This particular principle of biblical interpretation challenges us to take a serious look at those parts of Scripture that appear to be in contrast or in contradiction with other parts of the Bible. It is a question of making every attempt to reconcile all those seemingly contradictory passages or statements.
This principle is the following: The Bible cannot contradict itself (Northeast Bible Institute, p.1). Its teaching in one part must agree with its teaching in every part. The contrasts and the variety which one finds in Scripture in no way indicate that there is contradiction in the Bible. Any interpretation which renders the Bible self-contradictory or inconsistent must rest on false premises (Carmona, p. 34)
One example of an apparent contradiction is the first three narratives of the crucifixion. The Gospel accounts of Matthew and Mark record that while Jesus was on the cross, both thieves that were crucified with Him were laughing at and mocking Him. Luke's Gospel account indicates that only one of the thieves was doing this, while the other showed repentance and asked Jesus for mercy. There are at least two possible explanations for these discrepancies. One would be that the first two Gospel writers were recording the events of the crucifixion from a particular angle, while the last Gospel writer was covering those same events from a different angle. This would be similar to the way that different newspapers in our time cover the same events, but yet seem to emphasize things that other newspapers overlook. Another possible explanation would be that initially both thieves were laughing at Him, and that eventually the other one "came to his senses," and repented and asked for mercy.
Have you ever encountered contradictory accounts in the Bible which you believe cannot be reconciled? If so, can you give us examples so that we can dialogue? Your input is important and will definitely be accepted as an important contribution to this conversation.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
Examples of contradictions in the bible have been noted since the first person started reading it. Of course with the likely result being death for pointing any out this type of exercise was quite limited until more recent times, as dialogue and reasoning together have become more accepted activities.
ReplyDeleteTake the example of Moses authorship of the first five books of the Bible. It was known quite early that this presented lots of problems. I quote,
" People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it would say those same events happened in a different order. It would say that there where two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there where fourteen of the same thing. It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the midianites who did it. It would describe Moses a going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses built the tabernacle.
People also noticed...things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth: (something) one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out..."
Initially every effort was made to have these observations and the observers suppressed. If talked about they were treated as "apparent contradictions" which could be explained through interpretation, often very elaborate interpretation.
But more problems were pointed out: Isaac ibn Yashush in Muslim Spain noted that a list of Edomite kings that appear in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead.
A twelth century Spanish rabbi, Abraham ibn Ezra noted passages that referred to Moses in the third person, used terms Moss would not have known, described places where Moses had never been, and used language that reflected another time and local from those of Moses.
There is more, this contined for centuries afterall, but I think the point is made. As Spinoza concluded, "the problematic passages were not a few isolated cases that could be explained away one by one. Rather, they were prevasive through the entire Five Books of Moses".
This is just involving the issue of the authorship of Moses. Contradictions are everywhere in the Bible. This would only be surprising to someone who has not read the Bible critically. The reasons why someone would not read the Bible critically are many, not least of which is the fear that it would destroy someones faith as it has been handed down and accepted by them. This obviously is not a concern for biblical scholars, nor for those whose faith is informed by the Bible's wisdom and not dependent on a literal reading of the words in it, often amounting to bibliolatry.
Jose Lecour
Can you specifically point out "chapter and verse" of these contradictions? The issue of the recording of Moses's death can be explained either by a non-Mosaic authorship of the Pentatech or by some one "filling in the blanks" after Moses's death. There are so many theories and possibilities.
ReplyDeleteJuan Ayala-Carmona
I appreciate your interest in looking further into these discrepancies. As a scholar you prove yourself to be quite fearless. I find the easiest way to do this is to Google the relevant statement. Here are some of the chapter and verse results that you asked for:
ReplyDeleteGenesis 7:15: In the story of the Flood, these verses have Noah collecting two of each species of animals -- one male and one female . Genesis 7:2-3 specifies 7 pairs of clean animals and birds and 1 pair of unclean animals.
Genesis 7:11 describes water coming from the heavens and from below the ground to generate the worldwide flood. However, Genesis 7:4 describes all of the water falling as rain.
Genesis 7:11, 7:17, 7:24 and 8:3 specify different intervals for the flood duration which have no apparent resolution.
Genesis 11:31 This describes Abraham as living in the city Ur, and associates that location with the Chaldeans. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Chaldeans did not exist as a tribe at the time of Abraham; they rose to power much later, during the 1st millennium BCE.
Genesis 14:14: This verse refers to Abram pursuing some surviving kings of Sodom and Gomorrah to the city of Dan. However, that place name did not exist until a long time after Moses' death. Other locations are also identified in the Pentateuch by names that were invented long after the death of Moses.
Genesis 22:14: The verse states: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day..." There are many verses in the Torah that state that something has lasted "to this day". That appears to have been written by a writer who composed the passages long after the events described, and long after Moses' death.
Genesis 36 contained a list of Edomite kings which included some monarchs who were in power after Moses' death. R.E. Friedman wrote: "In the eleventh century, Isaac ibn Yashush, a Jewish court physician of a ruler in Muslim Spain, pointed out that a list of Edomite kings that appears in Genesis 36 named kings who lived long after Moses was dead. Ibn Yashush suggested that the list was written by someone who lived after Moses. The response to his conclusion was that he was called "Isaac the blunderer." History has proven him to be correct, at least as viewed by most mainline and liberal theologians.
Exodus 33:7 describes Moses entering the Tabernacle. Yet, the Tabernacle had not yet been built; its subsequent construction is described in Exodus 35.
Numbers 12:3: This verse states "Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth." (NKJ) If Moses were that humble, it is unlikely that he would have described himself in these glowing terms.
Numbers 25:1 which describes the rebellion at Peor referred to Moabite women; Numbers 25:6 14 refers to Midianites.
Deuteronomy 34:5-9: These verses describe the death, burial, age at death, physical condition at death, and mourning period for Moses. It is difficult for an individual to describe events at and after his or her death.
As I said this is limited to the authorship of Moses issue only. One could quite easily fill your inbox with a different contradiction or discrepancy each day every day of the year. That would serve no ones interest of course, and I have no intention of doing that. It would however, call into question and would necessitate a reevaluation of the issue of inerrancy as presently understood by some people.
Jose Lecour
Bro. Jose: Thank you for this very insightful and valuable input. It is much appreciated. I apologize for the delay in that I've been involved in research on a variety of issues, including this one. Earlier today, I was just about finished responding to each of your comments when all of a sudden, everything that I had written was deleted. Frustating! I will respond on this occasion to the first three comments. Part of the problem might be the particular translation of the Bible which one is using. I am using the NIV and the oldest Spanish version Reina-Valera.
ReplyDeleteThe apparent contradiction in Genesis 7 is really no contradiction in that vs. 15 does not specify the number of pairs (at least not in the NIV or the Reina-Valera).
The apparent contradiction of the flood account is really no contradiction at all in that what is described is the origin and sources of the rainfall.
The matter of the time-interval of the flood's duration might possible be resolved by taking into account the reckoning of time by the Hebrew/Jewish people.
I hope this helps, for starters.
Juan Carmona
The issue of the account of the flood presents no contradiction in that we are just told about the different origins or sources of the rainfall.
The matter of the time interval of the duration of the flood can perhaps be resolved by taking into account the Hebrew/Jewish reckoning of time.
I hope this helps for starters.
Grace and peace,
Juan Carmona
Bro. Jose: I will try now to respond to the rest of your comments, The reference in Genesis 11:31 relative to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldeans does not pose a problem. Nowhere in the narrative does it refer to the Chaldeans as a "tribe." The passage basically states that Abraham and his family originated from there and left from there to the land that God had promised him. There is also a very good possibility that this particular passage was a post-Mosaic account. Even secular historians write about locations using the modern names rather than the names that the indigenous people of the land knew them by. For example, most histories of Puerto Rico use the modern name instead of the name that the inhabitants used for the land which was Boriquen. There is no problem whatsoever in believing that Genesis 22:14 was written in retrospect after the death of Moses. It probably was, but it does not constitute a contradiction. The passage in Genesis 36 points to a probable post-Mosaic account on the one hand, and on the other, a possible repeat of the same name in different periods of history. For example, a historian can use the name "John Smith," or "Pancho Pasteles," for a person living in either the twentieth or the twenty-first century. Again, no contradiction there. The passage in Genesis 33:7 refers to the place that Moses entered (in the NIV version) as the "Tent of Meeting," and to the other place as the "Tabernacle." The one in Moses's time was probably a local shrine, and the Tabernacle a portable edifice which the Hebrews carried around with them during their sojourn in the desert. The reference in Numbers 12:3 about Moses being a "humble man" is no doubt, a post-Mosaic writing. Again, no contradiction. The references in Numbers 25 about Midianite and Moabite women was either a reference to women coming from different locations for religious prostitution, or Midianite and Moabite being used interchangeably. The story about the recording of Moses's death was no doubt a post-Mosaic writing. The issue of possible or probable multiple authorship of the Pentateuch has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of inerrancy. Scripture can be inerrant (in its original autographs) without multiple authorship cancelling it out. And of course, as you know, inerrancy in the original autograph is a statement of faith, since no one has seen or will ever see the original autograph. I hope my response helps. Thanks again for your contribution. Juan Carmona
ReplyDelete