Biblical contradictions fall into several categories. First, there is the classic contradiction that follows the P~P classification; such statements violate the second law of thought, which asserts, “(N)o statement can be both true and false” (Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, fifth edition, p. 306). Second, some contradictions asserted by skeptics simply are not contradictions in the classic sense but can be remedied by apologetic claims of being copyist errors and such. Additionally, the first law of thought, the Principle of Identity (ibid), states that “if any statement is true then it’s true.” Let’s apply this principle to a New Testament account such as in the Gospel of Mark; the anonymous writer tells us in chapter 14 verse 12:

On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" ¹³ So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. ¹⁴ Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' ¹⁵ He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." ¹⁶ The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. ¹⁷ When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. ¹⁸ While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me" (NIV).

Matthew’s Gospel (chapter 22 ff.) reiterates much of Mark’s narrative but adds this affirming observation in 22:14-16: “When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. ¹⁵ And he said to them, 'I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. ¹⁶ For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God'”(NIV).

“I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover meal with you before I suffer.”

(Luke’s Gospel iterates that of Matthew’s).

Regardless if this event really happened or not, if this (either of Mark’s or Matthew’s statement) is not a false statement, then it must be accepted to be a true statement. To reiterate: on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread, the two disciples were ordered to go to the city to make preparation for the Passover, meet a man, enter a house, go to an upper room, make Passover preparations, and prepare the Passover. That evening of the Passover, Jesus arrives with the disciples and while eating the Passover meal, says that he has eagerly desired to eat this Passover with the disciples and declares that one of them, who is eating with him, will betray him. Let's not quibble over the fact that the two disciples were sent and that Jesus should have arrived with the "ten" disciples; perhaps Mark just didn’t think it was necessary to record that the two dispatched disciples returned to Jesus to report that everything is prepared as he requested. Passover preparations were made, and Jesus and the Disciples ate that Passover meal. After this, the familiar so-called "passion" events unfold: the prediction of Peter’s denial, the scene at the Garden of Gethsemane, the arrest of Jesus, his appearance before the Sanhedrin, Peter's denial of Jesus, the trial of Jesus before Pilate, and his forced march to golgotha, crucifixion, and death.

All of this happens in a fairly succinct order, and, if accepted as true, Mark claims Jesus has the Passover meal with his disciples and is then crucified after the Passover meal.

Now let’s compare Mark’s version to that found in John’s Gospel:

¹³ When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). ¹⁴ It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour. "Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews (NIV).

Again in order, from this point, Jesus is tried before Pilate, and is then led away to be crucified and dies. We never heard one more word about any Passover meal shared by the disciples, or, indeed, anything about a “Last Supper” in John.

If we are to accept the words of John to be true, Jesus is brought to Pilate on the day of Preparation of Passover week when the lambs were slaughtered for the Passover meal. Clearly, the Passover meal has not taken place when Jesus is before Pilate or before he is crucified. He is crucified before the Passover meal.

Six days before the Passover, Jesus is in Bethany (John 12:1), and the next day, five days before Passover, Jesus makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (John 12:12). Then, in John 13:1, the time frame is described as, “(I)t was just before the Passover... and the evening meal was being served” (v. 2). Here we have the scene of Jesus washing the feet of the disciples (v. 5), the prediction of his betrayal and the offering of a bit of bread to Judas, and Peter’s denial. There is nothing in the following chapters and verses to indicate that they were eating or ate a Passover meal. Indeed, this is clearly supported in John 18:28 with the statement, “Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. ²⁹ So Pilate came out to them and asked, "What charges are you bringing against this man?" This is (apparently) the next day after the day of preparation that Jesus was taken to Pilate, indicated by the statement that it was early morning, in the sixth hour, and crucified--again, before the Passover meal. Again, in verse 30 and 31 we read: “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.” This is a bit confusing. If this was the same day of Preparation, and not the Passover Sabbath, why would the Jews not enter the palace if it was not already Passover? And, if it was still the day of Preparation, and the next day was a special Sabbath (Saturday) of the Passover, working backwards, the day of Preparation was Thursday, Friday seems to be missing, and the Passover is on the "special Sabbath Saturday" making Jesus' triumphal entry on a Monday. I am sure somebody will straighten me out on what day was what here; in fact, there are numerous sources on the internet that speak to this, but the point shouldn’t be lost that the Passover had not taken place when Jesus was crucified according to John.

To be sure, John clearly records these events as occurring before the Passover meal. However in Mark, on this day, Jesus in having the disciples make preparations for the Passover meal. In John, Jesus was already dead at this point.

Certainly we can consider that the Christological reasons that John has Jesus dying on the day of Preparation are consistency with John the Baptist's description of Jesus as “the Lamb of God” in 1:29, the refined theology John presents for the supposed ‘creative redemption’ Jesus represents, or support of prophecy fulfillment in John 19:36-37: “These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken" (Exodus 12:46; Num. 9:12; Psalm 34:20) ³⁷ "They will look on the one they have pierced" (Zech. 12:10), or even with that Old Testament prooftexting inerrantists love to use that the Messiah would be like a lamb and not make a sound and such stuff found in Isaiah 53, but these don’t do one bit of good to solve the inconsistencies described in these events. One of these two authors got it wrong. Which one? Whom are we to believe? Certainly, following the “principle of identity” that “if any statement is true then it’s true,” then John’s account is true also. But if it is true, then it clearly contradicts Mark making Mark's account false. If Mark’s account is true then John’s version is false. Now, applying the law of contradiction that no statement can be both true and false, the problem for the inerrantist is painfully apparent, and there is no wiggle room here: one of these accounts is false.