Bible contradictions

[Valjean]

Matthew:
Two women go to the tomb. There's an earthquake. An angel descends, rolls away the stone and sits on it. He tells them Jesus is not there; that He is risen. The women leave to tell the disciples, and Meet Jesus en route. He tells them to tell the disciples he'll meet them in Galilee.
Mark:
Three women go to the tomb and find the stone rolled away. They enter the tomb and find a seated young man. He tells them Jesus is risen, and was going to Galilee. The women flee and tell noöne.

Luke: Joseph from Arimathæa took Jesus' body and laid it in the tomb. Unnamed, unnumbered women accompanied him and saw Jesus laid in the tomb. Later the women returned, found the stone rolled away, entered the tomb, and found Jesus' body gone. Two men appeared and told them Jesus was risen. The women went and told the disciples &al.

John:
Joseph of Arimathæa and Nicodemus take Jesus' body and entomb it. Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb and finds the stone rolled away. She went to Simon Peter and another disciple and told them Jesus had been taken away. The three went to the tomb. The disciples entered but found only the burial garments, and left. Mary then looked in and saw two angels. Then she turned and saw Jesus, but, at first, didn't recognize Him. He spoke and she recognized him. He told her he'd not yet ascended to Heaven, but to go and tell the disciples that He was going to do so. She went and told them.

One woman, two, or three? Disciples told, or noöne told? One angel, two, or a young man? Jesus or no Jesus? Eathquake?
Tomb found open, or opened by an angel?

 

[DNB]

When I was a teenager, Christian apologetics was my thing. I would like to create a thread about contradictions in the Bible. Believers of it often claim it is without contradiction, something I used to tout.
Let’s compile the contradictions, and let’s try to explain them if possible.
I’ll start.
The account of how King Saul died. 1 Samuel 31 says that Saul killed himself, yet immediately after, in 2 Samuel 1 , an amalekite says that he killed Saul.
So context is important, right? On first glance, there are contradictions in the accounts. I read a scholarly commentary book on the books of Samuel, so I’ll relay what i learned from it. The scholar said that amalekites were thematically supposed to represent deceit. The original audience of the text would have understood that the amalekite was lying for personal gain, he did not really kill Saul.
Also, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel is from the same author. Would it be likely that an author would contradict himself right away?
So that is one contradiction shoddily explained away. Let’s bring out all the contradictions!

Both are true - it's just as it states - in Saul's attempt at suicide, his method or technique failed to expedite his death thus prolonging his agony. The Amalekite appeared and upon Saul's request, he finished the delayed but INEVITABLE outcome. They both contributed to Saul's death.

It is highly improbable that had the Amalekite lied, that David, a prophet, would not have detected the deceit. Also, had the Amalekite lied, then David would have been guilty of ordering the death of an innocent man, or at least one not guilty of a capital crime.
David's indignation was derived from the principle of one showing contempt for God's anointed. Again, it would make David look rather naive and foolish, and guilty, had he been outwitted by the soldier, irrespective of the soldier's demise.

 

[Yokefellow]

This account of Saul’s death is obviously inconsistent with that given in 1 Samuel 31. It is useless to attempt to harmonize them, but it is quite unnecessary to assume that we have two different traditions of the manner of Saul’s death.

The Amalekite’s story was clearly a fabrication.

In wandering over the field of battle he had found the corpse of Saul and stripped it of its ornaments. With these he hastened to David, and invented his fictitious story in the hope of securing an additional reward for having with his own hand rid David of his bitterest enemy and removed the obstacle which stood between him and the throne.

But he had formed a wrong estimate of the man he had to deal with. Whether David believed him or not, he summarily inflicted the penalty which the Amalekite deserved according to his own avowal, and proved to all Israel his abhorrence of such an impious act.

2 Samuel 1:16 Commentaries: David said to him, "Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD'S anointed.'"

biblehub.com

 

[rocala]

The New Testament books of John and Timothy tell us that nobody has seen or can see God. The Old Testament tells us that both Abraham and Moses did see God?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The New Testament books of John and Timothy tell us that nobody has seen or can see God. The Old Testament tells us that both Abraham and Moses did see God?

Not literally, no. Abraham saw messengers of God. In the case of Moses, we have anthropomorphism -- a form of figurative speech where attributes of people are ascribed to animals and gods.

 

[rocala]

Good points @IndigoChild5559, thank you.

 

[Betho_br]

The New Testament books of John and Timothy tell us that nobody has seen or can see God. The Old Testament tells us that both Abraham and Moses did see God?

Nice.

 

[paarsurrey]

Noöne knows who wrote the gospels -- or most of the rest of the Bible, for that matter. Attribution to Matthew, mark, Luke, John, &al. didn't appear in early transcriptions. Later attribution to prestigious persons served to give the writings more authority.

As for contradictions, just google. The web's full of lists.
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

Thanks for the above link. I am giving first page of it here ( while going through the contradiction I found that contradiction #1 to #25 belong to OT):

1.Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2.In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4.God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5.How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6.How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

And the above are about the OT, as per the Christianity people, and about the Tanakh/Torah as per the Jewish people , please, right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the above link. I am giving first page of it here:

1.Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2.In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4.God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5.How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6.How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

And the above are about the OT , Right?

Regards

Aha! That explains why God got so mad when he ran a census

 

[vulcanlogician]

They're meaningful to me in helping me dismiss the Bible as a reliable source of information much less the words of a channeled deity, as are the historical and scientific errors, and the intellectual and moral failures attributed to the deity.

I agree that the Bible is an unreliable source generally. But I think that contradictions only draw two things into question: the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and the truth value of one (or both) of the contradictory claims.

Supposing that Jesus was a real historical figure, one could suppose that the Gospel of Mark contains some accurate information about him... even if some of the text has been overblown into legend.

The (genuine) letters of Paul also are a good resource for information about the workings of the early Church. You can peer though the preaching and glean some factual information about certain things. The book of Acts however is likely pure legend... Mostly fabrication, composed for evangelical purposes.

Even nonreligious historical sources contain misinformation or bits of legend. Comparatively speaking, some parts of the Bible are fairly decent historical sources.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Comparatively speaking, some parts of the Bible are fairly decent historical sources.

Maybe I should have been more clear.

Yes, scripture can be used to get into the heads of its writers somewhat and give some insights into history. For example, I think the timeline of six days of creation and one of rest tells us something about the evolution of life from nomadic to living in large settlements and the need for people to take a day from work to come to a synagogue on a regular basis for instruction and tithing. I imagine that for nomads, there were no days off for able-bodied persons, and that at one time, it was considered slothful and likely impious to not work on any given day one could, but that later, it became essential for the survival of the priesthood ana a new rule was invented and solemnized by stating that the god did this, and now commands you - and it's one of the big ten - to do the same.

But I'm not going to the book for its intended purpose - to tell me how to view reality, how to acquire knowledge and determine truth, and how to live.

Incidentally, I have a similar opinion about the mention of a creator in the Declaration of Independence. Like the sabbath, the concept appears to have been introduced to justify revolution against a king believed by many would-be revolutionaries to have been divinely appointed:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

So how do you get an Abrahamic people to accept a revolution that contradicts scripture? You invent new rules and attribute them to the deity:

"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

So, as I said, biblical scripture, like any document, can offer us insights and the authors' lives and worldviews, but that not what I was referring to when I said that it is not a reliable source of information. I wouldn't use the Bible for its intended purpose in part because of the biblical contradictions offered as evidence of channeled transhuman prescience have the opposite effect and assure me that I am reading the words of ancient human beings and not those of a god or any moral authority.

 

[Valjean]

Aha! That explains why God got so mad when he ran a census

I've read that historians find no evidence of this worldwide census outside the Bible. Such a disruptive event would have been widely reported by diverse sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read that historians find no evidence of this worldwide census outside the Bible. Such a disruptive event would have been widely reported by diverse sources.

Well the author of Luke was not all wrong Quirinius did hold a census when he first took over Judea. There is only one problem. That was ten years after Herod died. When Herod died his three sons and his sister split up his kingdom with Archelaus running what was called "Judea" at that time, even though the whole kingdom before that was Judea as well. He royally screwed the pooch. He was not well liked, and the Romans had to take over. Once they did that they had to tax Judea and the overseer of Syria and now Judea of that time was Quirinius. He started a census, the first in the area that caused its own rebellions because censuses were illegal in Judea or Israel up to that time.

At any rate Luke has Jesus born ten years after Matthew does.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bible contradictions​

I was going through the Bible Contradictions as per the link provided in post
#25 of our friend Valjean link:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

74.When Jesus said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me? ” in what language did he speak?
(a) Hebrew: the words are “Eloi, Eloi…“(Matthew 27:46)
(b) Aramaic: the words are “Eloi, Eloi... “(Mark 15:34)

I have one Catholic Bible, it just gives the words spoken without naming the language Hebrew and or Aramaic, right?

Regards

 

[Betho_br]

Contradições da Bíblia​

Eu estava lendo as Contradições da Bíblia conforme o link fornecido na postagem
#25 do link do nosso amigo Valjean :
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

74.Quando Jesus disse “Meu Deus, meu Deus, por que me abandonaste? ”em que língua ele falou?
(a) Hebraico: as palavras são “Eloi, Eloi…“(Mateus 27:46)
(b) Aramaico: as palavras são “Eloi, Eloi... “(Marcos 15:34)

Eu tenho uma Bíblia Católica, ela só dá as palavras faladas sem nomear o idioma hebraico e/ou aramaico, certo?

Cumprimentos

Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Matthew 27:46

יֵשׁוּ צָעַק בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֵלִי אֵלִי לָמָה עֲזַבְתָּנִי‏

יֵשׁוּ (Yeshu) – J esus צָעַק (tsa'ak) - cried out בְּקוֹל (be'kol) - with a loud voice גָּדוֹל (gadol) - great אוֹמֵר (omer) - saying בִּלְשׁוֹן (bilshon) - in the language הַקּוֹדֶשׁ (ha'kodesh) - the holy אֵלִי (Eli) - My God אֵלִי (Eli) - My God לָמָה (lama) - why עֲזַבְתָּנִי (azavtani) - have you forsaken me

WTT Psalm 22:2

אֵלִ֣י אֵ֭לִי לָמָ֣ה עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי רָח֥וֹק מִֽ֜ישׁוּעָתִ֗י דִּבְרֵ֥י שַׁאֲגָתִֽי׃

אֵלִ֣י (Eli) - My God אֵ֭לִי (Eli) - My God לָמָ֣ה (Lama) - why עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי (Azavtani) - have you forsaken me רָח֥וֹק (Rachok) - far מִֽ֜ישׁוּעָתִ֗י (Mishu'ati) - from my salvation דִּבְרֵ֥י (Dibrei) - the words שַׁאֲגָתִֽי (Sha'agati) - of my groaning

Matthew. 27:46

περὶ δὲ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν ἀνεβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων• ηλι ηλι λεμα σαβαχθανι; τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν• θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες;

But about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?' That is, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Mark. 15:34

καὶ τῇ ἐνάτῃ ὥρᾳ ἐβόησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς φωνῇ μεγάλῃ• ελωι ελωι λεμα σαβαχθανι; ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον• ὁ θεός μου ὁ θεός μου, εἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές με;

And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which is translated, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Psalm 21:1 LXX

εἰς τὸ τέλος ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀντιλήμψεως τῆς ἑωθινῆς ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ 2 ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός μου πρόσχες μοι ἵνα τί ἐγκατέλιπές με μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς σωτηρίας μου οἱ λόγοι τῶν παραπτωμάτων μου

Unto the end, for the acknowledgment of the morning, a Psalm of David 2. O God, my God, attend to me; why have you forsaken me, being far from my salvation, the words of my transgressions?

Beza M-05A Matthew 27:46

περι δε την εννατην ωραν ανεβοησεν Ι̅Η̅Σ̅ φωνη μεγαλη λεγων Ηλει Ηλει λαμα ζ̣αφθανει Τουτ εστιν Θ̅Ε̅ μου Θ̅Ε̅ μου ινα τι με ενκατελιπες

Beza M-05A Mark 15:34

Και τη ενατη ωρα εφωνησεν φωνη μεγαλη Ηλει Ηλει λαμα ζαφθανει Ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον Ο Θ̅Σ̅ μου ο Θ̅Σ̅ μου εις τι ωνιδισας με

Pe.shi.tta



We can read in our Bible: "eli eli lema sabachtani," as well as "eloi eloi lama sabaktani." But there is also the reading from the Pe.shi.tta: "eil eil lmana shvaqtan," and even a Hebrew reading (D 05 Codex): "Elei Elei lama zaphtanei" (both in Matthew and Mark).

1. "Eli" is Hebrew, Aramaic, but also appears in the Aramaic text from Qumran called Genesis Apocryphon.
2. "Lama" is Hebrew, but as the vocalic reduction had not been completed in the first century, this distinction with the Aramaic "lema" did not yet exist (= it was pronounced lama in Aramaic, as we can see a parallel in Greek, the transcription of which "for whom" is written as "laman" instead of the well-known Leman).
3. "Sabaktani" is Aramaic; the "s" transcribes the sound "sh," and "b" the bilabial "v" sound, there is no problem with that.

Jesus said on the cross: ELI ELI LAMA SHAVAQTANI

But why do we have "eloi" in some Gospels? The Pe.shi.tta gives us the answer: this phrase was "translated" into another dialect: eil eil lmana shvaqtan (meaning) alah alah lmana shvaqtan. There was confusion between Jesus' words and their brilliance in the Greek text. "Eloi" is the transliteration of Elohi, which is a Hebraized form of elahi. On the other hand, the Pe.shi.tta retained the record of this brilliance (unlike the ancient Syrians who followed the Greek texts), despite being written in an eastern dialect (which explains the difference in pronunciation).

The variation between "ἱνατί" (Matthew 27:46) and "εἰς τί" (Mark 15:34) may have occurred due to the possibility of a third translation, such as "Eli, eli, la-ma shavaqtani: 'My God, my God, for what purpose (with this intention, namely, the crucifixion) have you forsaken me.'" Instead of "lama" (why?), we can read "la ma" (l + ma) for this, and there is no longer a question about why God did something, but rather Jesus' final testimony about his mission.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Matthew 27:46

I am confused why you would quote from a Hebrew translation of Matthew. It makes no sense. I can understand you quoting the Greek text, since Matthew was originally written in Greek. And I can understand you using a translation into a language that we all understand, in this case, English. But what possible service does it do to use a Hebrew translation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the author of Luke was not all wrong Quirinius did hold a census when he first took over Judea. There is only one problem. That was ten years after Herod died. When Herod died his three sons and his sister split up his kingdom with Archelaus running what was called "Judea" at that time, even though the whole kingdom before that was Judea as well. He royally screwed the pooch. He was not well liked, and the Romans had to take over. Once they did that they had to tax Judea and the overseer of Syria and now Judea of that time was Quirinius. He started a census, the first in the area that caused its own rebellions because censuses were illegal in Judea or Israel up to that time.

At any rate Luke has Jesus born ten years after Matthew does.

Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Matthew 27:46


יֵשׁוּ (Yeshu) – J esus צָעַק (tsa'ak) - cried out בְּקוֹל (be'kol) - with a loud voice גָּדוֹל (gadol) - great אוֹמֵר (omer) - saying בִּלְשׁוֹן (bilshon) - in the language הַקּוֹדֶשׁ (ha'kodesh) - the holy אֵלִי (Eli) - My God אֵלִי (Eli) - My God לָמָה (lama) - why עֲזַבְתָּנִי (azavtani) - have you forsaken me

WTT Psalm 22:2


אֵלִ֣י (Eli) - My God אֵ֭לִי (Eli) - My God לָמָ֣ה (Lama) - why עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי (Azavtani) - have you forsaken me רָח֥וֹק (Rachok) - far מִֽ֜ישׁוּעָתִ֗י (Mishu'ati) - from my salvation דִּבְרֵ֥י (Dibrei) - the words שַׁאֲגָתִֽי (Sha'agati) - of my groaning

Matthew. 27:46



Mark. 15:34



Psalm 21:1 LXX



Beza M-05A Matthew 27:46


Beza M-05A Mark 15:34




We can read in our Bible: "eli eli lema sabachtani," as well as "eloi eloi lama sabaktani." But there is also the reading from the Pe****ta: "eil eil lmana shvaqtan," and even a Hebrew reading (D 05 Codex): "Elei Elei lama zaphtanei" (both in Matthew and Mark).

1. "Eli" is Hebrew, Aramaic, but also appears in the Aramaic text from Qumran called Genesis Apocryphon.
2. "Lama" is Hebrew, but as the vocalic reduction had not been completed in the first century, this distinction with the Aramaic "lema" did not yet exist (= it was pronounced lama in Aramaic, as we can see a parallel in Greek, the transcription of which "for whom" is written as "laman" instead of the well-known Leman).
3. "Sabaktani" is Aramaic; the "s" transcribes the sound "sh," and "b" the bilabial "v" sound, there is no problem with that.

Jesus said on the cross: ELI ELI LAMA SHAVAQTANI

But why do we have "eloi" in some Gospels? The Pe****ta gives us the answer: this phrase was "translated" into another dialect: eil eil lmana shvaqtan (meaning) alah alah lmana shvaqtan. There was confusion between Jesus' words and their brilliance in the Greek text. "Eloi" is the transliteration of Elohi, which is a Hebraized form of elahi. On the other hand, the Pe****ta retained the record of this brilliance (unlike the ancient Syrians who followed the Greek texts), despite being written in an eastern dialect (which explains the difference in pronunciation).

The variation between "ἱνατί" (Matthew 27:46) and "εἰς τί" (Mark 15:34) may have occurred due to the possibility of a third translation, such as "Eli, eli, la-ma shavaqtani: 'My God, my God, for what purpose (with this intention, namely, the crucifixion) have you forsaken me.'" Instead of "lama" (why?), we can read "la ma" (l + ma) for this, and there is no longer a question about why God did something, but rather Jesus' final testimony about his mission.

The Gospels were originally written in Greek.

 

[Betho_br]

I am confused why you would quote from a Hebrew translation of Matthew. It makes no sense. I can understand you quoting the Greek text, since Matthew was originally written in Greek. And I can understand you using a translation into a language that we all understand, in this case, English. But what possible service does it do to use a Hebrew translation?

I hold in high esteem the Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

 

[Betho_br]

The Gospels were originally written in Greek.

The source is what matters, not necessarily the fact that it's written in Hebrew.

 

[Betho_br]

Bible contradictions​

I was going through the Bible Contradictions as per the link provided in post
#25 of our friend Valjean link:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

74.When Jesus said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me? ” in what language did he speak?
(a) Hebrew: the words are “Eloi, Eloi…“(Matthew 27:46)
(b) Aramaic: the words are “Eloi, Eloi... “(Mark 15:34)

I have one Catholic Bible, it just gives the words spoken without naming the language Hebrew and or Aramaic, right?

Regards

The biblical verses Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:24 record crucial moments during the crucifixion of Jesus. In Matthew 27:46, Jesus exclaims, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which is translated as "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" In Mark 15:24, it is mentioned that they cast lots to divide Jesus' garments. To understand these verses, it is essential to consider the broader context of the Scriptures.

Looking at Psalm 22, which Jesus quotes on the cross, we see that it begins with a profound lament where the psalmist expresses distress and a sense of abandonment. However, the psalm does not end in despair; on the contrary, as we progress through the verses, there is a change in tone.

In Psalm 22:24, we read, "For he has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him." This is a powerful statement highlighting God's faithfulness in responding to the cry of the afflicted. The context of the final verses of Psalm 22 (from verse 23 to 31) is one of praise and trust in God, acknowledging His sovereignty and providence.

Therefore, considering Jesus' quotation of Psalm 22 on the cross, we can interpret that He was expressing the deep agony of feeling separated from God in the midst of suffering. However, the complete understanding of Psalm 22, especially when read to the end, emphasizes that God did not forsake the afflicted, and the situation eventually turns into praise and trust in divine faithfulness.

Furthermore, the New Testament provides additional insights. In John 16:32, Jesus speaks to the disciples about the impending hour of the cross, stating, "Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me." This statement highlights God's constant presence even in the most challenging moments of Jesus' life.

Therefore, considering the broader context of the Scriptures, we can conclude that God did not abandon Jesus on the cross, and the quotation from Psalm 22 reflects Jesus' profound anguish but also points to confidence in divine faithfulness, as expressed in the subsequent verses of that Psalm and in other passages of the New Testament.