort of title, as "Barachias" means "blessing of Jehovah". I really don't know, although it might be worth noting for better or worse that there was another "Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah" mentioned in Isaiah 8. (That could be source of the solution OR the problem, really.)

Tell me, what shall thy wages be? (Matthew 20)

Chapter 20 opens with another very strange parable, as the SAB puts it, "The parable of the unfair, lying employer." Rather than try to describe it, I'll let you read it yourself. A note on the face of the parable's content that I think is needed is that "a penny" is not a direct translation (it was actually a denarius, a coin worth ten times another smaller Roman coin, and commonly paid for a days wages), and the agreed wage was reasonable, or else the first group certainly wouldn't have signed on. The latter groups of workers are told "whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive." Now in the matter of unfairness, I can certainly see where the argument comes from: if you've got groups of people working 12, 9, 6, 3, and 1 hours, and you pay them all the same, it does seem unfair, I'll grant. But lying? Look, the first group agreed to work for a penny, so there's no lying there. If all the other groups agreed to work for "whatever is right" then that's subject to opinion, namely the opinion of the owner of the vineyard. The accusation of lying seems like quite a stretch to me.

So what about the unfairness, and the meaning of the parable? As I've said before, I can only guess, but it's always seemed to me that this parable is talking about the gift of salvation, and how even if you spent your whole life going to church and being a good person, spreading the Gospel, you get just as much salvation as someone with a deathbed confession of faith who goofed off their whole life. The SAB asks what the meaning of verse 15 is, and I think I know this one; "Is thine eye evil because I am good?" is, I believe, supposed to mean "Are you giving me such a dirty look just because I've decided to be generous?"

Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection? Yes he did, but the fact that they failed to understand, as John 20:9 points out, is a separate matter.

When we are told the story of the mother of James and John asking for seats of honor for her sons in the coming kingdom, the SAB points out that the parallel passage in Mark doesn't mention the mother. I figure that this could be a matter of Mark not noticing (or not mentioning) the mother being there, and in the real story, it wasn't her personally who asked, but rather that she goaded her sons into asking. The SAB may not agree, but that makes both versions work out fine in my estimation.

How much power did Jesus have? This is a good question, and I think I addressed part of this previously, but there's a special case here in this chapter. As I think I mentioned before, the passage in Mark 6 isn't about Jesus having a lack of power, but having a lack of opportunity to show it. In Matthew 20:23, the issue is not so much that Jesus can't choose, but that he's allowing that choice to be given over to the authority of God the Father.

The SAB asks "Was Jesus a ransom for many or a ransom for all?" to which I'm going to respond that this is just splitting hairs. If Jesus is a ransom for all, doesn't it logically follow that he was a ransom for many? Maybe I'm missing something here. The SAB further asks "Who (or what) is the ransom for the righteous?" and pulls up some confusing verses. Honestly, the really confusing verses are the ones from the book of Proverbs, and the Hebrew term used there seems to really mean "ransom" (it has other meanings, but none of them seem like they would apply) so I'm not sure what is really meant there. One possible interpretation, although I think it might be a stretch, is the thought that on the cross, Jesus was transformed into our wickedness in order that we would be deemed righteous in his stead, thus making Proverbs 21:18 into a sort of explanation of Jesus's substitutionary sacrifice. I've really no idea at all what to make of Proverbs 13:8.

Finishing out the chapter, we have the story of two blind men sitting by the road near Jericho that Jesus healed. The SAB points out some discrepancies between some similar stories in the other Gospels and claims them to be contradictions. Maybe they are, but the way they could be contradictions is manifold. Perhaps there were two blind men, but Mark and Luke only remembered one. Perhaps there was one blind man coming in, and another going out. Why is it that Mark knows the name of the blind man, but he/they were anonymous in the other stories? In the end, I don't know what's going on here. Perhaps one or more of the authors got their stories wrong. Perhaps this isn't different tellings of the same story, but is two or three different incidents that happened in about the same place. Your guess is as good as mine.

So Saul died for his transgression (1Sam 31)

Here in the final chapter of this book, the SAB has only one question: "How did Saul die?" The page pointing out the apparent inconsistency gives four possible answers. Now while one can easily dismiss the account of the Amalekite as a lie (after all, he had no witnesses, and apparently assumed that telling David that he had killed Saul would curry favor) I don't think it's necessary, and besides, preachers who cover that story rather like to point out the irony of Saul being killed by an Amalekite, since he was ordered by God to wipe them out and failed.

The thing is, all four of these explanations can be correct in a sense. As I've said before, in some sense, everyone gets killed by God, so no need to explain that. Saul was killed by the Philistines because he died while in battle with them, being struck a mortal blow by Philistine arrows. Knowing that he was as good as dead he endeavored to kill himself rather than be subjected to torture. It may be that he failed to kill himself, and the Amalekite ended up landing the final death blow upon Saul.

The battle is a resounding defeat, and Saul dies along with his three sons, and many of the troops. The next day, Saul's body is captured by the Philisties, who hang his head on the wall of the city of Bethshan.