Challenge Response: Here Are Contradictions!

Posted: April 7, 2011 by Brett Kunkle in God Has Spoken, Weekly Challenge

My answer to this week’s challenge:

  1. Adrian Urias says:

    aw…look at Mr. Kunkle…looking all pretty…

    dude…best video yet!

  2. Sam Harper says:

    Brett, it sounds like you’re saying the gospels were written independently of each other and rely on independent eye witness testimony. If that’s what you’re saying, how do you account for the use of exact wording between the synoptic gospels?

  3. I’m no Bible scholar, but I can imagine some Gospel writers using other Gospels as sources for some information, or perhaps multiple Gospels used the same source for some information. I get the impression that Brett was meaning there was no full-on collusion between the writers, which is why there’s some differences.

  4. There’s no difference, so perhaps I should say multiple writers may have used a similar source for some information rather than using each other as sources. What do you think?

    • Sam Harper says:

      I think that if multiple writers used the same source in writing their gospels, then their gospels aren’t really independent accounts.

      • OK. So we’re just concerned here with what Brett means when he says they’re independent accounts.

      • Sam Harper says:

        Yeah. His explanation for why the accounts of the withering fig tree and stuff have differences is that they are independent accounts. But the fact that these stories contain exact wording seems to indicate that they are NOT independent accounts. If they are NOT independent accounts, then some other explanation is needed to explain the differences. Or, if they ARE independent accounts, then there needs to be some explanation for the exact wording.

  5. Carmen Villegas says:

    I would agree, it’s the best video so far!

  6. Philip Motes says:

    Sam, the typical explanation of scholars is that Mark was written first, with Matthew and Luke coming later and using Mark as a source; this explains the exact wording in places. The differences do reveal that the accounts were not totally dependent on each other though. Matthew and Luke shared a source (“Q”) and each had their own other source for material unique to their Gospel (M and L). John, of course, is almost completely independent from the synoptics, with about 90% of his material being unique to his Gospel. Hope this helps a little bit.

  7. gene says:

    Kelly needs to drop the “seems” from her statement- that would be fair minded. Didn’t you catch that Brett? I’m with you in much of what you say but I would say – what if there is? I dont’ think the bible is a law book so I can deal with contradictions or tensions/apparent contradictions.

    The sad thing is people focus on irrelvenat tensions. Imagine if we read historical documents which stated that Adolph Hitler signed a bill which mandated that all Jews be put to death on the evening of March 1st. But imagine if another book stated he signed it on the morning of March 2nd. Now imagine people supporting Hitler and stating that the opponenents of Hitler were simply wrong because of their contradiction. A debate would rage on regarding what TIME in the evening because if it was late enough it could have been the morning. What a waste! Wouldn’t the point be that he signed for the murdering of innocent people regardless of the contradiction?

    If the figtree withered within seconds or years later hardly matters, what matters is the point.