Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
Fall of The Roman Empire…in the 15th Century: Crash Course World History #12

Fall of The Roman Empire…in the 15th Century: Crash Course World History #12

Hi there, my name’s John Green; this is
Crash Course: World History, and today we’re going to talk about the fall of Rome. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, Mr. Green!
Who’s that pretty lady? That lady, me-from-the-past, is Emperor Justinian.
We’ll get to him in a minute. [Theme Music] How and when Rome fell remains the subject
of considerable historical debate— but today I’m going to argue that the Rome
didn’t really fully fall until the middle of the 15th century. But first, let me introduce you to The Traditional
View: Barbarians at the Gates.
My, don’t you look traditional? If you want to be really technical about it,
the city of Rome was conquered by bar bar bar barbarians in 476
CE. There was a last Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus,
who ruled the empire for less than a year before being deposed and sent into exile by
Odoacer, who was some kind of barbarian- we don’t
know for sure. Ostrogoth, Hun, Visigoth, Vandals;
they all looked the same to the Romans. Rome had been sacked by barbarians before,
most notably by Alaric the Visigoth in 410- Is it Uh-lar-ick or Uh-lair-ick?
The dictionary says Uh-lair-ick but The Vampire Diaries say Uh-lar-ick so
I’m going to go with Uh-lar-ick. But anyway, after 476, there was never again
a “Roman” emperor in Rome. Then there’s the hipper anti-imperialistic
argument— that’s nice, but if you really want to go
full hipster you should probably deny that you’re being
hipst— right, exactly—which goes like this: Rome was doomed to fall as soon as it spread
outside of Italy because the further the territory is from
the capital, the harder it is to govern. Thus imperialism itself sowed the seeds of
destruction in Rome. This was the argument put forth by the Roman
historian Tacitus, although he put it in the mouth of a British
chieftain. That sounded dirty, but it’s not,
it’s all about context here on Crash Course: “To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying
name of empire; they make a desert and call it peace.” There are two ways to overcome this governance
problem: First, you rule with the proverbial topaz
fist— that’s not the proverb? Really, Stan?
It’s an iron fist? But topaz is much harder than iron.
Don’t these people know their Mohs scale of mineral hardness?.. Regardless,
the Romans couldn’t do this because their whole identity was wrapped up in an idea
of justice that precluded indiscriminate violence. The other strategy is to try to incorporate
conquered people into the empire more fully: In Rome’s case,
to make them Romans. This worked really well in the early days
of the Republic and even at the beginning of the Empire.
But it eventually led to Barbarians inside the Gates. The decline of the legions started long before
Rome started getting sacked. It really began with the extremely bad decision
to incorporate Germanic warriors into the Roman Army. Rome had a long history of absorbing people
from the empire’s fringes into the polity first by making them allies and then
eventually by granting them full citizenship rights. But usually these “foreign” citizens had
developed ties to Rome itself; they learned Latin, they bought into the whole
idea of the aristocratic republic. But by the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, though,
the empire had been forced to allow the kind of riffraff into their army
who didn’t really care about the idea of Rome itself.
They were only loyal to their commanders. —And as you no doubt remember from the historical
examples of Caesar, Pompey, Marius, contemporary Afghanistan—
this is not a recipe for domestic bliss. So here is Rome,
stuck with a bunch of expensive and bloody wars against Germanic peoples who were really
good at fighting and then they had a great idea:
Why not fight with these guys? So they essentially hired them
and soon the Roman Legions were teeming with these mercenaries
who were loyal mostly to gold, secondarily to their commanders,
and not at all to Rome which is a place that very few of them ever
even saw. I mean, why would they give a crap about the
health and well-being of the empire? Am I allowed to say crap, Stan?
Nice. This was of course a recipe for civil war,
and that’s exactly what happened with general after general after general
declaring himself Emperor of Rome. So there was very little stability in the
West. For instance, between 235 and 284 CE, 41 different
people were either emperor or claimed to be emperor. And after the year 200,
many of the generals who were powerful enough to proclaim themselves emperors weren’t
even Roman. In fact, a lot of them didn’t speak much
Latin. Oddly enough, one of the best symbols of the
new face of the Roman Empire was sartorial. Instead of the traditional tunic and toga
of the glory days of the Senate, most of the new general-emperors adopted that
most practical and most barbaric of garments: pants. Oh, which reminds me,
it’s time for the Open Letter. An Open Letter to Pants: But first let’s see what’s inside the secret compartment. Oh, look, it’s Rosie the Riveter! And she’s wearing PANTS. Dear Pants, Although you eventually became
a symbol of patriarchal oppression, in your early days you were worn by both men
and women. And in the days of the Roman Republic, they
hated you. They thought you barbarous.
They thought that people wearing you was the definition of people lacking civilization. They ventured north and the wind blew up through
their togas and lo and behold, they adopted pants. And there’s a history lesson in that, pants,
which is that when people have to choose between civilization and warm genitals,
they choose warm genitals. Best Wishes,
John Green And now a note from our sponsor:
Today’s episode of crash course is brought o you by
the all-new Oldsmobile Byzantium, mixing power and luxury in a way-
Really? Oldsmobile isn’t a company anymore? And Byzantium is a place?
Are you sure? So remember when I said the Roman Empire survived
til the 15th century? Well that was the Eastern Roman Empire, commonly
known as the Byzantine Empire (although not by the people who lived in it
who identified themselves as Romans). So while the Western empire descended into
chaos, the eastern half of the Empire had its capital
in Byzantium, a city on the Bosporus Strait that Constantine
would later rename Constantinople, thereby paving the way for
They Might Be Giants only mainstream hit. Constantine had lots of reasons to move his
capitol east. For one thing he was born in modern-day Croatia,
also he probably spoke better Greek than Latin, and plus the eastern provinces were a lot
richer than the Western provinces and from a looting perspective, you just
want to be closer to where the good warring is. The enemies in the East, like the Persian
Parthians and the Persian Sassanians, were real empires,
not just bands of warriors. And no matter who you were in world history,
if you wanted to make a name for yourself in terms of war,
you really needed to be up against the Persians. EVEN IF you were—
wait for it— the Mongols. Not this time, friends. As the political center of the Roman Empire
shifted east, Constantine also tried to re-orient his new
religion, Christianity, toward the east, holding the first Church council in Nicaea
in 325. The idea was to get all Christians to believe
the same thing- that worked-
but it did mark the beginning of the emperor having greater control over the Church. That trend would of course later lead to tensions
between the church centered at Constantinople and the one centered in Rome.
But, more on that in a bit. To give you a sense of how dramatic this shift
was, by the 4th century CE, Constantinople’s
population had soared while Rome’s had gone from 500,000 to 80,000. And although the Byzantines spoke Greek not
Latin, they considered themselves Romans and if they did then we probably should too.
Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. There was a lot of continuity between the
old, Western Roman Empire, and the new, Eastern one.
Politically, each was ruled by a single (sometimes there were two, and once there
were four– but let’s forget about them for now)
who wielded absolute military power. War was pretty much constant as the Byzantines
fought the Persian Sassanian Empire and then various Islamic empires. Trade and valuable agricultural land that
yielded high taxes meant that the Byzantine Empire was like the Western Roman Empire,
exceptionally rich, and it was slightly more compact as a territory
than its predecessor and much more urban, containing as it did all of those once independent
Greek city states, which made it easier to administer. Also like their Western counterparts, the
Byzantines enjoyed spectacle and sport. Chariot races in Constantinople were huge,
with thousands turning out at the Hippodrome to cheer on their favorites. Big bets were placed and there was a huge
rivalry not just about sports but also about political affiliations between
the two main teams, the Blues and the Greens-
Thanks for putting us on the Greens, Thought Bubble.
That rivalry was so heated that riots often broke out between them.
In one such riot, an estimated 30,000 people were killed. Thanks Thought Bubble.
But perhaps the most consistently Roman aspect of Byzantine society was that they followed
Roman law. The Romans always prided themselves on being
ruled by laws, not by men,
and even though that’s not actually the case after the second century BCE,
there’s no question that the Eastern Roman Empire’s codification of Roman laws
was one of it’s greatest achievements. And much of the credit for that goes to the
most famous Byzantine Emperor, at least after Constantine,
Justinian. I like your brooch, sir. In 533 Justinian published the Digest, an
800,000-word condensation of 1,528 Latin law books. And to go along with this he published the
Institutes, which was like a curriculum for the Roman
law schools that existed all through the Empire. Justinian, incidentally, was by far the most
awesome of the Byzantine emperors. He was like the David Tennant of doctors. He was born a peasant somewhere in the Balkans
and than rose to became emperor in 527. He ruled for almost 30 years and in addition
to codifying Roman law, he did a lot to restore the former glory of
the Roman Empire. He took Carthage back, he even took Rome
back from the Goths, although not for long. And he’s responsible for the building of
one of the great churches in all of time— which is now a mosque—
the Hagia Sophia or Church of Saint Wisdom. So after one of those sporting riots destroyed
the previous church, he built this,
which with its soaring domes became a symbol for the wealth and opulence of his empire. The Romans were remarkable builders and engineers
and the Hagia Sophia is no exception: a dome its equal wouldn’t be build for another
500 years. But you would never mistake it for a Roman
temple; It doesn’t have the austerity or the emphasis
on engineering that you see, for instance, the Coliseum. And this building in many ways functions a
symbol for the ways the Eastern Roman Empire was both Roman and not. But maybe the most interesting thing Justinian
ever did was be married to his controversial Theater Person
of a wife, Theodora.
Hey Danica, can we get Theodora up here? Wow that is perfect. It’s funny
how married couples always look like each other. Theodora began her career as an actress, dancer,
and possible prostitute before become Empress. And she may have saved her husband’s rule
by convincing him not to flee the city during riots
between the Blues and Greens. She also mentored a eunuch
who went on to become a hugely important general- Mentoring a eunuch sounds like a euphemism,
but it’s not. And she fought to expand the rights of women
in divorce and property ownership, and even had a law passed taking the bold
stance that adulterous women should not be executed. So, in short,
the Byzantines continued the Roman legacy of empire and war and law for almost 1000
years after Romulus Augustus was driven out of Rome. The Byzantines may not have spoken Latin,
and few of their emperors came from Rome, but in most important ways they were Romans.
Except one REALLY IMPORTANT way. The Byzantines followed a different form of
Christianity, the branch we now call Eastern or sometimes
Greek Orthodox. How there came to be a split between the Catholic
and Orthodox traditions is complicated – you might even call it Byzantine. What matters for us are the differences between
the churches, the main doctrinal one being about the dating
of Easter, and the main political one being about who
rules whom. Did I get my whom right there, Stan?
YES! In the West there was a Pope and in the East
there was a Patriarch. The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic
Church. He sort of serves as god’s regent on earth
and he doesn’t answer to any secular ruler. And ever since the fall of Rome,
there has been a lot of tension in Western Europe between Popes and kings
over who should have the real power. But in the Orthodox church they didn’t have
that problem because the Patriarch was always appointed
by the Emperor. So it was pretty clear who had control over
the church, so much that they even have a word for it-
caesaropapism: Caesar over Pope. But the fact that in Rome there was no emperor
after 476 meant there was no one to challenge the Pope,
which would profoundly shape European history over the next, like, 1200 years. So I would argue that in some important ways,
the Roman Empire survived for a thousand years after it left Rome,
but in some ways it still survives today. It survives in our imagination when we think
of this as east, and this as west; It survives in football rivalries that have
their roots in religious conflicts; and it survives in the Justinian law code
which continues to be the basis for much of civil law in Europe. Next week we’ll talk about the emergence
of Islam over here… How’d I do, Stan?
Well, you can’t win ‘em all. Thanks for watching. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan
Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson.
The show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself and
our graphics team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s Phrase of the Week was
“Aristotelian logic”. You can guess this week’s Phrase of the
Week or suggest new ones in Comments, where you can also ask questions that our
team of historians will endeavor to answer. Thanks for watching, and as we say in my hometown,
Don’t forget to be awesome.

100 comments on “Fall of The Roman Empire…in the 15th Century: Crash Course World History #12

  1. Omg, all my life I thought Constantinopole is somewhere in Russia.
    I'm 20, I finished 9 years of studying history with relatively good marks, I'm studying at the moment and now, I'm learning the most basic of knowledge from YouTube.

  2. Particle Man. Birdhouse in your soul. Boss of me. Lucky Ball and Chain.

    TMBG had a couple of mainstream hits.

  3. My knowledge of Roman and Greep history comes from the Percy Jackson series ( and maybe a bit from school).

  4. Rome never fell just went into we live a lie ! .We in the Western world are slaves via birth certificates to the Vatican who created the Cestui Que Vie act in 1666 .Hence why you are a informant not a witness !, when signing the certificate you are given one in correct grammar the second is the property of the Register General that is traded on the stock exchange ! .Please Research the Justinian Deception channel on YouTube !.

  5. Constantinople is not Rome! There were some Romans living in the Byzantine empire but many other nationalities as well. Most Byzantines would have called themselves Greek. To call Byzantium ‘Rome’ is silly Christian propaganda. I think it was started by Christian nationalists in Eastern Europe (wanting to ‘free Constantinople’ from the Muslims) and of course gullible Americans fall for it.

  6. What influence do you think the non-stop Islamic slave-raids on the Roman Empire (around the area of Spain for example) had on the fall?

  7. Sorry but i have to admit, that even before the end of the Western Roman Empire most emperors in the 5th or 4th century had their headquarter not in Rome. So nothing special happened when Rome felt. Odoacer was a barbarian, but he was also a roman officer who served in the imperial guard of the emperor Anthemius. The foederati troops wanted to get paid equally like roman troops, but the actual general of the roman army refused to do this, so they revolted. Odoacer was leader of this troops and invaded Rome. German barbarian warriors in roman uniform was a very old tradition and never a problem. Even the foederati in late roman times were loyal but of course, when you get betrayed, you revolt. It is funny that in the last decades of the Roman Empire the barbarian tribes were more willing to fight for it then the romans. There was a great problem with recruiting, especially in Italy, many young man cut of their thumbs, so they could not get drafted. Another great problem was the neverending fights between the leaders of the army (magister militum) and the emperors and of course numerous fights between the generals and east and westrome. Not the barbarians destroyed rome, it was a lack of good leadership.

  8. If only Trump had been emperor. Wall equals preservation of the Western Empire…and no illegal immigration.

  9. the real reason was the invasion of Attila and the Huns. who were ancestors of mongols and many nomadic people who came from north eastern steppes of asia. Hun (in english), Hunnu (in mongolian), Xiongnu (in chinese) ,Гунны (in russian), the hu (rock band) xD

  10. For someone who tries and say they are against simplistic views of history you sure do make a lot of claims that are rather simplistic.

    The view that you say is THE anti-imperialist view is not the only anti-imperialist position one could take.

  11. 1:58 So I know it's unlikely I'll ever get an anwser, being this is quite old content but… I don't fully understand the point given here. What do you mean the roman's couldn't rule with an iron fist?. I mean, from crucifixions to feeding people to the animals, from killing a king by making him drink molten gold to burning entire cities down with everyone inside, the romans seem pretty "Iron Fist-y" to me.

  12. Great video, I would however challenge the notion that Constantine called together the 1st ecumenical council at Nicea as a bid for power over the church. Constantine's presence at Nicea was strictly as an observer. Constantine made it clear that he was in no way presiding over the proceedings and thus made no effort to influence the outcomes of the council. Furthermore, I would argue that after the fall of the western empire, the resulting power vacuum allowed the bishop of Rome to gain political power which would eventually evolve into the papacy. We see the culmination of the power of the church over the state with the crowning of the 1st Holy Roman Emperor Charlamagne in 800 by Pope Leo III. This gesture would set the precedent that the royal heads of Europe derived their authority to rule from God through the auspices of the church (i.e. divine right). A convention that would continue until Henry VIII broke with Catholicism and declared himself the head of the Church of England.

  13. Hi Crash Course,
    You made big mistake on 05:40, when you said Constantine was born in modern day Croatia… First it is modern day Serbia, and town is called Nais modern day Niš. Please be kind and correct your mistake

  14. If this is the watered down version of history that our (USA) college graduates are to believe as true, it is no wonder that our country is in such a conundrum……this is propaganda! Pure globalist drivel.

  15. @crashcourse awesome video. So basically the empire crumbled when they allowed refugees…we should learn from history

  16. So what you are saying is that a strong preservation of culture and not allowing just anybody into it willy nilly, is of existential importance.

  17. very strong similarities to the current state of the US (especially re immigration). We should learn from history and allow it to inform our opinions rather than letting political biases cloud our judgment

  18. Constantain was born in modern day Serbia, city Nis or as Romans called it, Naisus. From where I am watching this 😅

  19. Mostly good information if oversimplified, presented as obnoxiously as possible with "open letters" and "thought bubbles" and pronunciation that clearly wasn't researched even perfunctorally.

    And a bunch of stuff is wrong, although most of it is minor.

  20. Why do I get the impression this guy spends his weekends rioting with Antifa? Maybe because he can't make an education video without displaying a sticker about killing Fascists?

  21. Point of clarification, I'm Orthodox so the following will be slightly biased but the key non-theological points are the same. The fight wasn't about the Emperor and the Pope/Patriarch dynamic. There were 5 Patriarchs. Rome (called the Pope), Alexandria (not to be confused with the Coptic Church), Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Bishop (all Patriarchs are Bishops) of Rome was First Among Equals. At the time, the idea of papal supremacy was unheard of. The Pope was just the arbitrator whenever there were disputes. Other Patriarchates were formed over time to include other areas. (This is the enduring mechanism of the Orthodox Church, the translation of services and texts into the vernacular and regional control versus the Roman practice of forcing new groups into learning Latin) Over time, the arguments between the East and West were both in theology and in power. The Pope was not independent as your video suggests. Pope's were regularly killed or deposed by Western Powers and Kings often demanded Popes put their approval stamp on things that would previously be decided in a Council (like Nicea). One such unilateral change came with the filioque. A word inserted into the Nicene Creed that changes the very nature of the Holy Spirit. The concept of Purgatory and the souls of unbaptized infants. The concept of Original Sin (as opposed to Ancestral Sin) and because of that, the need for an Immaculate Conception. So, there were theological differences that started to arise and the Patriarchs in the East started to complain mostly about the unilateral declarations without consultation of the other Bishops or agreements. And with the Fall of Rome itself, the power shifted to Constantinople. The Christians in North Africa, the Levant, and Eastern Europe began to feel that following a Pope who was constantly deposed by warring Kings and who was prone to making declarations all on his own was unpalatable. Thus, they started turning more to the Patriarch in the Eastern Roman Empire as the protector and First Among Equals. This all came to a head in 1054 (side note, the year the Supernova that the Crab Nebula was created by was seen), when the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other. Those Patriarchs still in communion with the Greek Church sided with the Ecumenical Patriarch (as we call him now) and thus the Great Schism happened. (There were schisms prior to this, but they were MUCH smaller, like the denouncing of Nestorianism and Arianism) So, this history is from the Eastern Perspective, which is always seen by the bias of the writer. Having grown up Protestant with Catholic family and converting to the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate who were given our status by the EP), I get different theologican perspectives. But, the key points to take away from my rant. It wasn't about whether or not the Pope or the Emperor was supreme. It was who was supreme among the Patriarchs and one could say the theological spats were more the arrows they fired at each other.

  22. 11:00 The Bishop of Rome, now known as Pope, sought to oversee the eastern patriarchs because the title "Pontifex Maximus," which was one of the titles granted to Roman emperors, including Constantine – it being the reason why he supervised the council of Nicea – was ceded by a late 4th century Roman emperor to the Bishop of Rome. And the Pope keeps using such title to this day.

  23. Before christianity the main priest of Romans was the Pontifex… which position was held by Caeser… and after the convertion the pontifex basically change his name to The Pope… since Caeser was the ruler its logical to think that the Pope should hold the power of Rome…

  24. It's better to watch these in chronological order. I just started watching this late this year and a current episode, so I'm like ok this good. Ok, so then I subscribe. I like history, science etc. So I'm getting Hank guy, then John present then wow John 6 years ago and didn't realize it til later, like who's this guy now, he's a lot spunkier, oh wait it's the same guy. (Didn't pay attention to the name at first l admit). I'm not dissing here, I love the vids, but wow, you can really tell a difference. I'm 52, l know how the energy level declines. I just don't give a damn now days.

  25. Oldsmobile became part of General Motors and they discontinued the Oldsmobile but not until much later, however they make a similar car called a Buick, They also discontinued Pontiac and Saturn but you can buy similar cars called Chevy and GMC.

  26. Contradictions
    The Bible is an unreliable authority because it contains numerous contradictions. Logically, if two statements are contradictory, at least one of them is false. The biblical contradictions therefore prove that the book has many false statements and is not infallible.
    Examples of Old Testament Contradictions
    The contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.
    Genesis chapter 1 lists six days of creation, whereas chapter 2 refers to the “day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.
    Chapter 1 reports that the fruit trees were created before the man, while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him. Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.
    Contradictions are also seen in the biblical story of a worldwide flood. According to Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Nevertheless, Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos.
    Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. The very next verse, however, says the mountaintops could not be seen until the tenth month.
    Genesis 8:13 describes the earth as being dry on the first day of the first month. But Genesis 8:14 informs us the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.
    The Old Testament contains an interesting contradiction in the story of the census taken by King David and the resulting punishment of the Israelites. God was so angered by the census that he sent a plague that killed 70,000 men. According to II Samuel 24:1, the Lord had caused David to take the census – which makes the punishment appear even more nonsensical. But an attempt was later made, at I Chronicles 21:1, to improve God’s image by claiming that Satan incited the census.
    Further, the Old Testament is contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. At Jeremiah 7:22, God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.
    Examples of New Testament Contradictions
    In the New Testament, there are contradictions between the genealogies of Jesus given in the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter of Luke.
    Both genealogies begin with Jesus’ father, who is identified as Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost). But Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, while Luke claims he was Heli. Matthew lists 26 generations between Jesus and King David, whereas Luke records 41. Matthew runs Jesus’ line of descent through David’s son Solomon, while Luke has it going through David’s son Nathan.
    The story of Jesus’ birth is also contradictory. Matthew 2:13-15 depicts Joseph and Mary as fleeing to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts.
    But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary’s purification (which was 40 days, under the Mosaic law). Afterwards, they brought Jesus to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke mentions no journey into Egypt or visit by wise men from the east.
    Concerning the death of Judas, the disloyal disciple, Matthew 27:5 states he took the money he had received for betraying Jesus, threw it down in the temple, and “went and hanged himself.” To the contrary, Acts 1:18 claims Judas used the money to purchase a field and “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”
    In describing Jesus being led to his execution, John 19:17 recounts that he carried his own cross. But Mark 15:21-23 disagrees by saying a man called Simon carried the cross.
    As for the crucifixion, Matthew 27:44 tells us Jesus was taunted by both criminals who were being crucified with him. But Luke 23:39-43 relates that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus, the other criminal rebuked the one who was doing the taunting, and Jesus told the criminal who was defending him, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
    Regarding the last words of Jesus while on the cross, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 quote Jesus as crying with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Luke 23:46 gives his final words as, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” John 19:30 alleges the last words were, “It is finished.”
    There are even contradictions in the accounts of the resurrection – the supposed event that is the very foundation of the Christian religion. Mark 16:2 states that on the day of the resurrection, certain women arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. But John 20:1 informs us they arrived when it was yet dark. Luke 24:2 describes the tomb as open when the women arrived, whereas Matthew 28:1-2 indicates it was closed. Mark 16:5 declares that the women saw a young man at the tomb, Luke 24:4 says they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 reports they saw an angel, and John 20:11-12 claims they saw two angels.
    Also in the resurrection stories, there are contradictions as to the identity of the women who came to the tomb,[7] whether the men or angels the women saw were inside or outside the tomb,[8] whether the men or angels were standing or sitting,[9] and whether Mary Magdalene recognized the risen Jesus when he first appeared to her.[10]
    As a final example of a New Testament contradiction, the conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion can be cited. Acts 9:7 states that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. According to Acts 22:9, however, the men saw a light but didn’t hear the voice speaking to Paul.
    The foregoing examples are just a few of the hundreds of contradictions contained in the Old and New Testaments. Each contradiction is an instance where at least one of the verses is wrong. Thus, hundreds of contradictions mean there are at least hundreds of incorrect statements in the Bible.

    God’s word isn’t suppose to be contradictory.
    Hence the Bible has been changed.

    And most of the credit goes to Paul the false apostle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *