|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
We come now to that important section of Bibliology that pertains to the critic’s alleged discrepancies of Scripture. There is a general consensus that the Bible is full of errors, mistakes, and contradictions. However, most of the people who challenge the Bible in this manner would be hard pressed, and thus easily silenced, if they were asked to name just one of their alleged contradictions. At the same time, we must be both willing to admit that there are some Bible difficulties, and be prepared to answer those who challenge us. [84] However, in doing, we should approach the entire issue with the following presuppositions:
“The burden of proof rests on the critics... Like an American citizen, the Bible should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Like a reliable friend, it should be given the benefit of the doubt. A scientist always assumes that there is an explanation when faced with some unexpected anomaly. In the same way, a Bible student assumes that there is a harmony in the Bible in light what appear to be contradictions.” [85]
This is the premise upon which we will proceed as we examine the various types of apparent contradictions, the manner of resolving them, the examples of many that have been resolved. However, as stated before, the argument of “burden of proof” or “innocent until proven guilty” is a difficult one because the burden of proof is almost always equal. The USA has such a policy in its courts because the British in the 1700’s had the view of “guilty until proven innocent.” Not only this, but the argument is almost always stated in such a manner: "You can't prove me wrong." This supposes that the burden of proof is on the other's side, when in fact, the assertion itself must be proven before it is even worth disproving. However, in cases that an assertion is against a widely held belief, it will have to be reinforced with more than the usual circumstantial evidence; thus, a greater burden of proof. However, the fallacy is usually instigated when the opponent wants to "assert without proving," and claims that his assertions are innocent until proven guilty. Also note that in some cases, there is a burden of proof, such as when a change in policy is advocated. Nevertheless, since the Bible for 2000 years has dominantly been viewed as the authoritative Word of God, for critics in the church (such as liberal theologians) to assert otherwise the burden of proof is placed upon them. But for critics outside the church the case for burden of proof may be more difficult.
There are a variety of principles that must always be observed as we deal with the alleged discrepancies of the Bible. First, always be sure you know what the text actually says. This means that we must try to ascertain, as much as we can within the realm of possibility, exactly what the original text actually said. There may be variants in the copies that are also reflected in our modern translations. These are textual problems with which we are still in doubt, but we must know where they are in our Bibles, and we should know something of the reasons for the apparent problem. In addition, an apparent problem may be due to the translation of the text from Greek or Hebrew to English. Whenever any text (whether it be the Bible or secular literature) of one language is translated into another there is often some degree difficulty in completely conveying the same meaning in a word for word translation. Thus a discrepancy might be solved when returning to the original language. If you do not know Greek or Hebrew, good commentaries will usually address known translation problems.
Second, always be sure you know what the text actually means. The Bible frequently uses phrases and terminology that don’t mean exactly what they might appear to mean because of idioms and metaphors tied to the culture at the time the autographa was written. Thus the text must be understood and studied in relation to the author’s purpose for writing. Also, some words change their meaning according to their different context even within the Bible and even within texts written by the same human author. In English for example, a “trunk” might belong to an elephant, a car, a salesmen, or a tree. It’s meaning then is determined by the context, rather than being arbitrarily imposed by the author. Likewise “justified” can either me “declared to be just” or “vindicated” (cf. Romans 3:28; Matthew 11:19).
Third, never confuse error with imprecision, rounded or approximate use of numbers, or paraphrases of Scriptures. Precision with measurements is critical in our modern age of science and sophisticated projects. However, the ancient world and Biblical writers were less concerned with such precision. For example, they often used round numbers in order to give the general size of an object or an army or a quantity of years. For example, Acts 7:6 states that Israel was in bondage in Egypt for 400 years whereas Exodus 12:40 states they were in bondage for 430 years. But is this really so unusual? For example, if someone were to ask you, “How old you are you?” Would you reply in exact years, months, days, hours, and seconds or would you give a round number? Obviously you would not give an exact number for only androids and Vulcans are so persnickety about such precision. Another example would be New Testament author’s freedom in quoting previously written Scriptures. New Testament authors frequently do not quote the Old Testament text verbatim, but what they do quote is faithful to the meaning of the author. In fact, the “quotation marks” are not from the Greek text but are inserted by the English translators and perhaps wrongfully so. Thus given the above factors we should not use a modern criteria to judge a methodology freely used in an ancient culture.
Fourth, never confuse falsity with perspective. Any given witness to an accident will testify concerning that which he actually saw, and only form his unique perspective. Just because a testimony is “in part” does not mean that it is false. The same is true with a Biblical writer, particularly the Gospel writers, who records an event from what he actually saw, but does not communicate all the details, including some of those included by other authors. Liberal critics have a “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” approach to multiple accounts of Biblical events. On the one hand, if two accounts give the exact same details they accuse the authors of conspiring to get their story straight. On the other hand, if there are differences in the accounts they accuse the authors of not being eyewitnesses and the texts of being in error.
Next, always remember that language about the world, as it is expressed in the Bible, for the most part is in everyday language. While there are at times various genres that may use unusual language, the Bible by and large uses language we speak and is generally written from the writer’s perspective. For example, we speak of space travel from the perspective of the earth but that does not imply that we think earth is the center of the universe. In other words, we use “earth” language universally. Thus, in the television series Star Trek, for example, aliens often say “it would take X amount of your earth years to travel to such and such a place...” Why? Because the authors of the show are taking into account that the fictional alien characters would want to convey a meaningful message to a people who are oriented to earth’s frame of reference. Likewise, the writers of the Bible describe heaven as being above the earth as if one might fly there in a space ship at warp speed for X amount of years and eventually get there. But this does not mean that we should think of heaven as being somewhere out past Pluto anymore than we should think of hell as being in the center of the earth because it is described as being “below” (cf. Job 11:8; Psalm 55:15).
Finally, always remember that the Bible records things that it does not approve. Much of the Bible is historical narrative and is not intended to be normative for Christian behavior. Thus it records many historical events that it does not necessarily endorse. For example, the sins of King David (2 Samuel 11), Solomon’s polygamy (1 Kings 11:1-8), and the serpent’s lie to Eve (Genesis 3:4-5) Although there may not be any immediate condemnation of these sins in the context in which they are recorded this does not imply that God is either unaware of them or is approving of them. They are simply historical facts condemned elsewhere in the Bible.
I addition, there are also seeming discrepancies in the Bible. The alleged discrepancies of the Bible are generally classified around the following subject headings:
(1) Genealogical problems: Usually in Genesis 5 and in Christ’s genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
(2) Quotation problems: Usually associated with Old Testament quotes in the New Testament and the quoting of extra-Biblical sources.
(3) Scientific problems: Usually associated with the origin of the universe; the creation of life; the creation of new life forms; Joshua’s extended day; etc.
(4) Doctrinal problems: Usually associated with the person of God and or with one of the individuals within the Trinity.
(5) Ethical problems: Usually associated with issues such as the slaughter or apparently innocent people, God’s use of Satan and evil to accomplish His purposes.
(6) Historical problems: Usually associated with the dating of events; the apparent numerical discrepancies contained in the Bible; the lack of harmonization in the historical narratives such as those found in the gospels etc.
Having listed the various general classification, we now want to examine in more detail a specific example from several of the categories. Of course we do not have time to cover every subject heading or every example in the few categories. However, we shall discuss a few examples of what I think demonstrate the basic nature of alleged discrepancies: [86]
Another type of discrepancy are quotation problems. An example of this is found in a comparison between Numbers 25:9 which states that 24,000 Jews fell in one day, and 1 Corinthians 10:8 which says that 23,000 fell on that particular day. Some argue vehemently that this proves the errancy of the Bible in its recording of facts and figures, although it is generally conceded that it is inerrant in its intent and purpose. But how should we resolve this apparent contradiction? Some suggest that there is a scribal error and thus the autographa (the original text written by Paul) agreed with Numbers 25:9 while Calvin suggests that Moses was speaking in round numbers with the exact number being somewhere between 23 and 24 thousand. Thus Moses was rounding up whereas Paul was rounding down. Leon Morris on the other hand states that Paul is not taking into account those who were slain by the judges themselves, whereas Moses is simply giving the total number. While I think Calvin’s argument is much more persuasive the point is this is an alleged discrepancy based on the Bible’s use of round numbers.
In addition, there are texts that appear to be in conflict with science. Rather than citing a specific scientific problem the real issue behind this category is that “the greatest conflict between people who consider themselves scientifically minded and people of faith is the question of miracles.” [87] Supernatural miracles have always been a great stumbling block to the natural man and anti-supernaturalism is the driving presupposition of higher criticism liberal theologians (Ernst Troeltch, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, H. E. G. Paulus, C.H. Weisse, Albert Ritschel, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, David Friedrich Strauss, Ferdinand Christian Baur, Adolf von Harnack, William Wrede, Martin Kahler, Rudolph Bultmann)
How then should we approach alleged discrepancies in this category? First, always recognize that the real problem is a philosophical problem, which is behind any scientific approach. Those who discount the Bible because of its recorded miracles do so on a presupposed naturalism rather than on any true empirical evidence. In other words, it is impossible to empirically prove a universal absolute for to do so would require that one be present everywhere at times in order to prove that such a universal statement is valid. Thus the denial of miracles is not based on empirical observation but a preconceived bias. Thus we must remember that the historical validity of miracles is not determined by empirical proof but by credible witness. We must remember that miracles were signs and thus were always related to the revelation of God’s person and/or His purposes. Thus they are not normative for human history. Thus most alleged scientific problems of the Bible may be adequately answered in the spite of the fact that the naturalist will continue to disbelieve the evidence.
Another type of apparent conflict in Scripture are doctrinal problems. Most apparent doctrinal problems are due to seemingly contradictory passages that seem to be asserting completely opposite theological ideas. However, doctrinal problems are rather easily resolved through developing a coherence of truth by the studying the word of God and developing a consistent systematic theology. Thus we develop a harmonized understanding of the proper meaning of a text and the author’s intent. This is accomplished by developing not only a proper systematic theology but also a proper hermeneutical method, not from one’s presuppositions, but from the text of Scripture itself. Thus, for example, we allow the New Testament to teach us how to interpret the Old Testament as we see how Christ and the Apostles interpreted the Old Testament. On the other hand there may be at times an element of mystery, an inability to understand due to our lack of knowledge, a text that presents an apparent problem. Such doctrinal problems may be due to our finitude and creatureliness (Isaiah 55:8), but nevertheless the doctrinal problems may be something we can apprehend but not fully comprehend, such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. Thus there may be times in which we must be content with a gap in our comprehension though ever pursuing to understand the text of Scripture. Thus, doctrinal problems are only apparent which may be resolved with further study and the confidence that the Lord does not contradict Himself.
Another issue that is often raised, particularly my modernists, are so-call ethical problems. One of the most frequently asserted ethical problems is found in 1 Samuel 15:2-3. In this passage God is giving instructions to Israel to utterly destroy the entire Amelkite nation, commanding them to slaughter every man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, donkey etc. and that God uses Israel as His means of carrying out this judgment. How should we respond? Is it morally right for God to use one race to destroy another? Is it morally right for God to destroy “innocent” people?
First, on what basis are we call ANYTHING right or wrong? Do we judge something based on how we feel? If so, then the one who says he feels the actions of God in this passage are wrong could just as well be refuted by saying, “Well, I feel God’s actions are right” and thus there is no absolute standard for making an absolute judgment about ANYTHING being right or wrong. This is called an reducto ad absurdum response in which one assumes the opponent’s methodology and demonstrates how it is absurd by taking it to its logical conclusion.
Second, if someone states that the actions of God in this passage are wrong because of other passages in Scripture such as “Thou Shalt Not Kill” (Exodus 20:13) then the person is making an appeal to an authority that He himself does not accept or submit to. If he is then willing to submit to the authority of Scripture as an absolute standard by which we can make judgments then other passages may be appealed to such as:
Psalm 115:3 “But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased.”
Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Romans 9:21-22, “ Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
Thus ultimately it is God who is judge and sovereign Lord and we do not have the right to question His actions. In addition, God’s use of Israel was not because they were better than the Amelkite nation but because they were the elect unto salvation whereas the Amelkite nation were those who were “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” Israel was merely the tool for God’s judgment at that particular occasion just as at other occasions God uses His elect angels to judge. In addition, God reserves judgment and vengeance for Himself (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 32:35, 41, 43; Matthew 7) thus “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is applicable to personal vengeance and not civil justice, let alone God (Romans 13). Finally, no one, not even a newborn child is ultimately “innocent” for we are all born sinners with the Adam’s guilt imputed to us (Romans 5:12; Psalm 51:5). Thus the apparent moral problem is more of a subjective sentiment and is based on a sinful appraisal rather than God’s declarative indictment which will always be consistent with what and who He has revealed Himself to be.
Another issue which is often brought up are apparent historical problems from both within the Biblical text itself and as it relates to secular historical information. The following would be a representative example of the latter type:
“Many archeologists and scholars date Israel’s Exodus from Egypt about 1290 B.C. This is based primarily on the reference in Exodus 1:11 to the city of Ramses as the site where the Israelite slaves worked. The assumption is that, if the city were named after Ramses the Great, then the Exodus must have taken place after 13. However, 1 Kings 6:1 says that it was 480 years from the date of the Exodus to the commencement of Solomon’s temple in 966 B.C., dating the Exodus around 1446 B.C. - 150 years earlier than supposed. Who is right? The Bible of these scholars?” [88]
Thus the late date for the Exodus as proposed by these archaeologists is used for liberal scholars who teach a documentary hypothesis for the origin of the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch / Torah). The documentary hypothesis, first articulated by Julius Wellhausen in the nineteenth century, theorizes that the Torah is actually four documents edited into one. These four documents are identified primarily by the name that is used for God and by their writing style (JEPD). We will discuss this further in “Chapter #11 Introduction to Modern Criticism.”
When we are faced with this kind of alleged discrepancy we must follow two paths of exploration. The first is to determine the weight of Biblical evidence in favor of what it declares. In other words, does the Bible confirm in other places what it has stated in one place. In this case, the Bible does in Judges 11:26 and Acts 13:19-20. The second is to allow further historical and archeological evidences to either confirm or refute their former discoveries and claims. Thus is also true in the case we are looking at, for the evidence is mounting against the earlier dating of the Exodus. For example, literary analysis demonstrates that the Pentateuch could not have been written during the exile as documentary hypothesis propose.
The covenant between God and Israel follows, with appropriate modifications, the form of a suzerainty treaty, which defined the relationship between a conqueror and a conquered people. Suzerainty treaties of this type existed during the time that the Pentateuch purports to have been written. At the time that the documentarians theorize the Pentateuch’s alleged constituent documents were written, this type of suzerainty treaty had not been used for centuries. It is unclear how the writers could have gained such accurate knowledge of an obsolete literary form or what their motivation could have been in using it. It is also unclear how the literary features of the suzerainty treaty could have survived a complex editing process by editors who were largely unaware of the form that they accidentally preserved. It is like supposing that a Shakespearean sonnet in Elizabethan English was the unwitting product when twentieth-century editors harmonized nineteenth-century documents from disparate sources. It is more probable that the Pentateuch was written more or less at the same time as latest events that it describes. It is less probable that a document, coalescing out of disparate accounts many centuries after the fact, could have accurately reproduced events and conditions several centuries in the past. It is quite reasonable to assume that Moses would have learned about suzerainty treaties during his royal education, and there is nothing to prohibit Moses from casting the covenant with God in that form. [89]
In regard to archeological evidence, generally speaking given sufficient time it always refutes archeologist’s former claims and endorses the Bible’s claims. This is also true in the case of the dating of the Pentateuch as evidence is mounting against earlier dating of the Exodus. I believe then that any current discrepancy between archeologists and the Bible will sooner or later be resolved as support for the Bible continues to mount. For example consider the following solutions to former archeological discrepancies:
First, the discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name "Canaan" was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word "tehom" ("the deep") in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. "Tehom" was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
Second, the Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon’s wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a story memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
Third, another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as co-regent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.
The Examples Of The Harmonization Of Biblical Texts
The purpose of this brief section is to reveal how the harmonization of Biblical texts resolves several apparent discrepancies. For example, according to 2 Samuel 24:1, God incited David to number the people. But according to 1 Chronicles 21:1, Satan is specifically stated as having incited David. But this is not a contradiction, for we can see that God willed (decreed) and intimated the numbering, but used Satan to instigate the matter in David’s heart. This can be clearly understood in this manner if one compares this event with how God used Satan in the episode with Job.
Then there is the question of Saul’s consultation with the Witch of Endor. On the one hand we read of Saul inquiring of Jehovah, only to receive no response (1 Samuel 28:6). On the other hand we read that Saul inquired of one who had a familiar spirit, rather than inquiring of Jehovah (1 Chronicles 10:13-14). The original language may assist us in clearing up this problem. In the former text, the word for “inquire” means “consult”, or “to ask.” In the latter case, the idea behind “inquire” is to seek after something with one’s whole heart. Therefore, we see Saul asking the Lord, but pursuing counsel of the one who had the familiar spirit.
In the New testament one of the apparent problems revolves around the two genealogies of Christ. The one listing is in Matthew 1, and the other is in Luke 3. Both genealogies are identical between Abraham and David. However, shortly after Matthew traces his through Solomon back to Abraham, while Luke traces his through Nathan back to Adam. The objection is that both accounts cannot be right. However, the church fathers from about the fifth century forward adopted the simple solution that Matthew presents the descent from Joseph (legal lineage), while Luke presents the descent from Mary (natural lineage). Thus we have both Jesus as the legal heir to the throne of David, a true Jew and a real human being.
Then there is the manner of the account of the death of Judas. This is another common problem between the account in Matthew which describes Judas as hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) and the account in Acts which describes him as “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18). Which account is correct? They both are, for the field was purchased with Judas’ treason money. In his wild despair he committed suicide and his body was discovered later in the horrible condition described by Luke in Acts 1:18.
Then there is the question of the patriarchal burial site referenced in Acts. Stephen declares that the patriarchs were buried in the field which Abraham bought from the Sons of Hamor in Shechem (Acts 7:15-16). It is clear from Joshua that there was indeed a patriarchal burial place in Shechem, where Joshua and his descendants were buried (Joshua 24:32). The difficulty is that Joshua states that Jacob had purchased the site, not Abraham. How is this resolved? It is possible that Jacob purchased the site that had been previous purchased by his grandfather.
Conclusion
As we began this study, we stated that the burden of proof always rests upon the critics. Thus far we have examined a variety of representative alleged discrepancies, and we have discovered that there are not the tremendous contradictions with the Bible that is so commonly asserted. In fact, the Bible is quite able to stand in defense of its own credibility. In addition, it is amazing that the number of alleged contradictions and discrepancies is diminishing, rather than increasing. This also points to the fact that, given sufficient time, they will continue to decrease - until finally they will be eliminated altogether. Thus we ought to conclude “Amen” with the wise words of the following two distinguished Christian leaders:
“I have come to the conviction that no man knows enough to attack the veracity of the Old Testament. Every time when anyone has been able to get together enough documentary ‘proofs’ to undertake an investigation, the Biblical facts in the original text have victoriously met the text.” [90]
“Give me the plenary, verbal theory of inspiration, with all its difficulties, rather than doubt. I accept the difficulties and humbly wait for their solution. But while I wait I am standing on the rock.” [91]
|
| | |
| End Notes |
| |
[84] Jude 3, “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” 1 Peter 3:15, “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” Proverbs 26:5, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
[85] Norman L. Geisler, Ronald Brooks,"When Skeptics Ask" Wheaton Wheaton: Victor Books, 1990. pg 163-164.
[86] For a more thorough examination of alleged discrepancies I reccomend the following books: Norman L. Geisler; Ronald Brooks "When Critics Ask" Wheaton: Victor Books, 1992. Gleason L. Archer "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" Zondervan Publishing House;
[87] J. Robertson McQuilkin "Understanding and Applying the Bible" page 209
[88] Geisler & Brooks "When Skeptics Ask" Wheaton: Victor Books, 1990. page 171.
[89] Meredith Kline "The Structure of Biblical Authority" Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. [90] Robert Dick Wilson, cited in "The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible" by Rene Pache, pg 158.
[91] Bishop J.C. Ryle Ibid, pg. 158. |
| |
|
