An alleged Bible contradiction argues that the Gospels disagree whether the Sanhedrin unanimously condemned Jesus as deserving of death (Mark 14:64, 15:1) or whether there was at least one dissenter Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-51). It's not clear whether Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin Council.
63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need?
64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.- Mark 14:63-64
And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole Council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate.- Mark 15:1
Versus
50 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,
51 who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God.- Luke 23:50-51
There are various ways around this alleged contradiction. I'll enumerate a few of them.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (JFB hereafter) states regarding Mark 14:64:
they all condemned him to be guilty of death—or of a capital crime, which blasphemy against God was according to the Jewish law (Le 24:16). Yet not absolutely all; for Joseph of Arimathea, "a good man and a just," was one of that Council, and "he was not a consenting party to the counsel and deed of them," for that is the strict sense of the words of Lu 23:50, 51. Probably he absented himself, and Nicodemus also, from this meeting of the Council, the temper of which they would know too well to expect their voice to be listened to; and in that case, the words of our Evangelist are to be taken strictly, that, without one dissentient voice, "all [present] condemned him to be guilty of death."
JFB speculates that Joseph and Nicodemus (who may have also been a Council member) left before the vote was taken because they strongly suspected ("knew") that the overwhelming majority of the Council was hostile toward Jesus and had already set their mind to condemn Him. Why would they leave before the vote? Maybe out of disgust for the evidently "kangaroo court" trial of Jesus that was happening that they left the assembly to privately pray for divine intervention so that Jesus wouldn't be condemned to death. Or maybe out of cowardice Joseph (and possibly Nicodemus too) absented himself from the vote because he didn't have the courage to openly oppose the clear majority who were hell bent on condemning Jesus. That might account for his later bold request of Pilate for Jesus' body. Maybe out of guilt, SHAME and repentance he decided to compensate for his cowardice with that audacious request. It might be argued that this would be inconsistent with Luke's description of Joseph as a "good and righteous man" (Luke 23:50). But like other statements in the rest of the Bible that talk about people being righteous and "perfect", it refers to the tenor of their lives. Not that they never sinned or committed evil. King David who committed murder was forgiven by God after his repentance and was eventually called affectionately "a man after My [God's] own heart". Even assuming Luke knew that Joseph was previously cowardly, it would have been in poor taste to mention that without Joseph's approval (unlike with Peter who openly admitted his cowardice and betrayal of Jesus in his preaching). Especially in light of what Joseph eventually did in mercifully preparing Jesus' body for burial. There would be no point in marring Joseph's reputation and memory by recording his cowardice. He was an elderly man at the time of the events [being a Council member] and possibly dead by the time Luke wrote his Gospel.
Admittedly, the natural (but possibly wrong and non-necessary) inference one can draw from Luke 23:50-51 is that Joseph was aware of the trial and was there for the vote. But the verses are also consistent with Joseph not being aware of the trial and/or not being present at the vote. It's true that Mark 15:1 states the whole Council was present in the morning. But there is a time gap between Mark 14:64 (when the vote was taken) and Mark 15:1. Therefore another possibility is that the Council members may have intentionally not informed Joseph of the orchestrated arrest and trial of Jesus precisely because they knew he would object and oppose them. They would do this especially if they knew that Joseph might hold a lot of sway during the proceedings and if he was known to be an especially pious Jew. So, they may have voted before Joseph became aware of the trial and decision. But he was eventually informed of it and arrived by the time of Mark 15:1 when it was too late (practically) to oppose what was happening because of the momentum for the call of His death.
Assuming the author of Mark knew that there was at least one dissenter, the "all" of Mark 14:64 may be hyperbole referring to the overwhelming majority. So, it need not be a contradiction. It was (and still is) common linguistic practice to be general or hyperbolic in communication. For example, when Matt. 3:5-6 states, "[t]hen Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to" be baptized by John the Baptist, the reader is expected to understand that not every single person in that region literally went to hear John preach and (all the more) to be baptized. Even today, if someone was to travel 385 miles from point A to point B for a vacation, it's not normally considered a lie for the person to say he traveled 400 miles. Another logical possibility is that the author of Mark didn't know there were any dissenters and so wrote, and intended to convey, that there weren't any. But strictly (though not literally) speaking, GMark's words in the text are consistent with there being a very small minority or a single dissenter given normal human communication that speaks in generalities and with imprecision. Take for example Hebrews 3:16-19:
16 For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
17 And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
Literally speaking, verse 16 states "all" (everyone) who left Egypt led by Moses rebelled against God and died in the wilderness. Yet, in this famous story it was universally known that Joshua and Caleb didn't rebel and didn't die in the wilderness. But lived long enough to enter the Promised Land. Only if one takes Heb. 3:16 in a WOODENLY literal way could one possibly insist on a Bible contradiction. In a similar way, Mark 14:64 is consistent with there being a very small dissenting party. And especially a single dissenter (assuming Nicodemus wasn't a Council member).
No comments:
Post a Comment