Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Who Seized Jesus & Struck Him During His Trial? (vs. Bob Seidensticker)

Who Seized Jesus & Struck Him During His Trial? (vs. Bob Seidensticker)

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:01 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Who Seized Jesus & Struck Him During His Trial? (vs. Bob Seidensticker) 2026-06-06T00:01:43-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Atheist and prolix critic of Christianity and the Bible Bob Seidensticker runs the popular and influential Cross Examined blog. This is my 83rd critique of his articles (no counter-reply as of yet). He was gracious enough to send me a free e-book copy of his new volume, 2-Minute Christianity: 50 Big Ideas Every Christian Should Understand (May 2022), which I critiqued point-by-point. His words will be in blue.

*****

This is a reply to portions of Bob’s article, “Defending the Bible with undesigned coincidences” (2-13-23). Bob will be informed in a personal letter of this response.

Searching for undesigned coincidences is an exciting new pastime within Christian apologetics. Well, maybe not new—it’s an exciting revived pastime. Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings Both of the Old and New Testament was published in 1854, and other books preceded it.

It’s a fascinating and fruitful subject matter, for sure. My friend Lydia McGrew (traditional Anglican) has published the book, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (2017).

More important, these two gospels don’t tell the same story. In Matthew, the beating comes from members of the Sanhedrin, at the end of the trial. But in Luke, it’s guards who beat Jesus, and then he’s taken to the Sanhedrin.

Let’s see if we can find actual proof one of the infamous “contradictions” dreamt up by atheists, between Matthew and Luke. Matthew provides the story of Peter’s denial of Christ immediately after stating:

Matthew 26:67-68 (RSV) Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, [68] saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

Luke presents the same story of Peter right before the same incident:

Luke 22:63-65 Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him; [64] they also blindfolded him and asked him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” [65] And they spoke many other words against him, reviling him.

Clearly, both believe that Peter’s denial occurred at roughly the same time as this “beating” incident (during a portion of Jesus’ kangaroo court trial). Neither specifically note that the Peter incident was before or after the other in time, so there is no undeniable contradiction. Nor is it necessary to even know that detail. Witnesses (or Peter’s own report) wouldn’t have known exactly what was happening inside the building or when any given thing happened, since they were outside of it. Chronology in the Bible, in any event, was not viewed in a strictly linear fashion, like we do today (that’s much more of Greek thing than a Hebrew / Semitic thing). Topical similarities are relatively more important.

Seidensticker claims there is a contradiction between guards beating Jesus in one account, and the Sanhedrin doing so in the other, and in the two chronologies presented. But is there, really? Luke describes them as “the men who were holding Jesus.” But earlier in his text, he reveals that the same men were “the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him” (Lk 22:52), who “seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house” (22:54).

Therefore, they weren’t merely “guards” (we know for sure). Matthew is less specific in the immediate context: “those who had seized Jesus led him to Ca’iaphas” (26:57). But earlier he, too, identifies them as, specifically, “the chief priests and the elders” (26:47). Matthew mentions, in harmony with Luke, that there were “elders” (Mt 26:57) and “chief priests” (26:59) at the trial. Luke likewise mentions those two categories of people at the trial (Lk 22:66).

Everything is exactly the same except that Luke added the non-contradictory additional category of “officers of the temple” among those who seized Jesus. Neither uses the word “guard.” That is Bob’s mere guess. But granted, these people were “holding” Jesus, and so that is guarding Him. In any event, it’s the same groups of people in both accounts: those who were part of the council.

The harmonization of the two accounts seems clear and obvious to me: some of the “elders” and chief priests” who were among those present at the trial went out to seize Jesus, having obtained information as to His whereabouts from Judas. Matthew states that Judas “went to the chief priests” (Mt 26:14) to betray Jesus. Luke reports that “he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them” (Lk 22:4). And so he noted that “chief priests and officers” (acting on this information) seized Jesus (22:52, 54).

We find the same in Mark. Judas went to the “chief priests” (Mk 14:10), and the ones who seized Jesus were “from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” (Mk 14:43): the same three groups of people who were in the assembly (Mk 14:53). Mark does say that “guards” struck Jesus (Mk 14:65), but there is no reason to not believe that they were from among the assembly. Furthermore, John states that Judas came with “a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” (Jn 18:3; cf. 18:12).

The same people were guarding Him — were close to Him — during the trial (while they were part of the deliberations) and struck him in mockery and hatred. They were part and parcel of the council. Thus, no inexorable contradiction whatsoever is present. Atheists like Bob are quick to claim “contradiction!” But it’s almost always a superficial analysis (nothing like what I have just provided). They don’t demonstrate or prove how they can’t possibly be harmonious accounts. The analyses lack logical rigor, to put it mildly.

So what is an undesigned coincidence? Tim McGrew defines it this way:

Sometimes two works written by different authors incidentally touch on the same point in a manner that cannot be written off as copying or having a copy made from some third source.… The two records interlock like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

Yes; this happens all the time in the Bible. I know, because I’ve been defending it against innumerable atheist charges of contradiction, that invariably come to nothing. I hope that this will be my next officially published book: Anti-Bible: Refutations of XXX Alleged Biblical Contradictions. My solution above will be added to it.

Sure, let’s say that the books of the New Testament have omissions. That makes them look like ordinary books written with no supernatural oversight.

No; it makes them look like books written in the ordinary manner (and able to be interpreted by means of reason) before we get to the question of inspiration or even their religious or theological nature, generally speaking. All of this analysis is of that sort. A supernatural inspired and infallible revelation would have to, by definition, be free from error, or at least significant error (beyond an extra zero added, or likely mere manuscript transmission errors, etc.). That’s why the discussion of alleged contradictions is important.

If and when the Christian apologist debunks these, he is showing that the Bible is accurate, which is consistent with inspiration, but doesn’t prove it. If he doesn’t succeed, then the doctrine of inspiration would be in significant trouble. We solve the alleged contradictions in order to prove biblical accuracy, not inspiration, which is a much more complex additional matter. Accuracy of hundreds of details confirms overall accuracy, by cumulative argument, and suggests a possible inspiration. And this is important in and of itself, as just explained.

This is like the Argument from Accurate Place Names, which praises the Bible for recording the names for many places that are later confirmed by history or archaeology. Big deal.

Yes it is a big deal, because the Bible has often been accused of getting these details wrong, because (so the skeptic claims) it’s not inspired. Demonstrating accuracy in this respect shows that the Bible has characteristics (accuracy of place names) which are consistent with, and a prerequisite to, inspiration. Both sides have to be aware of the logic and epistemology involved, and what is being claimed for any given argument.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: darksouls1 [Pixabay / Pixabay license]

***

Summary: Atheist Bob Seidensticker says Matthew & Luke differ about who mocked and beat Jesus at His trial. I prove the contrary, and also the harmony of several related facts.

***

Atheism & Agnosticism

"Difficulties" aren't contradictions

alleged biblical contradictions

anti-Bible arguments

anti-Christian arguments

anti-theism

anti-theist arguments

Christian apologetics

Clearness of Scripture

critiques of Christianity

faith & evidence

faith & reason

historical trustworthiness of Scripture

historicity of the Bible

Undesigned Biblical Coincidences

undesigned coincidences in the Bible

Previous Post

February 14, 2023

Rihanna & Christians Kowtowing to the World-System

Next Post

February 17, 2023 Egyptian Proof of Hebrew Slaves During Jacob's Time

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Special pleading, and not a serious response to my arguments . . ."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""no man needs to teach us."Didn't you just teach us?"

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Catholics say they are the only church that can lead people into heaven."In fact, we ..."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz