Contradictions

Lists of biblical contradictions are usually padded with items that dissolve on inspection: differences of emphasis, details that complement rather than conflict, or separate events nobody claimed were the same.

This list is limited to passages that make incompatible positive claims. Each entry gives both texts and the standard harmonization.

What the cases bear on#

The force of a contradiction depends on what is being claimed about the text.

Most items below bear on the first position only. Anyone holding the third should find little here that is surprising.

The usual explanation for the numerical cases is transmission rather than invention: Hebrew numerals were written as letters, copying was done by hand over centuries, and Chronicles was composed using Samuel and Kings as sources — which is why so many disagreements fall between exactly those books.

Crucifixion and resurrection#

These bear on the events the central Christian claim rests on. Because Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source — see The Gospels — these are not independent reports converging imperfectly.

Numbers#

Ahaziah's case is not only a discrepancy but an impossibility: 2 Chronicles 21:20 has his father dying at 40, so he cannot have taken the throne at 42.

The ark instructions and the Egypt figures are different in kind. Genesis 6 and 7 are consecutive chapters, not parallel books. Acts follows the Septuagint, which differs from the Hebrew.

Genealogies#

Ancient genealogies served social and theological purposes, and skipping generations was normal. The first two cases below are not covered by that, since both lists claim to trace the same line to the same person.

Sequence#

Statements about God#

These cannot be attributed to copying, and they concern claims about God rather than incidental detail.

The census case is the clearest instance of theological revision. Chronicles reproduces Samuel closely elsewhere; here it substitutes Satan for God as the source of the incitement, which fits a later period when attributing the act directly to God had become uncomfortable.

The tempting case turns on the Hebrew nissah, which means to test or put to the proof. Translators render it "tested" in Genesis 22, but the action described — commanding a father to kill his son — is what James says God does not do.

Narrative#

Common objections#

"These are copyist errors, not errors in the original"

The standard explanation, and largely correct for the numerical and genealogical cases. Hebrew numerals were letters, hand copying introduced drift, and Chronicles used Samuel and Kings as sources — which explains why those books account for most of the disagreements.

The explanation works. Its cost is the doctrine it is brought in to defend.

Inerrancy is claimed for manuscripts that no longer exist, while the text available to read disagrees with itself. No manuscript discovery could count against the claim, because any discrepancy found is assigned to transmission by definition.

It also does not reach the theological section. Copying explains a number; it does not explain whether God can be seen or whether children bear their parents' guilt.

"Different accounts emphasize different details"

Frequently true and frequently sufficient. Two witnesses report different things without either being wrong, and many candidate items were left off this page for that reason.

It does not cover incompatible positive claims. Matthew has the stone rolled back after the women arrive; Mark has it already open. Emphasis explains omission, not conflict.

"Ancient historiography had different conventions"

The strongest response available. Ancient writers arranged material thematically, compressed chronology, and composed speeches, and judging them by modern documentary standards is anachronistic. Michael Licona argues this case in detail in Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (2017), drawing on Plutarch's parallel lives.

It accounts for a good deal, including the placement of the temple cleansing, which fits John's theological structure better than a second cleansing does.

It is an argument that the authors were writing something other than history in the modern sense. That is persuasive about genre, and it is not a defense of inerrancy — it resolves the tension by reducing what the texts were attempting.

"Luke's genealogy traces Mary's line, not Joseph's"

The usual harmonization for the two named fathers of Joseph.

The Greek does not support it. Luke 3:23 names Joseph and continues with the standard patrilineal formula; Mary is not mentioned. The reading requires supplying her.

The proposal appears first in the fifteenth century. Earlier harmonizations, such as Africanus's levirate-marriage explanation preserved by Eusebius, took a different approach — which indicates the Marian reading was not how the early church understood the passage.

"The Michal case is a translation issue"

Correct, and it is the weakest item on this page. Some Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint read Merab at 2 Samuel 21:8, which removes the conflict, and several modern translations follow them.

This is a textual variant rather than a contradiction, and belongs with the material in Interpolations. It also illustrates the wider point: the transmitted Masoretic text required correction from other witnesses to remove the conflict.

"Judas hanged himself and the body later fell"

The common harmonization: the rope or branch gave way, the body fell and burst.

Possible, and nothing rules it out. Neither text describes this, and it requires combining two accounts into a third that neither gives.

It also leaves the second difference untouched. Matthew has Judas throwing the money into the temple and the priests buying the field; Acts has Judas buying it himself.

What the cases show#

These passages cannot all be literally true as written.

That conclusion is limited. It does not show the Bible is worthless, that its authors were dishonest, or that Christianity is false. Most of the differences have ordinary explanations — hand copying over centuries, earlier sources combined by later editors, material arranged for theological rather than chronological reasons — and those explanations are well established and probably correct.

What the differences indicate is a collection of documents transmitted, edited, and compiled by human communities over a long period.

The transmitted text does not support the claim that every original detail was error-free, since the originals are unavailable for comparison. That does not establish that the originals contained errors. It means the doctrine cannot be demonstrated from a text nobody possesses.