Are There Colossal Contradictions in the Gospels? A Reply to Rabbi Tovia Singer – Christian Life Coaching Franklin Tennessee

28Feb 2023 by Post

Rabbi
Tovia
Singer
is
an
orthodox
Jewish
rabbi
and
the
founder
and
director
of Outreach
Judaism.
He
is
widely
known
for
his
counter-missionary
polemics
and
his
criticism
of
the
New
Testament
presentation
of
Jesus
as
the
Hebrew
Messiah
(see
his
two
volume
set, Let’s
Get
Biblical: Why
doesn’t
Judaism
accept
the
Christian
Messiah? [i]).
In
a
recent
series
of
videos
published
on
Rabbi
Singer’s YouTube
channel,
he
responds
to
remarks
made
by
Professor
R.L.
Solberg
following their
recent
debate in
Nashville,
Tennessee
on
whether
Jesus
is
the
promised
Hebrew
Messiah.
In
this
and
subsequent
articles,
I
want
to
address
some
of
the
claims
made
by
Rabbi
Singer
in
this
series
of
videos
that
I
hold
to
be
in
error.
In
this
article,
I
will
address
the most
recent
video in
this
series,
which
is
provocatively
titled,
“Colossal
contradictions
in
the
Gospels!”
In
this
video,
Singer
advances
two
supposed
instances
of
contradiction
between
the
gospel
accounts,
one
relating
to
the
timing
of
Jesus’
passion,
and
the
other
relating
to
the
resurrection.
Let
us
address
both
in
turn.

On
What
Day
Was
Jesus
Crucified?

In
the
video,
Tovia
argues
that
John
has
Jesus
crucified
on
the
eve
of
Passover,
contrary
to
the
synoptic
gospels
that
have
Jesus
crucified
on
the
first
day
of
Passover.
The
motivation
for
this
redaction
on
John’s
part
supposedly
is
that
John
wanted
to
have
Jesus
crucified
on
the
eve
of
Passover,
when
the
Paschal
lambs
were
being
slaughtered,
since
Jesus
is
thought
by
John
to
be
the
fulfilment
of
the
imagery
associated
with
the
Passover
lamb.

Rabbi
Singer
reads
John
19:14
as
indicating
that
it
was
the
day
of
preparation for Passover.
However,
this
is
not
a
necessary
translation
of
the
genitive
word
for
Passover,
πάσχα
and
in
fact
English
translations
usually
render
this
expression
“day
of
preparation of the
Passover.”
In
fact,
this
term
(‘day
of
preparation’)
is
also
used
by
Mark
(15:42),
who
defines
it
as
the
day
before
the
Sabbath.
This
accords
with
John
19:31,
which
says,
“Since
it
was
the
day
of
Preparation,
and
so
that
the
bodies
would
not
remain
on
the
cross
on
the
Sabbath
(for
that
Sabbath
was
a
high
day),
the
Jews
asked
Pilate
that
their
legs
might
be
broken
and
that
they
might
be
taken
away.”
Verse
42
also
indicates
the
hurriedness
of
the
burial
of
Jesus
in
a
tomb
that
was
close
at
hand,
since
it
was
the
Jewish
day
of
Preparation. Therefore,
John
concurs
with
Mark
that
Jesus’
death
took
place
the
day
prior
to
the
Sabbath.
This
is
what
he
means
by
“preparation.”
Though
he
adds
that
this
Sabbath
was
a
high
day,
this
most
probably
means
that
it
wasn’t
any
ordinary
Sabbath
day,
but
rather
a
Sabbath
during
the
feast
of
unleavened
bread
—
that
is
to
say,
it
was
a
particularly
special
feast
day.

Singer
also
misreads
John
18:28,
where
the
Jewish
leaders
are
concerned
about
entering
Pilate’s
dwelling,
lest
they
be
defiled
and
thereby
become
unable
to
eat
the
Passover.
According
to
Singer,
this
undermines
the
contention
that
the
Passover
Seder
had
already
been
consumed.
Singer
apparently
misses
that,
supposing
them
to
be
concerned
about
the
Passover
Seder,
their
worry
would
make
no
sense
since
their
defilement
would
expire
at
sundown
(and
they
could
partake
of
the
meal
after
washing).
Therefore,
their
worry
must
concern
some
meal
other
than
the
Seder.
And,
in
fact,
the
initial Seder,
or
supper,
that
commences
the
Passover
celebration
is
not
the
only
ritual
meal
that
is
eaten
during
Passover.
There
is
even
another
ritual
meal,
the chagigah (“food
offering”),
that
is
consumed
during
the
following
day.
This
is
supported
by
Numbers
28:18-23,
in
which
we
read,

18 On
the
first
day there
shall
be
a
holy
convocation.
You
shall
not
do
any
ordinary
work,
19
but
offer
a
food
offering,
a
burnt
offering
to
the
LORD:
two
bulls
from
the
herd,
one
ram,
and
seven
male
lambs
a
year
old;
see
that
they
are
without
blemish;
20
also
their
grain
offering
of
fine
flour
mixed
with
oil;
three
tenths
of
an
ephah
shall
you
offer
for
a
bull,
and
two
tenths
for
a
ram;
21
a
tenth
shall
you
offer
for
each
of
the
seven
lambs;
22
also
one
male
goat
for
a
sin
offering,
to
make
atonement
for
you.
23 You
shall
offer
these
besides
the
burnt
offering
of
the
morning,
which
is
for
a
regular
burnt
offering.

Verse
18
indicates
that
the
food
offering
was
to
be
offered
on
the
first
day
of
unleavened
bread
(which
would
be
the
fifteenth
of
Nisan),
the
same
day
—
as
the
Jews
reckon
days
—
that
the
Seder
was
consumed.
Verse
23
indicates
that
these
were
to
be
offered
in
addition
to
the
regular
morning
burnt
offering,
which
implies
that
the
Chagigah
was
eaten
during
the
day
time.
The
first
century
Jewish
historian
Flavius
Josephus
indicates
multiple
times
that
the
Jews
used
the
term
“Passover”
to
refer
to
the
entirety
of
the
feast
of
unleavened
bread:

“As
this
happened
at
the
time
when
the
feast
of
unleavened
bread
was
celebrated, which
we
call
the
Passover…”
Josephus, Antiquities21
“As
the
Jews
were
celebrating
the
feast
of
unleavened
bread, which
we
call
the
Passover…”
Josephus, Antiquities29
“And,
indeed,
at
the
feast
of
unleavened
bread,
which
was
now
at
hand, and
is
by
the
Jews
called
the
Passover…”
Josephus, Wars10

Therefore,
John’s
account
in
fact
dovetails
perfectly
with
Mark’s.
The
concern
of
the
chief
priests
could
not
have
been
about
the
initial
Passover
seder,
since
their
defilement
would
have
expired
at
sundown
and,
following
washing,
they
would
have
been
able
to
partake
of
the
seder
in
the
evening.
The
seder
was
already
over,
having
been
consumed
the
previous
evening,
and
they
must
be
concerned
about
some
other
meal
in
Passover,
most
likely
the chagigah.

Rabbi
Singer
claims
that
John
13
does
not
concern
a
Passover
seder.
However,
this
again
is
false.
We
read
in
John
13:1-2:

Now
before
the
Feast
of
the
Passover,
when
Jesus
knew
that
his
hour
had
come
to
depart
out
of
this
world
to
the
Father,
having
loved
his
own
who
were
in
the
world,
he
loved
them
to
the
end.
2
During
supper…

In
Greek, the
text
does
not
say
that
the
supper
was
before
the
feast.
Rather,
it
says
that
before
the
feast,
Jesus
loved
his
disciples
to
the
end.
D.A.
Carson
notes
rightly
that
“there
is
nothing
in
the
words
themselves
to
discourage
us
from
taking
the
clause
as
an
introduction
to
the
footwashing
only,
and
not
to
the
discourses
that
follow
the
meal.”

[ii]

Indeed,
the
most
natural
reading
of
the
reference
to
the
supper
in
John
13:2,
in
light
of
13:1,
is
that
the
last
supper
was
in
fact
the
Passover
meal.
Craig
Blomberg
concurs

[iii]:

Verse
1
thus
stands
as
a
headline
over
the
entire
passion
narrative
(cf.
Ridderbos
1997:
452).
Because
Passover
began
with
a
supper-time
meal
as
its
most
central
ritual
(and
1
Cor.
11:20
speaks
of
the
Last
Supper
explicitly
as
a
deipnon),
to
hear
then
that
the
supper
was
being
served
(v.
2)
would
naturally
suggest
that
the
Passover
had
begun
(Ridderbos
1997:
455;
cf.
Michaels
1983:
230;
Kleinknecht
1985:
370–371;
Burge
2000:
365–367),
not
that
this
was
some
separate
supper
prior
to
the
Passover
(as
for
Casey
1996:
20–21).
If
there
is
still
any
doubt,
as
Cullen
Story
(1989:
317)
explains,
‘The
presence
of
Judas,
Jesus’
prediction
of
his
betrayal,
Judas’
departure
from
the
table
(implicit
in
the
Synoptics,
explicit
in
John),
the
affirmation
by
Peter
of
unswerving
loyalty
to
Jesus,
and
Jesus’
prediction
of
his
denial—all
of
these
circumstances
together
form
solid
lines
of
connection
between
the
meal
in
John
13
and
the
Synoptic
account
of
the
holy
supper.’
Almost
certainly,
then,
John
intended
his
audience
to
understand
that
he
was
beginning
to
describe
events
that
took
place
on
‘Maundy
Thursday’
night,
as
part
of
the
Passover
meal,
just
as
they
would
already
have
learned
in
the
oral
kerygma.

Though
Singer
appeals
to
John
13:29
where
some
speculate
that
Judas
has
been
charged
with
getting
what
they
need
for
the
feast,
this
argument
doesn’t
work
either
since
the
feast
of
unleavened
bread
continues
for
another
week,
which
easily
could
be
the
meaning
of
the
phrase
‘the
feast’
in
this
context.
One
might
object
to
this
that,
if
there
were
indeed
Passover
night,
the
shops
would
not
have
remained
open.
However,
as
D.A.
Carson
notes

[iv],

One
might
wonder,
on
these
premises,
why
Jesus
should
send
Judas
out
for
purchases
for
a
feast
still
twenty-four
hours
away.
The
next
day
would
have
left
ample
time.
It
is
best
to
think
of
this
taking
place
on
the
night
of
Passover,
15
Nisan.
Judas
was
sent
out
(so
the
disciples
thought)
to
purchase
what
was
needed
for
the
Feast,
i.e.
not
the
feast
of
Passover,
but
the
Feast
of
Unleavened
Bread
(the

ḥagigah),
which
began
that
night
and
lasted
for
seven
days.
The
next
day,
still
Friday
15
Nisan,
was
a
high
feast
day;
the
following
day
was
Sabbath.
It
might
seem
best
to
make
necessary
purchases
(e.g.
more
unleavened
bread)
immediately.
Purchases
on
that
Thursday
evening
were
in
all
likelihood
possible,
though
inconvenient.
The
rabbinic
authorities
were
in
dispute
on
the
matter
(cf.
Mishnah
Pesahim
4:5).
One
could
buy
necessities
even
on
a
Sabbath
if
it
fell
before
Passover,
provided
it
was
done
by
leaving
something
in
trust
rather
than
paying
cash
(Mishnah
Shabbath
23:1).

Another
aspect
of
John
13:29,
curiously
omitted
by
Singer
—
which
actually
supports
my
contention
that
this
meal
was
in
fact
the
Passover
seder
—
is
the
disciples’
speculation
that
Judas
had
been
charged
by
Jesus
to
give
something
to
the
poor.
Carson
notes
that
“it
was
customary
to
give
alms
to
the
poor
on
Passover
night,
the
temple
gates
being
left
open
from
midnight
on,
allowing
beggars
to
congregate
there.
On
any
night
other
than
Passover
it
is
hard
to
imagine
why
the
disciples
might
have
thought
Jesus
was
sending
Judas
out
to
give
something
to
the
poor:
the
next
day
would
have
done
just
as
well.”

[v]

In
addition
to
the
foregoing
considerations,
two
undesigned
coincidences
confirm
that
the
last
supper
in
John
13
is
the
same
meal
as
spoken
of
in
the
synoptic
gospels.
In
the
parallel
account
of
the
last
supper
in
Luke
22:27,
Jesus
says,
“For
who
is
the
greater,
one
who
reclined
at
table
or
one
who
serves?
Is
it
not
the
one
who
reclines
at
table?
But
I
am
among
you
as
the
one
who
serves.”
What
does
Jesus
mean
by
this
phrase,
and
to
what
could
he
be
referring?
When
we
turn
over
to
John
13:4-5,
we
learn
that
Jesus
on
this
same
occasion
gave
the
disciples
an
object
lesson
in
servanthood:
“[Jesus]
laid
aside
his
outer
garments,
and
taking
a
towel,
tied
it
around
his
waist.
Then
he
poured
water
into
a
basin
and
began
to
wash
the
disciples’
feet…”
This
act
(not
reported
by
Luke)
casually
dovetails
with
Jesus’
statement
in
Luke
22:27
(not
reported
by
John)
that,
though
he
is
the
greatest
among
them,
he
nonetheless
acts
as
their
servant.
One
may
ask,
however,
why
Jesus
washes
the
disciples’
feet
on
this
particular
occasion.
Luke
22:24
gives
us
a
detail
not
supplied
by
John
that
provides
us
with
some
relevant
background:
“A
dispute
also
arose
among
[the
disciples],
as
to
which
of
them
was
to
be
regarded
as
the
greatest.”
Luke,
then,
reports
the
occasion
that
gave
rise
to
Jesus’
object
lesson
in
servanthood,
but
not
the
object
lesson
itself.
John
reports
the
object
lesson
but
not
the
occasion
that
gave
rise
to
it.
The
accounts
dovetail
so
casually
and
artlessly
that
it
supports
that
these
are
in
fact
the
same
meal,
and
rooted
in
historical
memory.

The
Mary
Magdalene
Problem

Tovia
also
gives
another
alleged
discrepancy
regarding
the
resurrection
accounts,
where
he
points
out
that,
according
to
Matthew,
the
women
all
met
Jesus
(Matthew
28:9-10),
whereas
in
John
it
looks
like
Mary,
in
her
report
to
Peter
&
the
disciple
whom
Jesus
loved,
has
no
idea
what
had
happened
to
Jesus’
body
(John
20:1-2).
One
would
predict,
supposing
those
accounts
to
be
both
anchored
in
historical
memory,
that
Mary
must
have
left
the
larger
group
of
women
prior
to
their
encounter
with
the
risen
Jesus.
Indeed,
I
can
hardly
see
any
other
viable
way
of
harmonizing
those
accounts.
But
this
is
precisely
what
is
suggested
by
a
close
reading
of
John
20:2:
“So
she
ran
and
went
to
Simon
Peter
and
the
other
disciple,
the
one
whom
Jesus
loved,
and
said
to
them,
“They
have
taken
the
Lord
out
of
the
tomb,
and we
do
not
know (οὐκ
οἴδαμεν)
where
they
have
laid
him.”
The
use
of
the
plural
verb
there
suggests
that
she
had
in
fact
left
the
larger
group
of
women
and
that
there
had
in
fact
been
others
with
her
(which
comports
with
the
synoptics).
This
harmonization
is
not
owed
to
us
by
the
text,
supposing
them
to
be
in
conflict,
but
the
fact
that
the
only
viable
harmonization
is
suggested
by
a
close
reading
of
John
suggests
that
these
accounts
are
in
fact
based
on
historical
memory,
being
independent
accounts
that
dovetail.

According
to
John,
Mary
Magdalene
ran
back
immediately
upon
noticing
the
stone
rolled
away
and
surmising
or
seeing
the
tomb
empty
(there
may
have
been
one
or
two
other
women
with
her,
we
don’t
know).
Notice
that
Matthew
does
not
say
that
the
angel
appeared
to
Mary
Magdalene,
but
rather
that
he
spoke
to
the
women.
Thus,
it
was
the
women
other
than
Mary
Magdalene
who
left
the
tomb
together
as
described
in
Matthew
and,
while
going
to
tell
the
disciples,
saw
Jesus
on
the
way.
Matthew
says
that
plural
women
left
the
tomb
and
that
“they”
saw
Jesus
on
the
way
but
does
not
expressly
say
that
Mary
Magdalene
was
with
them
at
that
time.
Again,
he
may
just
not
have
known
that
she
had
left
the
group
already,
but
he
does
not
explicitly
say
either
way.
John
knew
since
he
was
one
of
the
two
disciples
(along
with
Peter)
to
whom
Mary
Magdalene
reported
the
empty
tomb
and
missing
body
of
Jesus.

We
can
pick
up
Mary
Magdalene’s
story
as
reported
by
John.
She
ran
back
to
get
Peter
and
John
immediately
upon
seeing
the
stone
rolled
away.
They
came
back
to
the
tomb
with
or
slightly
ahead
of
her.
By
this
time
the
rest
of
the
women
have
already
seen
the
angels
and
left.
They
may
even
be
seeing
Jesus
on
their
own
route
back
into
the
city
while
Peter,
John,
and
Mary
Magdalene
are
on
their
way
back
to
the
tomb.
It
must
be
borne
in
mind
that
the
old
city
of
Jerusalem
was
a
maze.
There
is
no
reason
at
all
to
expect
that
these
groups
would
have
run
into
each
other.
Mary
Magdalene
(as
explained
in
John)
still
believes
Jesus
is
dead
at
this
point.
She
hangs
around
after
Peter
and
John
have
looked
at
the
tomb
and
left
in
puzzlement.
She
peers
back
into
the
tomb
and
the
angels
reveal
themselves
to
her,
but
she
does
not
understand.
She
turns
around,
grieved,
and
sees
Jesus
and
has
the
dialogue
with
him
of
which
we
read
in
John
20.
She
then
goes
back
to
tell
the
disciples
more
about
all
of
this.
All
this
time
she
is
not
with
the
other
women.
When
the
other
women
have
seen
Jesus,
they
run
and
tell
at
least
some
of
the
disciples,
though
they
might
have
to
wait
for
Peter
and
John
to
get
back
from
their
tomb
visit.
Of
course,
we
also
do
not
know
for
sure
that
all
of
the
disciples
were
staying
together.
The
other
women
may
actually
have
gone
to
see
a
different
set
of
them
in
some
different
location.

Conclusion

In
summary,
though
the
alleged
discrepancies
offered
by
Rabbi
Singer
require
some
investigation
to
untangle,
closer
inspection
—
and
more
careful
reading
of
the
relevant
texts
—
reveals
the
arguments
to
be
unfounded.
The
solutions
that
I
have
offered
to
these
challenges
are
not
strained
or
forced
harmonizations,
but
rather
are
suggested
from
within
the
texts
themselves.
As
the
nineteenth
century
Anglican
scholar
T.R.
Birks
once
noted,
“the
very
test
of
historical
truth…is
found
in
the
substantial
unity
of
the
various
narratives,
their
partial
diversity,
and
the
reconcilable
nature
of
that
diversity,
when
due
allowance
is
made
for
the
purpose
of
each
writer,
and
the
individual
character
of
their
separate
works.”

[vi]

Footnotes

[i]
Tovia
Singer, Let’s
Get
Biblical!
Why
Doesn’t
Judaism
Accept
the
Christian
Messiah? Volume
1
(RMBN
Publishers,
2014).

[ii]
D.
A.
Carson, The
Gospel
according
to
John,
The
Pillar
New
Testament
Commentary (Leicester,
England;
Grand
Rapids,
MI:
Inter-Varsity
Press;
W.B.
Eerdmans,
1991),
460.

[iii]
Craig
L.
Blomberg, The
Historical
Reliability
of
John’s
Gospel (England:
Apollos,
2001),
187–188.

[iv]
D.
A.
Carson, The
Gospel
according
to
John,
The
Pillar
New
Testament
Commentary (Leicester,
England;
Grand
Rapids,
MI:
Inter-Varsity
Press;
W.B.
Eerdmans,
1991),
475.

[v]
Ibid.,

[vi]
T.R.
Birks, Horae
Evangelicae,
or
The
Internal
Evidencce
of
the
Gospel
History (London:
Seeleys,
1852),
269-271.

On What Day Was Jesus Crucified?

The Mary Magdalene Problem

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

On
What
Day
Was
Jesus
Crucified?

The
Mary
Magdalene
Problem

Recommended
resources
related
to
the
topic: