Musa and Harūn are placed in the era of Fir’awn (7:103–137, 20:24–70, 26:10–66). The Qur’an never explicitly says Maryam lived in Fir’awn’s era, but also doesn’t negate the possibility that she did, in fact, there is a verse that tells Musa that his sister reunited him with his mother (20:40), this sister is unnamed here, however, since Harun is the brother of Musa in the Qur’an (7:142, 19:53, 20:30, 23:45), and Maryam is called Sister of Harūn 19:28, this sister (20:40) is most likely none other than Maryam herself.
For a true contradiction inside the Qur’an, one would need: One verse affirming a proposition P, and another verse explicitly negating P. In 19:28: “O sister of Hārūn…” – There is no other Qur’anic verse that says something like: “Maryam was not the sister of Harūn” or “Maryam lived in a time when Hārūn had already died centuries before and she had no relation to him”.
The Qur’an implies different overlapping historical settings for Harūn and Maryam through narrative ordering, but it never states that they were not siblings. That means the “clash” is an inferred chronological tension, not a direct A-vs-not-A statement.
No explicit negation → no formal contradiction. Apparent historical mismatch → only arises if one is to import chronology assumptions from the traditional understanding of the Qur’an’s sequencing and from outside history.
The Qur’an never negates the possibility that the Anbiyah from what are considered “different eras” could overlap, nor does it explicitly establish that its narrative order is strictly chronological without gaps or overlaps.
It never says “The time of Maryam and the time of Hārūn are separated by many generations” — so there’s no internal prohibition on them being contemporaries if one reads it that way. It never says “No two prophetic narratives in the Qur’an overlap in time”. It never even commits to presenting Anbiyah in a linear timeline — the Qur’an shifts between stories without anchoring them to absolute dates.
So if someone insists on a literal read of 19:28, there is no verse inside the Qur’an alone that flatly contradicts it. The “problem” only appears when bringing in external chronology (Torah/History) or assuming that the traditional understanding of the Qur’an’s sequencing equals time order.
If one sticks strictly to the text of the Bible itself (without external theology and church tradition), Matthew 1:16 in the literal sense creates an internal tension with other Bible verses.
Matthew 1:16 (KJV): “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” Joseph’s father is Jacob. Joseph is the husband of Mary. Jesus was born of Mary.
Direct comparison to another NT genealogy, Luke 3:23 (KJV): “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…” This verse says Joseph’s father is Heli, not Jacob. Both can’t be literally true unless it’s assumed that Mary of the Bible was polyandrous and married to two men both called Joseph, or that she was married to a Joseph who had two fathers called Jacob and Heli because his mother was polyandrous or that one was his biological father and the other his godfather, too many speculations and assumptions would be required to reconcile this error, and none scripturally backed.
If one is to assume Matthew 1:16 is the correct one strictly within the Bible itself and read it literally, That means Joseph’s biological father was Jacob, Joseph was the husband of Mary and Jesus was born of Mary.
Strictly from the Bible, “Jacob” and “Joseph” are both very common names, The most famous pair in the Old Testament are Jacob son of Isaac and his son Joseph in Genesis 30–50 — but clearly those lived far earlier than Mary and Joseph of the New Testament, as per the Old and New Testament cherry-picked chronologies, the Jacob and Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is never differentiated from the patriarchs called Jacob and Joseph of the OT.
If one is to read Matthew 1:16 strictly inside the Bible, there’s an ambiguity because the text never explicitly says that this Jacob is not the patriarch Jacob son of Isaac and therefore that this Joseph is not the patriarch Joseph son of Jacob from the OT.
The verse doesn’t clarify which Jacob and Joseph, a reader could naturally identify them with the Genesis figures and that would cause obvious chronological impossibilities with the rest of the NT narrative.
If one were to assume they’re different people with the same names, the chronological clash disappears, however this isn’t scripturally backed.
There is ambiguity, because no direct qualifier says that these are different Jacob and Joseph or the same Jacob and Joseph, if one were to naturally take them as the same, especially as a first-time Bible reader, it would clearly be a chronological contradiction/error as the NT and OT gives numerous different genealogies for these figures, with Mary’s lineage in the NT having multiple generations between herself and the patriarch Joseph. To resolve these problems, one requires inference from context, not an explicit statement since one doesn’t exist, or rejection of the lineages that separate them by generations, though this would result in rejecting parts of the Bible.
Since Jesus of the NT and Joshua of the OT have the same names in the Bible’s original languages (Aramaic and Greek), there is definitely an ambiguity between the two characters especially when looking at numerous different verses.
Name equivalence
• Hebrew: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshua) → shortened form יֵשׁוּעַ (Yeshua).
• Aramaic: ܝܫܘܥ (Yeshuʿ) — the everyday spoken form.
• Greek NT: Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) — used for both Joshua and Jesus.
• English Bibles: Usually render Iēsous as “Jesus” in the NT and “Joshua” in the OT, even though the Greek name is the same.
Explicit ambiguity in the NT itself
Hebrews 4:8 (KJV): “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”
This “Jesus” is also Joshua son of Nun in the OT, in the Greek manuscripts, it says Ἰησοῦς, King James Bible has this translated as Jesus whilst the New International Version has this translated as Joshua. Without translation convention, one would read this as “Jesus” and potentially believe it is Jesus of Nazareth, or one would read the KJV and NIV translations of this and see both seemingly clash, since OT Joshua and NT Jesus are two different figures that lived generations apart.
If one is to only read the Greek or a literal back-translation, Joshua son of Nun (Moses’s successor) is Yeshua = Jesus in form, and Jesus of Nazareth (NT figure) is Yeshua = same form. The text rarely clarifies “not the other Yeshua,” so one would need differing contexts to tell them apart, there is no explicit statement that there are two different Iēsous, who lived in two different eras, strictly as per the Bible – since Iēsous son of Mary has generations between him and Moses who was Joshua’s leader and teacher as per the OT, since the NT explicitly has a lineage for Mary separating her generations apart from Moses.
There is name ambiguity between OT Joshua and NT Jesus because they share the same name in the Greek texts (Iēsous),
To resolve this, one would require internal or external context, not from the text explicitly saying “this is a different Yeshua.”
This can cause confusion in passages like Hebrews 4:8, Acts 7:45, and Luke 3:29 where translators have to decide whether to write “Joshua” or “Jesus.”
The following is a full list of New Testament verses where the Greek manuscripts say Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), but the context shows the intended person is Joshua son of Nun from the Old Testament:
Acts 7:45 (KJV): “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles…”
Context: This is about the Israelites bringing the tabernacle into Canaan after Moses died. That was done by Joshua son of Nun, although the Greek says Iēsous.
Hebrews 4:8 (KJV): “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”
This refers to Joshua son of Nun leading Israel into the Promised Land, not Jesus of Nazareth, although the Greek says Iēsous
A Greek reader seeing Iēsous would need to figure out whether it meant Joshua or Jesus of Nazareth. English translators usually render OT Iēsous as “Joshua” and NT Iēsous as “Jesus,” except in Hebrews 4:8 (KJV) and Acts 7:45 (KJV) where they historically left “Jesus” — causing potential confusion.
The following is what could happen if a greek, who has never been indoctrinated to believe in a several generations difference dichotomy between “OT Joshua” and “NT Jesus”, read the Old Testament and New Testament for the first time in Greek:
Since the name is the same name, and no visual difference, in the OT, Ἰησοῦς leads Israel into Canaan, therefore Ἰησοῦς leads the children of Israel into Canaan (as per the Old Testament), and then Ἰησοῦς is born of Mary (Miriam), preaches, and (in Christian belief) is crucified and resurrected. In the Greek scripts, spelling doesn’t change, “son of Nun” isn’t added every time in the OT, and they don’t have punctuation or formatting to separate the Testaments.
Without previous indoctrination, they could reach the conclusion it’s the same person, however due to the chronological differences, they could assume he was living in two widely separated eras — perhaps by divine longevity. They could also assume the NT Iēsous is a reincarnation or return of the OT Iēsous. Or they may see the timeline difference and see a chronological contradiction, unless they resort to some miraculous explanation.
Since in the NT Iēsous is portrayed as divine in Christian theology, a naïve reader might retroactively apply that divinity to the OT Iēsous — essentially deifying Joshua son of Nun. This could blur the theological line between “the servant of God” in the OT and “the Son of God” in NT Christian doctrine.
This isn’t far-fetched as there are Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45 as actual examples where the NT Greek text says Iēsous and is referring to OT Joshua. Without prior presuppositions, one would just think “Jesus of Nazareth” did those OT events. Early translations into Latin (Vulgate) made the same name “Iesus” for both — Jerome had to externally differentiate by his interpretation of context.
If one is to assume Jesus is Joshua of Moses time in both the OT and NT, then placing ‘Īsa closer to the time of Musa by taking Sister of Harūn as literally wouldn’t be contradictory, if one were to assume that ‘Īsa is Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua.
The only viable contradiction then is the Maryam/Mary of the New Testament and the Maryam of the Old Testament, because Mary in the New Testament is explicitly given a lineage separating her by generations from Moses and Aaron.
εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς Ἰησοῦς κατέπαυσεν οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει μετὰ ταῦτα ἡμέρας (Hebrews 4:8)
ἣν καὶ εἰσήγαγον διαδεξάμενοι οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν μετὰ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῇ κατασχέσει τῶν ἐθνῶν ὧν ἐξῶσεν ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ προσώπου τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἕως τῶν ἡμερῶν Δαβίδ· (Acts 7:45)
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ τοῦ Ἰωρεὶμ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευεὶ (Luke 3:29)
Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 are 2 important examples where a modern Greek reader could be misled or merely have a different understanding without translation adjustment.
The following are OT “Joshua” verses in the Septuagint (LXX) where the Greek says Iēsous.
ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν ἀνδρῶν οὓς ἀπέστειλεν Μωυσῆς κατασκέψασθαι τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν Μωυσῆς τὸν Αυση υἱὸν Ναυη Ἰησοῦν (Numbers 13:16)
καὶ ἐκάλεσεν Μωυσῆς Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ἔναντι παντὸς Ισραηλ ἀνδρίζου καὶ ἴσχυε σὺ γὰρ εἰσελεύσῃ πρὸ προσώπου τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ὤμοσεν κύριος τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς καὶ σὺ κατακληρονομήσεις αὐτὴν αὐτοῖς (Deuteronomy 31:7)
καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων (Joshua 1:1)
καὶ ἀνέστη Ἰησοῦς καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὁ πολεμιστὴς ὥστε ἀναβῆναι εἰς Γαι ἐπέλεξεν δὲ Ἰησοῦς τριάκοντα χιλιάδας ἀνδρῶν δυνατοὺς ἐν ἰσχύι καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς νυκτός (Joshua 8:3)
καὶ ἐλάτρευσεν Ισραηλ τῷ κυρίῳ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας Ἰησοῦ καὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ὅσοι ἐφείλκυσαν τὸν χρόνον μετὰ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ὅσοι εἴδοσαν πάντα τὰ ἔργα κυρίου ὅσα ἐποίησεν τῷ Ισραηλ (Joshua 24:31)
Another contradiction would be the fact that the OT calls Iēsous the son of Nun (Nun in the Qur’an 21:78 is the name of the sea creature Qur’an 68:48), while the Bible says that he was born from a virgin, unless some explanation is given that the sea is spiritually associated to Iēsous, since the NT says he saves the Fishermen and walked on water (Matthew 14:22-33), and his apostles called ḥawāriyūn in arabic (Qur’an 3:52 and Qur’an 5:111), which has the same root as ḥur from ḥūr ‘ēin (inhabitants of water-spring, Qur’an 44:54), mermen and merwomen in Colloquial Arabic usually means Ḥawāriyāt Al Baḥr / Hūriyat Al Baḥr i.e. beings living in the sea; one could also assume that since many narrations are attributed to Iēsous calling out to his “heavenly” Father, that Nun is his Father, or that Joseph is his Father as per the Syriac rendition of Matthew 1:16, or that Joseph is Nun, and therefore his spiritual Father, there would still be many contradictions however.
In fact, even in Hebrew, the name for Joshua in the Masoretic Old Testament is Yehoshua, the name for Jesus in the Aramaic variant of the New Testament is Yeshua from Hebrew, short form of Yehoshua, both of which as one are rendered as Iēsous in Koine Greek, while the Iēsous in the Greek got latinized into Iesus and Jesus in Medieval Latin, Yehoshua of the OT simply got latinized into Joshua in Medieval Latin, however, the names Jesus and Joshua according to History are the same, the NT Yeshua is Yasu’ (يسوع) in Arabic, although the name Jesus seems to be a deliberate distortion since it is phonologically similar to the Arabic root Jasasa (جَسَسَ) which means spy, where Joshua too is described as a leader of spies in the Old Testament.
And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot’s house, named Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country. (Joshua 2:1-2 KJV)
If one were to translate this verse into the Septuagint Koine greek and then translate the Koine Greek into Medieval Latin, so basically Joshua→Iēsous→Jesus, and then phonologically relate Jesus to جَاسُوس (Jāsūs), then the verse would literally say Jesus (Jāsūs) the son of Nun sent two men to spy (tajasus) secretly, and then when you relate Nun to the Nun Al Hut in the Qur’an, this would imply that at the minimum he is spiritually connected to Nun and Dhan-Nun (Yūnus), hence the fish symbol associated to Jesus.
The Qur’an strictly prohibits spying, according to the following verse.
12 القرءان سورة الحجرات
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ٱجْتَنِبُوا۟ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ ٱلظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا۟ وَلَا يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ وَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّـهَ إِنَّ ٱللَّـهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيمٌ
• Saheeh International
O you who have believed, avoid much [negative] assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy (la tajassasu) or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is Accepting of repentance and Merciful. (Qur’an 49:12)
However, they seemed to have mixed up two figures that are mentioned in the Qur’an, Al Yasa‘ (where the names Yeshua and Yasu‘ originated) and ‘Īsa (where the name Iēsou originates), the suffix “s” in Iēsous seems to be a Hellenic influence, for example Musa rendered as Musaeus, Qibt into Aegyptus.
The truth of the matter is that Iēsous is the same Iēsous (i.e. ‘Īsa) and that Maryam really is contemporaneous to Yūsuf, and that Iēsous in the old testament was the successor of Musa, however, they have all been attributed false kinships, while Maryam is contemporaneous to Yusuf, she did not marry him, while Iēsous is Isa in both the stories, Nun isn’t the father since Isa didn’t have have a biological father, Nun is simply the big sea creature in the Qur’an.