Contradictions

The article examines a contradiction between Matthew and Luke concerning the encounter between Jesus and the centurion at Capernaum. Matthew describes a direct encounter, while Luke mentions intermediaries. The differences are explained by the principle of representation, the progression of events, and differing editorial styles. These variations do not alter the substance of the accounts.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

The article explores perceived contradictions in the Gospels, arguing that they reflect the depth of biblical revelation rather than errors. Despite apparent divergences, the Gospels are viewed as factual, coherent accounts guaranteed by divine inspiration. Websites presenting contradictions are criticised for their lack of analysis.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

This article explores the apparent contradiction between Matthew and Luke concerning the father of Joseph, Mary's husband. It proposes that Matthew presents Joseph's lineage and Luke presents Mary's, thus resolving the discrepancy. This demonstrates the coherence and complementary nature of the Gospels.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

Article CTD011 responds to an alleged contradiction about the number of animals at Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Mark and Luke mention a colt, while Matthew mentions a donkey and her colt. The author shows that this is not a contradiction but a difference of focus: Matthew, writing for a Jewish audience, emphasizes the literal fulfillment of the prophecy in Zechariah 9.9. Jesus rode only one animal, the colt, but the donkey's presence is mentioned for its prophetic and practical context.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

Article CTD012 addresses an alleged contradiction between John 1.41 and Matthew 16.17 concerning Peter's discovery of Jesus' messianic identity. These two passages actually describe two complementary stages: an initial human announcement made by Andrew, followed by an inward divine revelation confirmed by Jesus himself. Peter's faith is a gradual journey, not a single event.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

Article CTD013 addresses a classic objection: where did Jesus first meet Peter and Andrew? Matthew places the encounter in Galilee, John on the banks of the Jordan. The article demonstrates that these are two distinct stages: an initial encounter in Judea (John), followed by a definitive call in Galilee (Matthew). The two accounts are complementary, not contradictory, and illustrate the gradual development of the disciples' calling.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

Article CTD014 examines the alleged contradiction between Matthew 9.18 and Mark 5.23 concerning the condition of Jairus's daughter. Matthew says she is dead, Mark that she is dying. The analysis shows that these accounts are complementary: Mark describes a narrative progression in which the death occurs along the way, while Matthew condenses the event by presenting the final condition directly. There is no contradiction, but two distinct editorial styles recounting the same miracle.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

Article CTD016 examines the alleged contradiction between Matthew 14.2, Mark 6.14 and Luke 9.7-9 concerning Herod Antipas' opinion of Jesus. Luke portrays Herod as uncertain, while Matthew and Mark report his private statement identifying Jesus with John the Baptist raised from the dead. The author demonstrates that there is no contradiction but a complementary narrative, explained by the publishing constraints of the first century.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

Article CTD043 addresses the alleged contradiction between Matthew (“Eli, Eli…”) and Mark (“Eloï, Eloï…”) regarding Jesus’ cry on the cross. Linguistic analysis shows that Jesus spoke Aramaic (as evidenced by “sabachthani” in both texts) and that the difference between “Eli” (the Hebrew form) and “Eloï” (the Aramaic form) simply reflects each evangelist’s adaptation to his readership. There is no contradiction.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

This article examines a discrepancy between Matthew and Mark concerning divorce. It explains that Jesus speaks differently according to his audience: Jews, for whom divine law is intrinsically linked to Moses, and non-Jews, for whom a direct mention of Moses is more understandable. Both Gospels are considered faithful despite their distinct approaches.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate

The article analyzes the accounts in Matthew and Mark of Salome and her sons James and John asking for a privileged place in the kingdom of God. The differences are examined to show that they complement one another rather than constitute a contradiction. Each Gospel offers a unique perspective, thus enriching understanding of the event.

Level: Intermediate Level: Intermediate