An Introduction to Bible Interpretation

Last updated on: February 22, 2021 at 2:20 pm By Dave Armstrong

***

I. INTRODUCTION

Time and again, in discussing the Bible’s teachings I hear the reply, “But that’s only your interpretation” as if no certainty can be obtained as to what the Bible affirms, especially in particular matters. Diversity of opinion is often presumed to prove that there is no correct interpretation.

First of all, in approaching the Bible, one must either accept or reject the Bible’s own claims: that it is the Word of God: God’s Revelation to mankind, written by men under divine inspiration. If this proposition is rejected, the Bible, hopefully, will at least be regarded as a unified collection of books that are united thematically in terms of theological outlook.

Otherwise, Bible interpretation will be practically futile, if not impossible, since the very appellation “Bible” would be a misnomer. Assuming then, that the Bible is considered as a unity, with some sort of common thread running through it, a rational method of interpreting this lengthy and sometimes difficult document will be necessary.

It will do no good, intellectually, to read the Bible with the intent of forcing it into an outlook and worldview totally foreign to the biblical writers, such as eastern monism, occultic mysticism or existentialism. Nor will it be of any benefit to form opinions on the Bible without reading enough of it to even have a bare acquaintance with its contents or stylistic colors. And above all it is supreme folly, from a literary standpoint to read Scripture with a hostile attitude.

The Bible will by no means be understood by people with any of these mentalities any more than a person’s viewpoint can be comprehended by talking with him briefly, once or twice, and going by hearsay, or by quarreling violently with him.

It’s amazing how many people think they know all about the Bible, when they haven’t read 1% of it. One wonders why this is; would anyone, for example (besides a drunk person), comment “authoritatively” on Homer, Plato, or Shakespeare without having read their books? It is my firmly held conviction that if a person reads the Bible with a truly open, unbiased mind, ready and willing to let it speak for itself, its message, broadly speaking, will be abundantly clear.

Scripture is clear about precisely those tenets which Christians hold in common: monotheism and the love of the one God for us, the way to salvation, the sinfulness of human beings, the centrality of Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer, and as the God-man, judgment, Jesus’ and our own bodily resurrections to eternal life, a lofty set of ethical principles etc. No particular interpretive or hermeneutical skill is needed to recognize these basic biblical affirmations.

If there is any one maxim which sums up the whole endeavor of Bible interpretation, I think it is this: The Bible must be studied and read like all other literature is studied and read. Scripture contains many types of literary forms — such as historical narrative, poetry, and legal contracts. These forms must be read according to their intention and purpose. No one writes a love letter in formal legal language and no one reads one as if it were a legal contract; the intent and form is entirely assumed beforehand. Likewise, poetry about nature in the Bible is not usually meant to be taken literally, or as a scientific hypothesis (e.g. “and the trees clapped their hands” — Isaiah 55:12).

Interpreting the Bible “literally”: that dreaded and disparaged practice perceived as a “hallmark” of “fundamentalists” lacking in intellectual capacity, means determining literary forms and their purpose in the Bible and reading accordingly. It does not mean ignoring all poetry, metaphors, parables, hyperbole, etc., and interpreting such passages with a wooden literalism.

Ironically, those trying to discredit the Bible are guilty of this practice much more often than are the so-called “fundamentalists” whose methods they despise. Such hyper-literalism would lead to God having physical “wings” (Ps 17:8) and commands to pluck out our eyes (Mt 5:29) and move mountains into the sea (Mt 21:21). Many alleged contradictions in the Bible are easily solved simply through identification of the form and purpose of each individual section.

Certain principles of reading lie at the center of all interpretation whatsoever. They apply equally to legislative, theological, philosophical, and common everyday language. Serious critical analysis is impossible without them. The Jewish rabbinical schools used these rules, and so did Jesus, Paul the apostles the Church Fathers, the master theologians of the Middle Ages and later, such as Aquinas; Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and all the great Bible scholars of the last two centuries who regarded the Bible as a unified entity.

After an overview of the different literary types in the Bible we will examine the “Six Rules of Interpretation” which underlie all intelligent, productive Bible study. The rules have a universal application, but they will be discussed in terms of biblical application.

II. LITERARY FORMS IN SCRIPTURE

1) Historical Narratives

Narratives are the most common form in the Bible; can be read at face value and “literally,” just like any other historical accounts are read. Includes lists, genealogies, uttered statements, prayers, etc. (Genesis; Ex 1-19, 31-40; Joshua through to Nehemiah, the Gospels, Acts)

2) Legal Contracts

This literature deals with technicalities of laws and covenants and their application. (Ex 20-30; Lev 11-22, 26-27; Deut 11-30)

3) Manuals of Religious Rituals

Descriptive of ceremonies that are usually symbolic of deeper meanings. (Lev 1-7, 23-25; throughout legal literature)

4) Logical Argument

Same purpose and intent as in philosophical discourse in general. (Romans 1-3; 1 Cor 1-2; Acts 17:22-31; Mark 14:1-6)

5) Letters or “Epistles”

These are personal letters of counsel, exhortation, and practical religious instruction, written to churches. (Romans through to Jude; mostly written by Paul the apostle)

6) Poetry

Most common form after narrative. Every book of the Bible probably has some poetry, but the following books are nearly entirely poetry: Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Job, Lamentations. Hebrew poetry uses parallelism rather than rhyme (Ps 33:6, 34:13, 46:7, 95:6; Prov 10:4, 13:1, 19:5, Mt 5:42), hyperbole, or exaggeration (Ps 1:2, 18:29, 42, 42:3, 137:9), and heavy use of visual images intended to stimulate our imagination and feelings as well as thinking (Ps ch. 1, 18:2, ch. 23, 102:26; Is 40:11, 45:9; Ezek 34:31; Matt. 23:37). Five notable sub-categories of poetry can be identified:

A) Satirical and Cynical Memoirs — Ecclesiastes.

B) Romance — (also an allegory of God and His people) — Song of Solomon.

C) Proverbs — Proverbs, some of Ecclesiastes; short, pithy, memorable, general observations about life (as in Confucius’ sayings). They are not absolute and are unconcerned with exceptions to the rule; they are intended to be applied according to situations.

D) Parables / Allegory — Intended to teach the listener by presenting interesting illustrations, from which can be drawn moral and religious truth. (Mt 13:1-53, 20:1-16, 22:1-14; Mk 12:1-12; Luke 15:11-32, 16:1-9)

E) Prophetic / Apocalyptic Literature — Largely poetic and similar to “preaching”; points to actual happenings in the future, and usually serves as a warning directly from God through the prophet, His messenger. Apocalyptic writings refer especially to the end of the world, Armageddon, the Last Judgment, etc. (Isaiah through to Zechariah; Revelation, Mt 24)

III. THE SIX RULES OF INTERPRETATION (HERMENEUTICS)

1) Rule of Definition

Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words, which have the same meaning in the Bible as they have in any other document, and in the society in which they were used. The New Testament writers used Koine or “common” Greek, which was the language of the common man. Translations seek to render Hebrew or Greek words into their equivalents in English. Some translations, it should be noted, are more literal than others, and some are paraphrases, which translate thoughts rather than words. No translation is perfect: some meaning is always lost.

In order to intelligently understand biblical words, it is very useful to obtain a Concordance, which traces English words through Scripture and gives the original word translated. Even better, Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries and Lexicons can be purchased which require no knowledge of these languages. They define precisely the meaning of the original words, which can have different definitions according to context (just like English words). Also, it can be determined how many words are translated into one English word, which is a common occurrence in translations. Of all the rules, this one is probably abused the most. Yet it is very elementary.

2) Rule of Usage

It is important furthermore, to learn how words were used and understood at the time and place that they were spoken or written. Old Testament words are to be interpreted according to Hebrew usage, and New Testament words in terms of the 1st century Greek-speaking world. Jesus was a Jew spoke primarily to and moved among Jews, and used idioms and phrases plainly comprehended by Jews. This must be taken into consideration; all the writers must be interpreted in this way. Bible Commentaries and Lexicons are good resources for applying this principle.

3) Rule of Context

This rule is probably violated most, after rule no. 1. Verses are pulled out of a text and interpreted in isolation, apart from their surroundings. Many passages derive all their force from the connecting thoughts before and after them. The original Bible didn’t even have verse numbers, which, for all their utility, have unfortunately contributed to the tendency of quoting out of context. Most people are familiar with religious fanatics or cults that place an undue emphasis on one verse (also a violation of Rule no. 6). The best way to avoid this pitfall is to simply read whole passages in order to arrive at a better understanding of the thrust and intent of individual segments.

4) Rule of Historical Background

The culture in which each book was produced must also be somewhat understood. This means some knowledge of: Jewish history and culture from at least the 2000-year period from Abraham to Jesus. The Bible was written in various cultural milieus, and the writers reflect their surroundings. They also exhibit expected personality distinctives.

The intelligent reader will seek to know as much as possible the thoughts of the authors, rather than reading into texts the bias and outlook of his or her own thoughts and times. In this regard Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries or Encyclopedias are very helpful, as well as standard historical sources. Archaeology has also provided much insight.

5) Rule of Logic

The Bible writers presupposed the basic rules of logic, and Scripture is to be interpreted as we interpret any other volume, by a reasonable and rigid application of the same laws of language and grammatical analysis. A good dose of common sense wouldn’t hurt either, since when it comes to the Bible and its interpretation, it seems like fools come out of the woodwork from all directions. The mastering of rudimentary logic will suffice here, accompanied by the willingness to treat the Bible in the same way, and with the same standards as other books: fairly and logically.

6) Rule of Unity

If the Bible is perceived as a unity, then passages within it must be construed with reference to the whole. Misunderstanding or ignorance of this rule is the cause of countless unnecessary and/or absurd assertions about what the Bible teaches. Scripture is, first and foremost, a book of salvation; of God’s dealings with human beings, and of His desire to transform our characters and natures in a positive way.

Each book in the Bible contributes to the whole and fulfills a specific purpose. To a large extent, the Bible interprets itself, by the comparison of Scripture with Scripture (exegesis), on the basis or similar subject matter. If this method is utilized, each passage will be more clearly understood within the context of the whole Bible, and much confusion and lunacy will be avoided. Concordances, Topical Bibles (which arrange passages by topic) and books on Systematic Theology or particular doctrines will serve as a great aid in this endeavor.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the above, many major differences of opinion about the Bible can be explained as due to one or more of the following factors:

1) Ignorance of the text of the Bible.

2) Ignorance of the principles of interpretation, which apply to all literature.

3) Inconsistent application of correct principles of interpretation.

If a person will apply the “Six Rules” correctly and consistently, read with an open mind, and accept the supernatural help of the Holy Spirit, which is God (John 14:26, 16:13), he can attain an intelligent and informed understanding of the Bible. Finally, it’s good to bear in mind the important role of Church history, Bible scholarship, and teachers at local churches in assisting and guiding individuals in their search for the true meaning of the Scriptures.

It is certainly prideful folly to disregard all interpretation that has come before (a “Rule of Precedent” if you will). No young scientist, for example, starts from scratch in trying to understand the natural world. He always accepts the validity of the rich history of prior scientific discovery. People who isolate themselves and come up with a novel “special revelation” of what the Bible says tend to go off on a tangent and some even go on to start up the dangerous sects or “cults” that we hear about in the news.

The Bible is not an esoteric “mystery book” which refuses to reveal its “secrets” to all but the most diligent; nor does it require a Ph.D. degree or perfect saintliness of its readers. It does require a fair amount of reading, an open mind, and a little effort in learning basic rules. It is no waste of time to learn such things, and there is nothing to lose. Anyone who learns to correctly read this magnificent “Book of Books” will reap immense profit and benefit to their souls and spiritual life.

***

(originally written in 1987 as an evangelical Protestant)

***

Summary: The Bible is not an esoteric “mystery book”. But it does require application of rules of Bible interpretation, a fair amount of study, an open mind, & a little effort in learning basic rules.

***

Why Do I Defend the Bible Against Atheist Attacks?

Last updated on: February 10, 2021 at 12:00 pm By Dave Armstrong

The Purposes and Goals of Contra-Atheist Christian Apologetics

“Sporkfighter” is a friendly and fair-minded atheist who asked me some good questions underneath my article, Groundless Gospel of Mark Bashing Systematically Refuted (2-9-21). Here are my replies, with a short second round as well. It became an excellent opportunity to explain the wider goals and motivations of apologetics. His words will be in blue.

*****

Question: Who are you writing for?

1) Christians: for their existing faith to be strengthened by seeing the weakness of opposing arguments and the strength of our own.

2) For Christians who are wavering in their faith (who would be adversely affected by the material I refute) and perhaps considering leaving it and/or becoming an atheist: to be strengthened by seeing the weakness of opposing arguments.

3) For those wondering about the doctrines of biblical inspiration and infallibility.

4) For fair-minded, honest atheists: to show that these atrocious arguments are embarrassing for atheists to put out: and ought to be rebuked from within their own community.

5) For the atheist who actually thinks these are unanswerable arguments.

6) For the atheist who might be on the fence and is considering forsaking atheism.

7) For atheists or anyone else who think that Christian theology is held only by gullible, infantile ignoramuses, who hate science and reason.

8) For anyone who thinks that Christianity is fundamentally irrational and opposed to reasonable explanation or defense.

9) For the sake of truth itself (i.e., what I, to the best of my ability, have come to believe is truth).

10) For the sake of open and honest discussion between opposing viewpoints: believing that dialogue is a means to obtain truth.

Are you writing to give Catholics support for their beliefs?

Inasmuch as Catholics are in the category of Christians, yes. But I’m also offering support for things where Protestants , Orthodox, and Catholics are in full agreement. I don’t argue about Catholic distinctives when defending Christianity against atheist attacks (I don’t consider it appropriate or prudent): unless they hit upon a specifically Catholic belief. Nothing in my reply here or in others like it should cause the slightest pause for any traditional, conservative (trinitarian / Nicene Creed) Christian. In fact, I could have written this when I was an evangelical Protestant (1977-1990).

Are you writing to convince non-Catholic Christians that Catholicism it one-true or the most-true path to salvation through Jesus?

No; per my previous reply. I do that in many other papers, but in this context it’s inappropriate. The word “Catholic” appears once in the entire article, and it is simply in referring to a “Catholic apologist” who made a general Christian apologetic point: precisely as I am doing here. So why do you keep bringing up Catholicism, as if it were relevant to my paper? It’s odd.

Are you writing to convince non-Christian theists that Christianity generally and Catholicism specifically is the path to the true God?

In a way, the first thing (in an indirect / roundabout sense), but it’s not my direct goal. The latter is addressed in hundreds of other papers of mine.

Are you writing to non-believers, trying to convince them that there is a God, that the Pope in Rome is his representative and the Catholic Church His…marketing arm?

See my previous two replies.

If it’s the first, okay. If it’s the second, okay. If it’s the third, I don’t see how your approach beginning and ending in the Bible can end up convincing anyone by never addressing their own traditions and their own reasons for believing.

It’s a specific argument; not the whole ball of wax. The question at hand is”: “Is Mark trustworthy as a document?, or is it so full of contradictions that the author has no credibility and no one (as a result) could possibly believe it was inspired by God.” I “defeat the defeaters, as Alvin Plantinga often says. It’s not defending the entire Bible (let alone all of Christianity or more specifically, Catholicism). It’s simply showing that these particular objections fall flat and achieve nothing whatsoever to tear down the Gospel of Mark.

If it’s the fourth, the best you’ll ever get a Bible full of events that could have happened without external evidence that they did happen.

Again, this is a “reactive” enterprise. I am showing how these objections fail. You’re way ahead of the game and have to realize the intent of any particular apologetics project. I’m happy to clarify.

I’m in the fourth group, and I just shake my head at the effort you go through to show the Bible can’t be proven false.

It’s not claiming the entire Bible can’t be proven false (though I do believe that). It’s showing how these arguments against Mark are a bunch of hot air and are irrational. It’s meant to give folks pause who are mightily impressed by these ludicrous pseudo-“arguments.” Then there are hundreds of other possible arguments and objections to address (most of which I have dealt with, in my 3180 articles on my blog, and 50 books). The argument for Christianity and the Bible is a cumulative one, consisting of scores and scores of individual arguments, adding up to the conclusion that Christianity is true and atheism false.

Does it really matter if you can explain why apparently differing details in the four Gospels don’t leave the Bible hopelessly internally contradictory?

Yes, but it’s just one piece in a large puzzle. Does it really matter to you that your fellow atheists make such terrible arguments? Are you able to admit that any in this piece are in fact, disproven by my replies? You haven’t said one word about my actual arguments. Instead, it’s all “meta-analysis.”

At best, you have a fantastic tale that “could have happened” with no evidence that it did happen.

People are convinced by an accumulation of considerations, which they feel all point in one direction: the truth of Mark or the Bible or of Christianity. If I make them curious here and persuade them of anything, then they will be game for future attempts at persuasion: all the way up to a possible conversion to Christianity or Catholicism specifically, or to a serious doubting of atheism, or a strengthening of a weak or wavering Christian faith. It’s all good. It’s what I was put on this earth to do (what we call a “calling” or “vocation”).

If you want to convince people outside your tradition, first, why, and second, you need evidence from outside your tradition.

Exactly! I am using reason as that common ground that both sides accept. I never say, “accept x, y, or z simply because Christians / the pope / Christian tradition says so.” I say, “accept it because it appears by virtue of reason to be true,” or “it may be true, given the weakness of opposing arguments” or “it appears to be more plausible than atheist alternatives.”

If you want to convince people inside your tradition, why? They’re already convinced.

It’s strengthening their existing faith, and providing support in reason for their faith, so it can be held more boldly and confidently, and more efficiently and successfully shared with others. Christians are under attack from all directions. There is a need for certain folks in our community to help support the faithful through efforts like this and many others of a different nature (such as social service or prayer, etc.).

If you find the academic challenge interesting, that would be the answer that makes the most sense to me.

I do enjoy that as well. But I find these atheist “objections” so weak, I would hardly even classify them as “academic.” They purport to be academic or semi-academic. Most of them would be laughed off of the stage of any truly academic setting. I’m not an academic or scholar. But I do claim to engage in semi-academic / “thinking man’s” lay apologetic endeavors. And I have held my own in dialogue with many scholars.

Excellent and comprehensive reply. I’m still looking for evidence that any supernatural realm of any kind exists before I wrestle with the details. Picking apart Christianity as a way to support my position would be pointless, because there’s always another tradition or faith to knock down, and another, and another.

Glad you like it. I would say that it sure looks like — according to cutting-edge science — an immaterial “spirit” of some sort, something wildly different from what we have up till now understood as “matter”, exists (to the tune of 95% of the entire universe). Most atheists have been telling us for centuries that it didn’t. You may have seen my recent paper on this: Seidensticker Folly #71: Spirit-God “Magic”; 68% Dark Energy Isn’t?

In other words, even science is leading us rapidly into new realms of “spirit” or “whatintheworldisthis?” stuff. Perhaps that is your gateway into the “supernatural realm of any kind.”

***

Photo credit: geralt (2-1-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

“Difficulty” in Understanding the Bible: Hebrew Cultural Factors

Last updated on: February 5, 2021 at 12:33 pm By Dave Armstrong

It’s a very common motif in anti-theist atheist polemics, to say that the Bible appears to be very complicated and inscrutable (and, they wrongly think, ubiquitously contradictory). This shouldn’t be the case — so they argue — if indeed it is a divinely inspired document from an omniscient God, meant to communicate to all human being at all times.

One atheist, Eric [see our closely related dialogue immediately prior to this], stated it this way in an atheist combox, in discussion with me on one particular passage:

This undermines the whole message and credibility of the text [Matthew 28:2-4] – a text which is supposedly inspired by God and intended for a broad audience. It should not take an expert delving into Koine Greek verb tenses to communicate the correct timing of an earthquake. If that’s required, something has gone wrong. Either the text is badly written, or the expert’s bias is causing them to reject a more straightforward reading. . . .

I agree insofar as you and I are not living in the first century Near Eastern / Semitic / Mesopotamian culture (specifically, Israel) with its Greek and Roman influences, and a strong local history of Judaism and ways and modes of thinking therein. Since we are not in those “shoes” and because of time and vast language and cultural differences, it’s necessary for us to enter into that mindset through study of the culture, including recourse to language tools that also bring out the nuances in the Greek. For the people back then, many such things would have been quite clear which are unknown or obscure to us.

I don’t see that this is even arguable. I assert that it’s self-evident. The Bible was specifically written for this target group. The rest of us are quite capable is using our heads to figure out “difficult”: texts and indeed, there are many available excellent tools to help us to do that (now with the Internet, more readily available than ever).

To note just three example of multiple hundreds: you think that a modern American or European is supposed to have knowledge at their fingertips about first-century Jewish burial customs, involving spices for anointing, linen cloths, and whether a Jew could purchase burial linen cloths on the Sabbath or Passover? Obviously we will not. I don’t know about you, but I certainly didn’t know a thing about it till I read commentaries, historical accounts etc. (I cited someone who consulted the Talmud regarding the linen in my latest paper) explaining it. These three aspects were part of the case against the Resurrection accounts.

You seem to think that they should all be readily evident in their meaning and nature to the modern reader (otherwise we are entitled to question that the Bible is inspired revelation: it being so frustratingly “complicated”). I totally disagree. Many of these bogus proposed “contradictions” involve things precisely of this nature (and I know, having dealt with many hundreds of them myself): points of ancient Hebrew culture, nuances in the Greek texts of the New Testament, etc.

Because the usual atheist skeptic (the professional ones, at any rate) goes barging into the biblical text like a bull in a china shop, thinking they understand it better than Christians like myself who have devoted their lives to studying the Bible, they oftentimes miss these finer points, where commentaries and historians, even archaeology, can provide much helpful background cultural and linguistic information, that we require, being so far removed from the original literary and cultural context.

Eric continues:

[Your] argument is consistent with the Bible being written by mere humans, for the limited crowd in front of them. It may even be consistent with a divine message of imminent apocalypse. However it is not consistent with a message written or inspired by a perfect communicator, sending His message to all people throughout the ages.

Another point that hurts your position, in my opinion, is that we have many many bible translations, going from hundreds of years ago all the way up to modern ones. And as far as I know, none of them or very few of them locate the timing of the earthquake in the past like you do. If, as you say, proper ‘positioning’ of the reader in the mindset and language of the author leads naturally and rationally to your interpretation, then why isn’t your interpretation the norm for all translations? It’s one thing to say I, Eric, am reading it wrong. Fair enough. It’s quite another to say that practically the whole body of experts in biblical translation are reading it the same wrong way.

It’s not just the language (literal or figurative, etc.) but how Hebrews thought, which is often very different. This is an example, and my hypothesis (which is all it is) makes sense if a few things about Hebrew thinking are explained.

In the book, Hebrew for Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking (Jacques Doukhan, University Press of America, 1993), the author notes that in the Hebrew mind, “the content of time prevails over chronology. Events which are distant in time can, if their content is similar, be regarded as simultaneous.” (p. 206)

Likewise, Thorleif Boman, in his book, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1960), devotes 61 pages to the topic of “Time and Space.” He noted that for the Hebrews, “time is determined by its content . . .” (p. 131). He observed also:

[W]e, too, characterize time by its content. We speak of wartime, peacetime, hard times, time of mourning, feast time, favourable time, office hours, bad year, etc. . . .

Thus, in part, the chronological times were named and characterized in accordance with their content in the Old Testament; day is the time of light and night is darkness (Gen. 1.5; Ps. 104.20). (p. 140)

This ties into another Hebrew (and sometimes Greek) literary device or form that is called “compression” or sometimes, “telescoping.” In his book, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP: 2nd edition, 2007, p. 216), Craig Blomberg took note of this:

Perhaps the most perplexing differences between parallels occur when one Gospel writer has condensed the account of an event that took place in two or more stages into one concise paragraph that seems to describe the action taking place all at once. Yet this type of literary abridgment was quite common among ancient writers (cf. Lucian, How to Write History 56), so once again it is unfair to judge them by modern standards of precision that no-one in antiquity required.

F. Gerald Downing, in his volume, Doing Things with Words in the First Christian Century (Sheffield: 2000, pp. 121-122) observed that the Jewish historian Josephus (37-c. 100 AD) used the same technique:

Josephus is in fact noticeably concerned to ‘improve’ the flow of his narrative, either by removing all sorts of items that might seem to interrupt it, or else by reordering them. . . . Lucian, in the next century, would seem to indicate much the same attitude to avoidable interruptions, digressions, in a historical narrative, however vivid and interesting in themselves.

Michael R. Licona, Baptist New Testament scholar and professor of theology, specializes in the literary analysis of the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies. He observed in his article, “Licona Responds to Ehrman on New Testament Reliability”:

Compression was a compositional device employed on a regular basis by historians in Jesus’s day. I provide several examples of compression and other compositional devices in my book scheduled for publication this fall, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? (Oxford University Press, 2016).

[Dave: In Licona’s book — mentioned above — on pages 71-72, he noted that Plutarch also utilized compression in his book, Antony and that his work, Pompey omits details on the same events that are included in his Antony and Caesar]

. . . a very large majority of the differences in the Gospels are best explained in view of the compositional devices employed in the writing of ancient historical/biographical literature; those prescribed in the extant compositional textbooks written by Theon, Hermogenes, Quintilian, Aphthonius, and others, and those we can infer from observing patterns in how the same author using the same sources reports the same story writing around the same time but does so with differences. . . .compression was a common compositional device and is easily identified . . .

Now, Eric and other atheists will probably respond at this point: “See?! That’s so blasted complicated! Who could figure all that out? And this supports our point that the Bible is often obscure; therefore not inspired by ‘God.’ ”

But that’s true for us today: 2000 years removed, and not familiar with these techniques common to historiography at that time. This precisely backs up my point of view expressed earlier in this dialogue:

I agree insofar as you and I are not living in the first century Near Eastern / Semitic / Mesopotamian culture (specifically, Israel) with its Greek and Roman influences, and a strong local history of Judaism and ways and modes of thinking therein. Since we are not in those “shoes” and because of time and vast language and cultural differences, it’s necessary for us to enter into that mindset through study of the culture, including recourse to language tools that also bring out the nuances in the Greek. For the people back then, many such things would have been quite clear which are unknown or obscure to us.

To reiterate: the Bible was originally written for people in a certain cultural, historical, and “literary” context. It was easily understood by them. For those of us removed from that context, it’s required to delve into scholarly aids such as the ones I cited, in order to comprehend various things that are unfamiliar to us in our time and culture.

Yes, we have to use our noggins and think and research a bit, but that’s normal. No one said that the Bible was as easy to interpret as Aesop’s Fables or The Iliad. But it’s able to be understood through the usual means of teaching and explanation that are true of anything whatever.

I should add, too, that even for the ancient Hebrews (who understood things such as what we’ve been discussing far better than modern American / European people), teaching aids were required to fully understand the Bible, as the Bible itself indicates:

1) Exodus 18:20 (RSV, as throughout): Moses was to teach the Jews the “statutes and the decisions” — not just read it to them. Since he was the Lawgiver and author of the Torah, it stands to reason that his interpretation and teaching would be of a highly authoritative nature.

2) Leviticus 10:11: Aaron, Moses’ brother, is also commanded by God to teach.

3) Deuteronomy 17:8-13: The Levitical priests had binding authority in legal matters (derived from the Torah itself). They interpreted the biblical injunctions (17:11). The penalty for disobedience was death (17:12), since the offender didn’t obey “the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God.” Cf. Deuteronomy 19:16-17; 2 Chronicles 19:8-10.

4) Deuteronomy 24:8: Levitical priests had the final say and authority (in this instance, in the case of leprosy). This was a matter of Jewish law.

5) Deuteronomy 33:10: Levite priests are to teach Israel the ordinances and law. (cf. 2 Chronicles 15:3; Malachi 2:6-8 — the latter calls them “messenger of the LORD of hosts”).

6) Ezra 7:6, 10: Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding, under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (7:25-26).

7) Nehemiah 8:1-8: Ezra reads the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (8:3). In 8:7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and “who helped the people to understand the law.” Much earlier, in King Jehoshaphat’s reign, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). In Nehemiah 8:8: “. . . they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly [footnote, “or with interpretation”], and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.”

So the people did indeed understand the law (8:12), but not without much assistance — not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself, but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc.

Felix Lopez, one of my Facebook friends, observed along these lines:

We rely on experts for just about every aspect of our lives even indirectly and unconsciously most of the time. Ever since infancy we relied on others to teach us English, math, and practical wisdom, etc. We trust scientists for various facts and theories. We rely on historians to do similar investigations of the past for secular texts and events. Why should the subject of theology and the Bible be any different? Should we abandon everything we’ve learned in other subjects and claim none of it existed?

***

Photo credit: geralt (5-8-19) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Pearce’s Potshots #14: Resurrection “Contradictions” #2

Last updated on: February 4, 2021 at 1:39 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist anti-theist Jonathan M. S. Pearce is the main writer on the blog, A Tippling Philosopher. His “About” page states: “Pearce is a philosopher, author, blogger, public speaker and teacher from Hampshire in the UK. He specialises in philosophy of religion, but likes to turn his hand to science, psychology, politics and anything involved in investigating reality.” .

*****

I am replying to the post on Jonathan’s site, “Contradictions in the Resurrection of Jesus Accounts” (1-31-21): a guest-post written by one David Austin. This is my second reply. The first dealt with the 18-point chart. Now I tackle the text after it. David Austin’s words will be in blue.

*****

Paul has no mention of an empty tomb; Just Jesus was “buried”.

Acts 13:28-37 (RSV) Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed. [29] And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. [30] But God raised him from the dead; [31] and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people. [32] And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, [33] this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, `Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.’ [34] And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, `I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ [35] Therefore he says also in another psalm, `Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.’ [36] For David, after he had served the counsel of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid with his fathers, and saw corruption; [37] but he whom God raised up saw no corruption.

[“tomb” was mentioned in 13:29, then Paul says Jesus was “raised him from the dead.” That’s an “empty tomb” is it not?: by straightforward logical deduction. Jesus wasn’t there anymore, and “for many days he appeared” (13:31). Inexorable conclusion: empty tomb!] There are many many more references to Jesus’ Resurrection in Paul:

Acts 17:2-3 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, [3] explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”

Acts 17:30-31 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, [31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.”

Acts 26:22-23 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: [23] that the Christ must suffer, and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.”

Romans 1:4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Romans 4:24 . . . It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,

[see also: Rom 4:24-25; 6:4-5, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:3-8, 12-17, 20; 2 Cor 4:14; 5:15; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Phil 3:10; Col 2:12; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8]

Normal practice with crucified victims was for their bodies to rot on the cross, and then thrown into a mass grave.

It’s pretty impossible to argue that there could be no conceivable exceptions to this “normal practice” ever. So it’s much ado about nothing. But Protestant apologist Timothy Paul Jones offers an excellent rebuttal to this argument (fashionable among atheists and skeptics): “Is it Possible That Jesus’ Body Was Left on the Cross?” (4-6-12).

According to Paul, if the Resurrection had not occurred, then Christians’ faith is in vain. One would, therefore, expect the Resurrection to be the best corroborated event in the NT, but, as you can see, in the above chart, this is NOT the case. If there are contradictions, this means at least one account (& maybe more) is incorrect.

That’s why I wrote this paper and the one before it. I believe I refuted all 18 alleged contradictions, so there is nothing to the charge. And if indeed contradictions aren’t demonstrable, as I contend, then it means that the atheists coming up with such bogus nonsense have a serious problem with 1) logic and [possibly] 2) reading comprehension. They certainly don’t — on the whole — have a clue about biblical exegesis. I’ve shown that over and over in my refutations of atheist “exegetes”: who approach the Bible (as I always say) like a butcher approaches a hog.

The four Gospels are anonymous; The “authorship” of these writings was a 2nd Century addition and was merely speculation by the early Church. The gospels were written in Greek, but it is generally agreed that Jesus & the Disciples spoke Aramaic and were “unlettered”.

Tax collectors for the Romans were in fact, literate and well-educated. Thus, Matthew very likely would have known Greek and Latin. We learn from Colossians 4:14 that Luke was a medical doctor. Wyatt Graham observed:

Consider for example the testimony of a bishop named Papias [c. 60-c. 130 AD] who lived while some disciples of Jesus still lived. For example, he had access to John the elder and Ariston, who were disciples of Jesus. He also knew of the daughters of Phillip who lived nearby to him (Acts 21:8–9). And Papias records the words of one of Jesus’ disciples by the name of John the Elder regarding Mark’s Gospel:

And the elder used to say this: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For [Mark] neither heard the Lord nor [accompanied] him, but afterward, as I said, [accompanied] Peter. (Frag. Pap. 3.15; I modified slightly Holmes’ translation) . . .

Papias also records that Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew (Frag. Pap. 3.16). So, Papias lived while disciples of Jesus still lived, and he also lived when the Gospels were being written (or was born around this period). And it is Papias who affirms that Peter committed his preaching to words through Mark’s hand (through the testimony of John). And it is Papias who affirms that Matthew, an apostle of Jesus, wrote the Gospel according to Matthew.

As for Luke as the author of the book bearing his name, see: “Who Wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts” by Brian Chilton (7-2-17), and by the same writer: “Who Wrote the Gospel of John?” (9-3-17). Chilton thinks that John dictated his Gospel.

Matthew & Mark have the women being instructed for the Disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee.

So what? Unless they say something like “this is the only time they saw the risen Jesus” there is no contradiction. It gets very tiresome having to reiterate elementary logic over and over.

Matthew has the Disciples’ one & only sighting of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee.

This is an absolutely classic and “textbook” example of the dumbfounded and intellectually dishonest methodology of atheist Bible-bashers: seeing “contradictions” under every rock. Nothing in the text of Matthew even remotely hints at this being the “one & only sighting of Jesus.” That’s simply a groundless, completely arbitrary extrapolation from David Austin’s brain with nothing to back it up.

The original manuscripts of Mark end at Chapter 16 verse 8 (Frightened women run from the tomb and tell no-one). . . . Since the women, in Mark, don’t tell the Disciples about what they were told, we can only speculate whether they ever met Jesus at all.

I dealt with this claim concerning the supposed non-canonicity of Mark 16:9-20 in the previous paper. But even if one accepts the shorter version of Mark 16, I wrote about 16:8 in another paper on this same topic:

1) The last clause gives no indication of how long they “said nothing.” It may not have been very long at all. We can only guess or speculate. 2) “Said nothing” with no indication of how long the silence was, is not the same thing as saying that they never mentioned it to anyone, ever.

Luke & John contradict Matthew. Luke has two Jesus meetings with the Disciples, prior to a locked room meeting, (ie. With two Disciples on the road to Emmaus, and a meeting with Peter {time & location unspecified}) followed by a meeting with all Eleven Disciples in a room in Jerusalem. At this meeting, Jesus specifically tells them NOT to leave Jerusalem until “clothed in power from on high” (ie Pentecost). No 2nd meeting in Jerusalem or Galilee meeting.

Unlike Luke, John has the 1st sighting of Jesus by Ten Disciples in a locked room in Jerusalem, followed by two more appearances to them; 2nd in Jerusalem to Eleven and 3rd at the Sea of Tiberias to seven (This appearance specifically noted as the 3rd, hence NO prior visit to Galilee, “Road to Emmaus” or separate meeting with Peter). . . . Paul’s Corinthians 15:3 states that the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus was to Cephas (Peter), but according to the Gospel accounts the first witness(es) would be Mary Magdalene & the other Mary, Mary Magdalene alone, or Cleopas & another un-named Disciple, not Peter.

For a quite sufficient explanation, see the article, “To Galilee or Jerusalem?” by Eric Lyons, at the excellent Apologetics Press website. Here is the heart of his argument:

The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction. For there to be a bona fide contradiction, not only must one be referring to the same person, place, or thing in the same sense, but the same time period must be under consideration. . . .

Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16).

Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12). None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. . . .

Still, one may ask, “Why did Jesus command His apostles to ‘tarry in the city of Jerusalem’ on the day of His resurrection until they were ‘endued with power from on high’ (Luke 24:49), if He really wanted them to meet Him in Galilee?” Actually, it is an assumption to assert that Jesus made the above statement on the same day that He arose from the grave. One thing we must keep in mind as we study the Bible is that it normally is not as concerned about chronology as modern-day writings.

Frequently (especially in the gospel accounts), writers went from one subject to the next without giving the actual time or the exact order in which something was done or taught (cf. Luke 4:1-3; Matthew 4:1-11). In Luke 24, the writer omitted the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee (mentioned by both Matthew and John). However, notice that he never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day He rose from the grave until the day He ascended up into heaven.

See also an article from the always superb Christian Think Tank site, by Glenn Miller, entitled, “Do the Resurrection accounts HOPELESSLY contradict one another?” He includes the following summary of Protestant theologian and exegete Murray Harris’ chronological schema of post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus:

1. Mary Magdalene followed Peter and John to the tomb, saw two angels inside, and then met Jesus (John 20: 11-17; cf Mark 16:9).

2. Mary (the mother of James and Joses) and Salome met Jesus and were directed to tell his brethren to go to Galilee (Matt. 28:9-10).

3. During the afternoon Jesus appeared to two disciples on the way to Emmaus. They then returned to Jerusalem to report the appearance to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:13-35; c£ Mark 16:12-13).

4. Jesus appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15 :5).

5. That evening Jesus appeared to the Eleven and others (Luke 24:33), Thomas being absent (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23; 1 Cor. 15:5; cf Mark 16:14).

6. One week later Jesus appeared to the Eleven, Thomas being present (John 20:26-29) .

7. Seven disciples had an encounter with Jesus by the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21: 1-22).

8. The Eleven met Jesus on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20; cf Mark 16:15-18).

9. Jesus appeared to more than five hundred people (Luke 24:44-49; 1 Cor. 15:6).

10. He appeared to James (1 Cor. 15 :7) .

11. Immediately before his ascension, Jesus appeared to the Eleven near Bethany (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor. 15:7; cf Mark 16: 19-20).

Assuming the women had gone to anoint the body, how did they expect to gain access to the body with the stone in position, and guards barring the entrance? (Note: Only Matthew mentions guards at the tomb) Protestant apologist William Lane Craig adequately refutes this:

Would that have kept the women away? Well, maybe so, but only if they knew of the guard. But did they know? When you read Mark and Matthew’s accounts of the women’s observation of Jesus’ interment (Mark 15.46-47; Matthew 27.57-61), what you find is that the guard was not posted on Friday when the women watched Joseph inter the body in the tomb. The guard was something of an afterthought on the part of the Jewish authorities, who went to Pilate on the following day (Saturday) to ask that the tomb be sealed and a guard posted before it.

Saturday was, of course, the Jewish Sabbath, and Luke records of the women that “On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23.56). Like the male disciples, they may have remained in seclusion all that day (cf. John 20.19). So there’s no reason at all to think that when the women set out for the tomb at early dawn on Sunday morning, they expected to find that the tomb was guarded and sealed. That’s why “they were saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?’” (Mark 16.3). They didn’t know if anybody would be there. So I see no problem in affirming the compatibility of Matthew’s guard story with the women’s intent to anoint Jesus’ corpse.

As to the stone, Fr. Charles Grondin proposes two possible solutions to the proposed “difficulty”:

The women had seen where Jesus had been placed (Mark 15:47) but might not have stayed long enough to see the stone rolled in front of the tomb, and they asked the question recorded in Mark 16:3 only once they saw the stone from a distance. . . .

The woman expected to encounter other people either along the way or in the vicinity who could roll it back for them—for example, the gardener (John 20:15).

Why was stone rolled away if Jesus could enter locked rooms? Maybe for some-one to remove the body?

Orthodox Christian Network answers this:

There can hardly be any Christian believer who doesn’t know that an angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone from the entry to the tomb where the Creator of life lay dead, without breath. Very few, however really know why the stone was rolled away. Most people confuse two things which are independent of each other: the Lord’s exit from the tomb and the rolling away of the stone.

In other words, they think that the angel came down and rolled away the stone so that the Lord could emerge, that when He did so there was an earthquake which terrified the guards to such an extent that they ‘became as if dead’. This is not only what ordinary Christians believe, but even what some of those who preach the Gospel think. In many icons of the Resurrection, in fact, both Byzantine and Western, we see the angel taking away the stone and the Lord emerging from the tomb, while the guards, terrified at the sight of Him, fall down as if dead.

This is historically inaccurate! If you study the Gospel of Matthew carefully, you’ll see that the Lord had emerged from the tomb before the descent of the angel, the rolling away of the stone, and the earthquake which occurred at the same time. The stone was rolled away, not so that the Lord could emerge, but to demonstrate that He’d already done so.

If Mary’s tomb visit (in John) was earlier than the visit in Matthew, why did she not encounter any guards?

Because, as John 20:1 states, she “saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.” An angel had already removed the stone and as a result, “the guards trembled and became like dead men” (Mt 28:4). Presumably they also fled as a result (likely for fear of their lives, for the penalty for not properly guarding something was death in Roman law); therefore, Mary didn’t see them.

Matthew & John say the women/woman met Jesus at the tomb, but Mark & Luke says there was NO such meeting.

Where do Mark and Luke say there was no such meeting? They don’t. So this is just another non-contradiction that atheists somehow conjure up as an authentic one. To not mention something is logically not the same as denying the same thing. The latter would have been a contradiction if Mark and Luke actually did it. But they didn’t, so it isn’t. But it’s another classic example of atheist special pleading.

The women in Luke see two men inside the tomb BEFORE Peter inspects the empty tomb, but John says that Mary Magdalene saw two angels inside the tomb AFTER Peter & Beloved Disciple had inspected the tomb.

So what? Angels could have been there both times.

The ascension of Jesus is only mentioned in Luke, apparently on the same day as his resurrection (contradicted in Acts [supposedly also written by “Luke”] which says Jesus remained on earth for forty days).

I answer that in this paper: Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18]

How did the chief priests and Pharisees know that Jesus would be resurrected after 3 days when the Disciples didn’t seem to understand this?

Two Bible commentaries (writing about Matthew 27:63) provide answers:

It appears, then, that though they had deliberately stirred up the passions of the people by representing the mysterious words of John 2:14 as threatening a literal destruction of the Temple (Matthew 26:61; Matthew 27:40), they themselves had understood, wholly or in part, their true meaning. We are, perhaps, surprised that they should in this respect have been more clear-sighted than the disciples, but in such a matter sorrow and disappointment confuse, and suspicion sharpens the intellect. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

after three days I will rise again: now, though he said to his to his disciples privately, Matthew 16:21, yet not clearly and expressly to the Scribes and Pharisees; wherefore they must either have it from Judas, and lied in saying they remembered it: or they gathered it either from what he said concerning the sign of the prophet Jonas, Matthew 12:40, or rather from his words in John 2:19, and if so, they acted a most wicked part, in admitting a charge against him, as having a design upon their temple, to destroy it, and then rebuild it in three days; when they knew those words were spoken by him concerning his death, and resurrection from the dead: they remembered this, when the disciples did not: bad men have sometimes good memories, and good men bad ones; so that memory is no sign of grace, (Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible)

Who witnessed this meeting when guards were sent to secure the tomb? Who witnessed the meeting between the guards and the chief priests when a bribe was suggested?

Simply because we can’t determine either thing from the texts alone, doesn’t mean or logically follow that there were none, or that this person or persons could not have communicated it to Matthew. Matthew may have also received it by direct revelation from God (under the Christian view that the Bible is inspired writing and God’s revelation to mankind). In any event, this is not a “contradiction”; only an unknown (two different things). But certainly plausible hypotheses exist.

Paul says Jesus appeared to “The Twelve” but if Judas Iscariot was no longer a Disciple, there would be only eleven of them left for Jesus to appear to, not twelve.

Protestant apologist Eric Lyons provides the rebuttal:

Numerous alleged Bible discrepancies arise because skeptics frequently interpret figurative language in a literal fashion. They treat God’s Word as if it were a dissertation on the Pythagorean theorem rather than a book written using ordinary language. . . . The simple solution to this numbering “problem” is that “the twelve” to which Paul referred was not a literal number, but the designation of an office. This term is used merely “to point out the society of the apostles, who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterward filled up” (Clarke, 1996). Gordon Fee stated that Paul’s use of the term “twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5 “is a clear indication that in the early going this was a title given to the special group of twelve whom Jesus called to ‘be with him’ (Mark 3:14).

This figurative use of numbers is just as common in English vernacular as it was in the ancient languages. In certain collegiate sports, one can refer to the Big Ten conference, which consists of 14 teams, or the Atlantic Ten conference, which is also made up of 14 teams. At one time, these conferences only had ten teams, but when they exceeded that number, they kept their original conference “names.” Their names are a designation for a particular conference, not a literal number.

In 1884, the term “two-by-four” was coined to refer to a piece of lumber two-by-four inches. Interestingly, a two-by-four still is called a two-by-four, even though today it is trimmed to slightly smaller dimensions (1 5/8 by 3 5/8). Again, the numbers are more of a designation than a literal number.

Biblical use of “the twelve” as a designation for the original disciples is strongly indicated in many Gospel passages. Jesus Himself did this: “Did I not choose you, the twelve . . .?” (Jn 6:70). He didn’t say, “did I not choose you twelve men.” By saying, “the twelve” in the way He did, it’s proven that it was a [not always literal] title for the group. Hence, John refers to “Thomas, one of the twelve” after Judas departed, and before he was replaced by Matthias (Jn 20:24). Paul simply continues the same practice. It was also used because “twelve” was an important number in biblical thinking (40 and 70 are two other such numbers). For a plain and undeniable example of this, see Revelation 21:12, 14, 21.

Luke contradicts himself in 3 places during this Resurrection account :- a) Early text states the women meet 2 men inside the tomb, but later says the women met 2 angels there. b) Early text has “only” Peter inspecting the empty tomb, but later text has “some” Disciples going to the tomb.

These two are simply not contradictions, as shown last time.

Early text has Jesus’ body being wrapped in a cloth, but later, the Disciples see cloths in the empty tomb. Matthew, Mark & Luke say Joseph wrapped Jesus’ body in “a clean linen cloth” (ie one cloth), but John says “linen cloths, as per Jewish tradition. John has the Disciples, when inspecting the empty tomb, seeing a separate cloth that covered Jesus’ head, & Luke mentions the Disciples seeing cloths.

Ethan R. Longhenry explains:

[O]ne particular detail is associated with Peter and John’s visitation to the tomb in John 20:4-7 . . . : the othonion, the linen cloths, were lying on the ground, and the soudarion, normally a handkerchief but also used to cover the head of a corpse (cf. Luke 19:20, John 11:44, Acts 19:12), was in its own place and rolled up. They were the only things left in the otherwise empty tomb.

Today we tend to dress up the dead in their best clothing or in some sort of clothing most special to them. In first century Judea it was customary to wrap the dead body in strips of linen cloths (othonion) and covering the face with the soudarion.

So this is two different things (apples and oranges). It’s not a “contradiction” (as I have by now explained umpteen times) because the head napkin is not mentioned by all accounts. The latter’s existence is not expressly denied (which would be a contradiction). It would be like the time I wore a suit and also my fedora to a wedding. Someone might say, “Dave was dressed up in his nicest suit” and another could say, “Dave was wearing his ‘gangster’ pinstriped suit and also a cool hat.” Both are true, and they are not contradictory. I was wearing a [pinstriped] suit, and I was wearing a hat, and I was wearing both.

When will anti-theist atheists hellbent on opposing the Bible at every turn, ever comprehend these elementary things? This is far from rocket science. Dumbfounded atheist attempted biblical “exegesis” — besides often being hysterically funny — seems to be an ongoing proof of Romans 1:21-22 (RSV): “. . . they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,”

NB: Mark has Joseph of Arimathea buying a linen cloth. How could he buy this cloth when all shops were closed for Passover?

Theology Web hosted a discussion on this non-issue (“Joseph of Arimathea Buying Linen On Passover?”) in which one of the commenters shredded this “gotcha” question:

The imagined issue here is that it was illegal to work and to buy or sell goods on Passover per the following passages: [cites Ex 12:16; Lev 23:6-7; Neh 10:31]

Joseph, who was prominent on the council, would appear to be publicly breaking Jewish law by buying linen on Passover, and he couldn’t do it on the Sabbath (which was the next day) either. There appear to be a number of solutions to this issue though. So, starting with NT scholar Harold Hoehner, “The purchases of Joseph of Arimathea were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath (and on a feast day).” His source for this is Mishnah Shabbath 23.4[:] “One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary for a bride and for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter.” “By ‘techoom’ is meant the distance of 2,000 ells [7,500 feet] which a man may traverse on the Sabbath, and refers to the limits of that distance.”

Hoehner also cites Gustaf Dalman’s Jesus – Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels (1929), where Dalman points out that these were extenuating circumstances. A criminal who had been hung (crucifixion was a type of hanging) had to be buried by nightfall to prevent the land from being defiled and burial on the Sabbath was likely not permitted. The body couldn’t lay out in the hot Judean environment for two days. It had to be buried,

See related papers:

Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection “Contradictions” [1-26-11]

Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection “Contradictions”? [9-17-18]

***

Photo credit: geralt (1-23-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Atheists, Biblical “Contradictions” & the Plausibility Issue

Last updated on: February 5, 2021 at 12:45 pm By Dave Armstrong

This exchange with atheist Eric came about after he analyzed my recent post, Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?), in which I responded to a “laundry list of 18 alleged contradictions in the biblical accounts, in a neat little chart.” He responded in a combox on the web page of Jonathan M. S. Pearce, called A Tippling Philosopher. His words will be in blue. I will add further exchanges here if they take place in that venue.

*****

Allow me to summarize his arguments for you [replying to Jonathan M. S. Pearce]:

#s 1-4, 8-18 … You can’t prove logical contradiction in these cases, since it’s possible each gospel omits story-relevant events and appearances recorded in the other gospels. So to use #3 as an example, Mary visiting the tomb before dawn (John) vs. during dawn (Mark) could be explained by her visiting the tomb twice.

#s 5-7, 17… while the plain meaning of the text in these cases might be contradictory, “close examination” hinging on verb tense or alternate word usage or somesuch can be used to remove the contradiction. To use #5 as an example, if we interpret Matthew’s earthquake and stone-rolling to have occurred in the past rather than the standard plain text interpretation of it occurring when the women visit, this removes the contradiction with the other gospels who don’t report any earthquake and have the stone already rolled away when people show up.

#17 appears in both lists because it requires both: it requires passages typically considered to be describing the same event to be describing two different events, and it requires a “close examination” of the verbiage of ‘receive the holy spirit’ vs. ‘filled with the holy spirit’ to say the different verbiage must mean they are talking about different things.

***

To this layperson, 2, 9, 11, 15, and 18 don’t pose any major challenge to the narrative; these are ‘simple omissions’ where either some minor detail isn’t mentioned or where one gospel ends earlier in the narrative than another. I would agree with Mr. Armstrong that these are not examples of contradiction. However the rest of Mr. Armstrong’s responses are unconvincing to me, as they take an apologetic approach of trying to reason backwards from the ‘non-contradictory’ conclusion to find some interpretation which would be consistent, rather than letting the text speak for itself and concluding contradiction or non-contradiction based on what it says. “You can’t prove a logical contradiction” is not a convincing rebuttal to apparent prose contradiction.

Thanks for your interesting reply, Eric (and please call me Dave!).

Mary visiting the tomb before dawn (John) vs. during dawn (Mark) could be explained by her visiting the tomb twice.

As I showed, this is not even speculation. The same text actually asserts and documents it, as I noted in my reply to #3:

[I]n fact, in the Gospel of John the text does show Mary visiting alone (20:1), then running to tell the disciples the tomb was empty (20:2), and then after “the disciples went back to their homes” (20:10), being outside the tomb again, weeping (20:11) and then seeing the risen Jesus (20:14-17) and then going to the disciples and telling them she saw Jesus risen (20:18).

So it’s not a matter of “could be explained . . .” The text itself does explain that she was there at least twice. Surely, my other replies can be specifically discussed also, rather than being subjected merely to a sweeping “meta-analysis.” When you provided a more specific reply, as in this example of Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb twice, we see that I have a solid answer to it, which was already in my paper (so that you ought to concede this point). Always two sides to every coin . . .

To this layperson, 2, 9, 11, 15, and 18 don’t pose any major challenge to the narrative; these are ‘simple omissions’ where either some minor detail isn’t mentioned or where one gospel ends earlier in the narrative than another. I would agree with Mr. Armstrong that these are not examples of contradiction.

Thank you. This shows that you are interested in serious discussion.

rather than letting the text speak for itself and concluding contradiction or non-contradiction based on what it says.

This gets to the common atheist tactic in biblical discussions of immediately claiming that all (or nearly all) Christian explanations are “implausible” or special pleading and suchlike. You assume what you need to prove, in thinking that all these texts are self-evident before we even get to closely examining them in context, checking the Greek and relevant cross-references, etc. But that issue is a very complex one. What different people find plausible or implausible depends on many factors, including various premises that each hold.

It’s just as wrong and illogical for the atheist to use “implausible” as the knee-jerk reaction to everything a Christian argues about texts, as it is for the Christian to throw out truly implausible or unlikely replies. Both things are extremes. Neither side can simply blurt out “implausible!” or “eisegesis!” without getting down to brass tacks and actually grappling with the text and its interpretation in a serious way. We can’t — on either side — simply do a meta-analysis and speak about replies rather than directly engage them.

Agree or disagree with me, I have undeniably engaged each point (as I have also done in my even more in-depth follow-up reply to the text after the 18 bullet points: soon to be published). To prove that any of my 18 explanations are “implausible” requires more than merely asserting that they are. Bald assertion is not argument. It’s proclamation. Now granted, I did offer only brief replies to some, and noted that the argument of silence, etc., is what was in play, so that it was a non-issue. But you granted that I made a valid point in five instances, which is 28% of the entire list of 18, and so, not insignificant in the overall analysis.

But as for plausibility in general, Protestant apologist Glenn Miller noted about it:

“Plausibility” is a notoriously subjective concept, and one that engages epistemologists to no end. Oxford dictionaries define “plausible” as “seeming reasonable or probable”, but this will not get us very far. What seems “reasonable” to one may seem unreasonable to another. “Reasonable” could entail simply the notion can I can make a “rational” argument–one in which a conclusion is supported by some appeal to accepted premises or evidence. In the case of “reasonable”, all one has to do is demonstrate that the explanation under question is POSSIBLE, given what we know about the situation and players in the scenario under study.

“Probability” is, however, of somewhat more strength, but is still very loaded. Probability would need to be greater than 25-30%, say, for something to be considered ‘plausible’, but even the determination of some “threshold” percentage will be difficult in historical events. Given this somewhat ambiguous criterion, let’s examine two skeptical passages to see how this ‘plausibility’ criterion plays out.

[he then does fabulous lengthy refuting examinations of skepticism from Dr. Robert Price and Farrell Till]

apparent prose contradiction

This is clever, but it is woefully insufficient. Grammar and interpretation of statements often becomes as complex of an issue as plausibility. But in any event, logical contradiction is an entity in and of itself, and there is an entire field behind it (logic) that is regarded as a subset of mathematics, as much as philosophy. Many times in atheist polemics, “contradiction!” is thrown out about as much as “my opponent is lying!” is thrown out in political campaigns. It’s gotten to the point where it often means nothing at all, and is easily refuted with just a few moments of closer scrutiny. I’m pretty sure there is something in the famous ancient Chinese book, The Art of War, to the effect of “never underestimate your opponent.”

[“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”]

Atheists do this all the time, and it leads them to many foolish and unsubstantiated conclusions, because they are so determined to make the Christian out a fool and an imbecile at every turn. Such extreme bias often leads to shoddy reasoning; jumping the gun, excessive “protest” (a la Queen Gertrude’s line in Shakespeare’s Hamlet), etc. I don’t think you’re doing that here, which is why your counter-reply is so refreshing to see.

***

See follow-up discussion: “Difficulty” in Understanding the Bible: Hebrew Cultural Factors [2-5-21]

***

Photo credit: BarbaraALane (3-5-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Pearce’s Potshots #13: Resurrection “Contradictions” (?)

Last updated on: February 2, 2021 at 12:23 pm By Dave Armstrong

*****

I am replying to Jonathan’s paper, “Contradictions in the Resurrection of Jesus Accounts” (1-31-21), which is apparently actually written by one David Austin, but in any event, wholly endorsed by Jonathan. It starts out with the usual laundry list of 18 alleged contradictions in the biblical accounts, in a neat little chart. This stuff makes the anti-theist atheist Bible bashers drool. They love it.

Most of these sorts of “alleged contradictions” are simply recycled from some prior standard “playbook” atheist volume, which may even be a few hundred years old. I highly doubt that most atheists actually sit reading the Bible, to come up with these bogus “contradictions.” That’s why most of these things never cross most Christians’ minds (including my own): because you have to work very hard to notice them in the first place.

Atheists most assuredly do not love it, however, when Christians refute their bogus biblical claims. I have done so scores of times, and it’s almost always so easy — usually involving the simplest of logical errors — that I have come to enjoy these challenges quite a bit; gives me something fun to do. Answering all 18 points in the chart only took me a few hours. Readers can view the chart at the link above. I shall respond to each point by number below.

1) “Women at Tomb“: Not contradictory because in questions of numbers of people said to do something or be somewhere, etc., an actual logical contradiction requires exclusionary clauses such as “only x, y, and z were there and no one else” or “only three people witnessed incident a.” None of the Gospel texts do that here; hence, no demonstrable contradiction (see Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1-10; Jn 20:1). Some atheists who concede this logical shortcoming will nonetheless (rather desperately) go on to argue that it is still a “contradiction” in some sense because, after all, the texts don’t all say exactly the same thing.

Unfortunately, that’s not how logic works, and it is ridiculous and downright unrealistic to “demand” that four separate accounts written by as many people must report what was seen in identical fashion; otherwise, the ubiquitous atheist cry of “contradiction!” will raise its ugly and obnoxious head.

2) “Guards at the tomb“: Not a contradiction merely because Matthew mentions this and the other three Gospels don’t. Arguments from silence prove nothing. A true contradiction would require one or more of the other three to say something like “the tomb was unguarded.” That‘s a direct contradiction. It would be nice if once in a while atheists could actually produce one of those. As it is, they make fools of themselves all the time with these pseudo-“contradictions” that aren’t at all. It’s embarrassing.

One would think that logic (like fresh air, cute puppies, and the joy of ice cream) is something where Christians and atheists could readily agree with each other. But sadly, that’s not the case: at least not in the “1001 biblical contradictions” sub-group of anti-theist atheists. They wouldn’t know a real contradiction from a hole in the ground.

3) “Time of women’s visit“: the descriptions in RSV are “toward the dawn . . . [they] went to see the sepulchre” (Mt 28:1) [David Austin describes it as “day was dawning”], “very early . . . they went to the tomb when the sun had risen” (Mk 16:2), “at early dawn, they went to the tomb” (Lk 24:1) — clearly no contradiction so far — “; then we have: “Mary Mag’dalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark” (Jn 20:1). A plausible resolution is to posit that John describes an earlier visit of Mary Magdalene only. She then would have gone back with other women (since she is mentioned in all four accounts — as the chart notes in #1 –, but alone only in John 20:1).

The inevitable atheist objection might then be: “well, then why didn’t the text say it was an earlier visit?” Because it doesn’t have to. It’s a silly demand. They would simply be describing different visits to the tomb. It would be like my saying, “my daughter got up and ate breakfast” [and shortly after I went off to work], and my wife [stay-at-home mom] saying [referring to the same morning], “my daughter and her brother ate brunch together.”

Though the two accounts don’t reference each other, they don’t contradict at all. Our daughter ate two meals; one being alone and the other not. But in fact, in the Gospel of John the text does show Mary visiting alone (20:1), then running to tell the disciples the tomb was empty (20:2), and then after “the disciples went back to their homes” (20:10), being outside the tomb again, weeping (20:11) and then seeing the risen Jesus (20:14-17) and then going to the disciples and telling them she saw Jesus risen (20:18).

4) “Reason for visit“: Matthew says two women “went to see the sepulchre”; that is, they wanted to see if it was left as it was when Jesus was laid there: in order to apply burial spices. What other reason would there be? Mark and Luke mention the intent to anoint Jesus’ body. Matthew doesn’t contradict that. It simply (arguably) describes it in different terms. John gives no reason, but again, the logical thing is to assume it is referring to anointing of the body. They wanted to get it done as soon as the sun came up. It was Jewish ritual. In April 2019 I refuted atheist Bob Seidensticker (one of 71 unanswered times) regarding Jewish burial spices. I made a humorous (but quite apt) analogy in that paper, relevant to this section:

First of all, just because John does not state the reason why Mary went to the tomb, it doesn’t follow that no reason existed. This is not a contradiction. . . . One might say, by the same token: “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Bob Seidensticker went to the bathroom”. Did he go there for “no reason” too? Or is it reasonable to assume that he must have had some reason, which was not stated in this particular description, but also is not that difficult to surmise? Maybe an additional account (say, Bob’s diary) could conceivably inform us that he went to empty his bladder, comb his hair, and brush his teeth (and perhaps also to spend a minute admiring a sophist in the mirror).

Austin noted twice that John stated that the body was already anointed. But it’s plausible to hold that the women thought it was hastily or insufficiently done after the crucifixion, for lack of time, since it was getting dark. So they went again (after the Sabbath day was over). It’s just another trumped-up faux-“contradiction” that is not at all. One wearies of this. Believe me, as an apologist who deals with this all the time, it’s far beyond frustrating by now. On the other hand, I’m delighted to have these golden opportunities to demonstrate the bankruptcy of anti-theist attempts to tear down the Bible and Christianity.

5) “Stone rolled away“: Matthew seems to mention it as occurring in the women’s presence; the other three Gospels portray it as having already happened when they got there. Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard ably tackles this one:

Once again, the objection makes a false assumption—namely, that Matthew is intending to assert that the women witnessed the angel rolling away the stone. But a close examination of the text proves otherwise. First, as A. Jones argues in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, the entire passage concerning the angel, the stone, and the guards who “trembled and became like dead men” (Matt. 28:2-4) seems to be a parenthetical statement. It’s unlikely that the women would have conversed with the angel while the guards laid there as if dead.

*

Furthermore, the details concerning the angel and the stone are introduced with the Greek conjunction gar: “And behold, there was a great earthquake; for [Greek, gar] an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it” (28:2, emphasis added). Such an explanatory conjunction is used to introduce a clarification of a previous part of the sentence. For Matthew, the angel rolling away the stone is his explanation for the earthquake, not to assert that the women witnessed a stone-moving spectacle.

*

This answer could be further supported by Matthew’s use of an indicative mood in the aorist verb tense of ginomai: “And behold, there was [Greek, egeneto] a great earthquake” (28:2, emphasis added). The aorist verb tense in the indicative mood usually denotes the simple past. So a possible translation is “an earthquake had occurred,” implying the women didn’t witness it. Even the angel’s descent can be described as having already occurred, since the aorist participle katabas (“descended”) can be translated with the English past perfect: “for an angel of the Lord had descended” (28:2; ISV, emphasis added). (“Biblical Resurrection Reports Are Not ‘Hopelessly Contradictory’ “, Catholic Answers, 7-11-17)

6) “Earthquake“: Only Matthew mentions it, but this is explained in the explanation provided for #5 above. It was a past incident.

7) “Angels/men seen at the tomb“: Again, the explanation in #5 accounts for the uniqueness of Matthew’s account (angel sitting on a rolled-away stone). The various reports of angels’ actions are not necessarily contradictory at all. Angels are (in the biblical view: believe it or not), extraordinary supernatural creatures, and they do lots of appearing and disappearing. Austin makes an issue out of Matthew and John referring to “angels” but Mark and Luke calling them “men.” But he notes that in Luke they were later referred to as “angels” (24:23).

And that’s because both terms are used for angels. In Genesis 19, for example, “two angels” visit Lot (19:1), but in the same passage they are also called “men” twice (19:10, 12) and then “angels” again (19:15) and “men” again (19:16). In Judges 13, this interchangeability is striking, with reference to an “angel” (13:3, 6, 9, 13, 15-18, 20-21) and “man” (13:6, 10-11): referring to the same being.

8) “Did women/woman enter tomb?“: Mark and Luke say they did. Matthew and John don’t. But to contradict the other two reports, they would have to outright deny that it happened. And of course they don’t do that, so (sorry, guys!), no contradiction is present. Matthew strongly implies that they did, however, because the angel says to them, “Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead . . .” (28:6-7).

9) “Did disciple[s] visit tomb?“: John says Peter and John (“the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved”: John’s humble terminology to refer to himself); Luke says “Some of those who were with us [i.e., apostles: 24:10, 13] went to the tomb” [24:24]. It doesn’t specify Peter, as Austin claims, but it might be taken as strongly implied by “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” (24:34). No contradiction so far (by the same logical criteria I have repeatedly explained, here, and many times to atheists in the past).

Matthew doesn’t specifically say, but it says that the women “ran to tell his disciples” (28:8). Now what would you do if you were Jesus’ disciples — in despair over His crucifixion — and were told that He had risen from the dead? Of course, you would run to the tomb to see, which is exactly what Luke and John report, and which Matthew surely strongly insinuates. Austin presupposes the view that Mark 16:9-20 is not actually part of the Gospel. For a great refutation of that, see Dave Miller: “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Apologetics Press, 2005 [link] ). But either way, Mark 16 (long or short) doesn’t specifically say that a disciple went to the tomb. But it doesn’t deny it, either, so it is the good ol’ notorious argument from silence again. So: no problem in the final analysis.

10) “Did disciple[s] enter tomb?“: John says Peter and John did; the others say nothing (argument of silence and thus, no contradiction). To not mention something is not the same as a denial. If I don’t mention that the sun came up this morning, it doesn’t follow that I denied it. If I forget to say “I love you” to my wife one day, I highly doubt that she will conclude that I don’t, based only on that. This kind of “reasoning” is just dumb. It’s unworthy of any thinking person.

11) “What did disciple[s] see?“: Luke and John saw “linen” cloths in the tomb. Matthew and Mark are silent; so no contradiction. Atheists seem to not realize that the four Gospels are obviously complementary to one another. No single one of them is required to report every jot and tittle of an event. They differ (but don’t contradict) just as any four witnesses of a crime usually will report or emphasize different aspects of the truth of what occurred, and perhaps miss some details that other witnesses saw. All of them together, if consistent, verify each other’s claims.

Likewise, what one Gospel doesn’t mention is usually mentioned by another. In fact, this silly chart bears strong witness to that, even in its dumbfounded opposition to biblical inspiration and harmony. I’m sitting here (as always) having my faith in biblical inspiration strengthened, because the critical objections are so ridiculously weak and non-substantial. This is the blessing of apologetics.

12) “Did women/woman meet Jesus?“: Since Mark and Luke are silent on this aspect, they can’t contradict. Austin attempts to make hay out of the women grabbing Jesus’ feet and worshiping Him in Matthew, but Mary Magdalene later being told “not to touch” Jesus in John 20:17. A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament explains this:

Touch me not (mh mou aptou). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” Jesus allowed the women to take hold of his feet (ekrathsan) and worship (prosekunhsan) as we read in Matthew 28:9 . The prohibition here reminds Mary that the previous personal fellowship by sight, sound, and touch no longer exists and that the final state of glory was not yet begun. Jesus checks Mary’s impulsive eagerness (A T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, John 20:17).

Almost all more recent English translations reflect this more specific (prolonged, more intense) sense of touch: *

RSV: hold

*

TEV / NIV / NRSV / Beck: hold on to

*

NAB: holding on to

*

ESV / NKJV / Weymouth / Barclay / Goodspeed / NEB / REB / Jerusalem / Knox / Amplified: cling

*

NASB / Williams / Wuest / Moffatt: clinging

So (guess what?), no contradiction again.

13) “What did Jesus say to the women/woman?“: Mark and Luke are silent; Matthew and John say two different, but not contradictory things. So to be contradictory, one or both would have to say, Jesus said only [whatever]. But they don’t.

14) “Where was 1st Jesus appearance to Disciples?” Mark doesn’t say. The others don’t indicate that their account was the “first” appearance (Austin baldly assumes this to be the case), so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a “contradiction” impossible to undeniably construct).

15) “Where was 2nd Jesus appearance to Disciples?” Matthew and Mark are silent, and so irrelevant. John doesn’t specify that there were no visits in-between the two he mentions, and “first and second” can only apply to his version itself (not to the other Gospels), even if we assume that the two mentioned are directly chronological. The same factors apply to Luke’s account.

16) “Where was 3rd Jesus appearance to Disciples?” Only John mentions a third in his own account, but this doesn’t prove that it is the third time, period. My replies to #14-15 apply here too. These challenges get easier the more they continue! It’s pretty tough to come up with 18 fake biblical “contradictions”; not even one having any validity or force. Whoever devised this list surely flunked logic (assuming he even took it: and that’s a huge assumption).

17) “When did the Disciples receive the ‘Holy Spirit’?“: Matthew, Mark, and Luke are silent. But as Austin notes, Acts [2] places it 50 days later (and most Christians believe Luke wrote Acts). John 20:22 has Jesus visiting ten disciples (minus Thomas and the fallen Judas) and bestowing on them (“receive“) the Holy Spirit. Acts 2 is a completely different public event, with tongues of fire and speaking in tongues. There is no contradiction present. Here they (disciples and any others, too) are described as being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4). Apples and oranges. An apple doesn’t “contradict” an orange.

18) “When & where did Ascension happen?“: only one mentions it, so how can it be a contradiction? Acts appears at first glance to conflict with Luke (which would be a self-contradiction), but there are adequate explanations for this. I have already dealt with this topic. *

[to be continued]

***

Photo credit: geralt (8-18-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Seidensticker Folly #69: “Difficulties” Aren’t Contradictions

Last updated on: January 4, 2021 at 7:49 pm By Dave Armstrong

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .

Bob (for the record) virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by 10-3-18, following massive, childish name-calling attacks against me, encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my rules for discussion, but (unlike him) provided detailed reasons for why it was justified.

Bob’s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. On 6-30-19, he was chiding someone for something very much like his own behavior: “Spoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, ‘Let me retract my previous statement of X’ or something like that.” Yeah, Bob could! He still hasn’t yet uttered one peep in reply to — now — 68 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.

Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on 12-21-20: “I love people who can make cogent arguments against mine or point out data I hadn’t considered before. What I dislike (and ban) are $#&*%@s who . . . refuse to learn/adapt . . . ignore compelling arguments against their position, and so on.”

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

In his post, “Stupid Christian Argument #40: Interpret Difficult Passages in Light of Clear Ones” (1-2-21; update from 7-21-16), Bob wrote:

This argument is an attempt to wriggle away from Bible verses that make God or Christianity look bad or that contradict each other. “Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones” is advice from Josh McDowell’s New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (page 48).

McDowell makes clear that difficult isn’t actually the issue—it’s contradictions that are the problem.

Nice try. McDowell is talking about biblical passages difficult to interpret. That’s altogether different from an assertion that a contradiction is necessarily present. Bob simply blithely assumes that biblical contradictions are everywhere. Hence, he starts this ludicrous article out by writing, “How can Christians maintain their belief when the Bible is full of contradictions . . .?” Imagine if I said that about atheism?: “How can atheists maintain their belief when atheism is full of self-contradictions?” I do actually believe that, and think I have demonstrated it many times, but simply saying it [to an atheist] is no argument in and of itself. It has to be proven.

And so Bible-Bashing Bob, of course, thinks he has demonstrated biblical contradictions times without number. And I myself have refuted his nonsense 68 times (this one being the 69th). Proof’s in the pudding. Any serious argument will be able to be defended against criticism. And so, of course, Bob defends his argu . . . . er, sorry, I misspoke. Bob never defends his arguments against my critiques. Does that suggest that they are strong and beyond refutation? No, not at all. Quite the contrary. Bob continues:

The mere existence of what McDowell euphemistically calls “difficult” passages is a problem that few apologists admit to. How could verses conflict in a book inspired by a perfect god, even if some argument could be found to harmonize them? If conflicting verses exist, doesn’t that make the Bible look like nothing more than a manmade book? How could God give humanity a book that was at all unclear or ambiguous?

This is shallow, unreflective thinking. I can think of a number of sound, logical reasons why such a book would exist:

1. The Bible is a very lengthy, multi-faceted book by many authors, from long ago, with many literary genres (and in three languages), and cultural assumptions that are foreign to us.

2. The Bible purports to be revelation from an infinitely intelligent God. Thus (even though God simplifies it as much as possible), for us to think that it is an easy thing to immediately grasp and figure out, and would not have any number of “difficulties” for mere human beings to work through, is naive.

3. The Bible itself teaches that authoritative teachers are necessary to properly understand it:

Nehemiah 8:1-2, 7-8 (RSV) And all the people gathered . . . and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. [2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, . . . [7] . . . the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; [34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Acts 8:27-31 “And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship [28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. [29] And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go up and join this chariot.’ [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ [31] And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”

2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15-16)

Moses was told to teach the Hebrews the statutes and the decisions, not just read them to the people (Exod. 18:20). The Levitical priests interpreted the biblical injunctions (Deut. 17:11). Ezra, a priest and a scribe, taught the Jewish Law to Israel, and his authority was binding (Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26).

4. All grand “theories” have components (“anomalies” / “difficulties”) that need to be worked out and explained. For example, scientific theories do not purport to perfectly explain everything. They often have large “mysterious” areas that have to be resolved.

Think of, for example, the “missing links” in evolution. That didn’t stop people from believing in it. Folks believed in gradual Darwinian evolution even though prominent paleontologist and philosopher of science Stephen Jay Gould famously noted that “gradualism was never read from the rocks.”

Even Einstein’s theories weren’t totally confirmed by scientific experiment at first (later they were). That a book like the Bible would have “difficulties” to work through should be perfectly obvious and unsurprising to all.

5. Many proposed “Bible difficulties” are based on illogical thinking or unfamiliarity with biblical genre, etc. Many alleged biblical “contradictions” simply aren’t so, by the rules of logic.

6. Christianity is not a simpleton’s religion. It can be grasped in its basics by the simple and less educated; the masses, but it is very deep the more it is studied and understood. Thus, we would expect the Bible not to be altogether simple. It has complexities, but we can better understand them through human study, just like anything else.

7. All complex documents have to be interpreted. When human beings start reading them, they start to disagree, so that there needs to be some sort of authoritative guide. In law (by analogy), that is the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution.

***

Photo credit: jc_cards (4-17-11) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Moses & Aaron & Their Staff(s): Biblical Contradictions?

Last updated on: November 21, 2020 at 11:45 pm By Dave Armstrong

vs. Dr. Steven DiMattei

Dr. Steven DiMattei is a biblical scholar and author, formally trained in the New Testament and early Christianity, with M.A degrees in Classics and Comparative Literature as well. Rumor has it that he is an atheist, but I haven’t been able to confirm that on his site. He put up a website called Contradictions in the Bible. It seems inactive now (or he has lost interest or moved onto other things: who knows?), but the themes are things I really enjoy discussing and debating, and his articles are still online for all to see; thus fair game for critique — and stimulating food for thought, too. There is almost nothing I like to discuss and think about more than the interpretation of the Bible. Steven wrote in a post dated 5-7-16:

One of my reasons in choosing the word “defend” to describe my aims as a biblical scholar and author was in part to attract Christian apologists to my work and hopefully to get them to read these ancient texts on their terms and from within their own cultural contexts and to create a conversation around the biblical texts, their authors, and their competing beliefs, messages, worldviews, theologies, etc. As you can imagine this has proven quite difficult, nay impossible. Many Christian apologists and fundamentalists just cannot read, or simply identify, the text on its own terms separate from the beliefs and assumptions about the text handed-down through this collection of ancient literature’s title, “the Holy Book.”

Here I am: an apologist quite willing to engage in conversation. It takes two. So we’ll see if Steven is willing to follow through on his stated desire. I have had my own long history (in almost 40 years of apologetics) of “difficult, nay impossible” attempts to discuss matters with many people who tend to be of a few particular belief-systems, though I have no problem talking with anyone who is civil and can stick to a topic. I don’t just say this, I have a demonstrable record of doing it, which is evident on my blog, with its 1000+ dialogues. But as I said, dialogue takes two, and I would add that it also requires a degree of at least minimal mutual respect. Steven’s words will be in blue.

*****

Steven makes a great deal about these alleged biblical contradictions in at least three articles:

#91. Moses’ staff OR Aaron’s staff OR God’s staff? (Ex 4:2, 7:15, 17:20, 9:23, 10:13 vs Ex 7:9-12, 7:19 vs Ex 4:20, )

#92. Does the staff turn into a snake OR a serpent? (Ex 4:3 vs Ex 7:9-10)

#105. Does Moses strike the Nile with his staff for the first plague OR does Aaron with his own staff? (Ex 7:15-18 vs Ex 7:19-20)

I think his fundamental fallacy, spread throughout these articles and many others, is thinking in “either/or” (hyper-rationalistic) terms, as opposed to the “both/and” outlook, which typifies the biblical and ancient Hebrew outlook. We shall see how this is a wrong path and frequent source of confusion in his arguments, and indeed, massively in scores of arguments about alleged biblical contradictions from all sorts of biblical skeptics (I’ve refuted these errors in particulars scores of times, myself).

Exodus 4:2, 7:15, 7:20, 9:23, and 10:13 all indicate that the staff or rod involved in producing Yahweh’s signs was Moses’ staff, perhaps even his personal shepherd’s staff. Indeed 4:2, which introduces the staff in the narrative, seems to imply that it was already on Moses’ person: “‘What’s this in your hand?’ ‘A staff.’”

However, Ex 7:10, 7:12, 7:19, 8:1, and 8:12 refer to the same staff now as “Aaron’s staff” and, more surprisingly, depict Aaron, not Moses, performing the famous rod-to-snake, err -serpent (see #92) sign. But if that weren’t enough then there is the reference in Ex 4:20 to the staff as—literally—“the god’s staff.” So whose staff was this: Yahweh’s, Moses’ or Aaron’s? [#91]

I would say, “why must we necessarily choose?” It could refer to one and the same. The Wikipedia article, “Staff of Moses” observed:

Relation to Aaron’s rod

Because Aaron’s rod and Moses’ rod are both given similar, seemingly interchangeable, powers, Rabbinical scholars debated whether or not the two rods were one and the same. According to the Midrash Yelammedenu (Yalḳ. on Ps. ex. § 869):

the staff with which Jacob crossed the Jordan is identical with that which Judah gave to his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Gen. xxxii. 10, xxxviii. 18). It is likewise the holy rod with which Moses worked (Ex. iv. 20, 21), with which Aaron performed wonders before Pharaoh (Ex. vii. 10), and with which, finally, David slew the giant Goliath (I Sam. xvii. 40). David left it to his descendants, . . .

It has to be understood also that Aaron functioned as Moses’ assistant or representative:

Exodus 4:10-16 (RSV) But Moses said to the LORD, “Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either heretofore or since thou hast spoken to thy servant; but I am slow of speech and of tongue.” [11] Then the LORD said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? [12] Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.” [13] But he said, “Oh, my Lord, send, I pray, some other person.” [14] Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses and he said, “Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he can speak well; and behold, he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you he will be glad in his heart. [15] And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do. [16] He shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God.

Hence, the phrase “Moses and Aaron” appears 64 times in the RSV, in the [Protestant 66 book) Old Testament: all but five of these instances in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The great bulk of these in Exodus occur in chapters 4-12, then there are only four more instances in chapters 16, 24, and 40. Basically, then, the usage is almost confined to the first third of the book. It’s as if Moses gained more confidence over time and started speaking and acting on his own as time went on. Wikipedia, “Aaron” comments:

According to the Book of Exodus, Aaron first functioned as Moses’ assistant. Because Moses complained that he could not speak well, God appointed Aaron as Moses’ “prophet” (Exodus 4:10-17; 7:1). At the command of Moses, he let his rod turn into a snake. Then he stretched out his rod in order to bring on the first three plagues. After that, Moses tended to act and speak for himself.

During the journey in the wilderness, Aaron was not always prominent or active. At the battle with Amalek, he was chosen with Hur to support the hand of Moses that held the “rod of God”. When the revelation was given to Moses at biblical Mount Sinai, he headed the elders of Israel who accompanied Moses on the way to the summit. While Joshua went with Moses to the top, however, Aaron and Hur remained below to look after the people. From here on in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, Joshua appears in the role of Moses’ assistant while Aaron functions instead as the first high priest.

The initial relationship of Moses and Aaron– ordained by God — is typified in the following passage:

Exodus 4:27-30 The LORD said to Aaron, “Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.” So he went, and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. [28] And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which he had sent him, and all the signs which he had charged him to do. [29] Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel. [30] And Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people.

It is not unbiblical or “unHebraic” at all for the Bible to refer to creatures as representatives of other creatures or of God Himself. I wrote in another article of mine:

Another fascinating motif in Scripture is “the angel of the Lord”: who is sometimes referred to as God Himself; other times as His direct representative. In one passage (Judges 13:15-22), we see reference to God (13:16, 19, 22), but also to the angel of the Lord as His direct representative (13:15-18, 20-21 and in the larger passage, 13:3, 6, 9, 13). The angel is honored (v. 17), they fall on their faces to worship (v. 20) and at length the angel is equated with God as His visible manifestation (v. 22). But the difference between the angel and God is highlighted by the angel being described as a “man of God” (13:6, 8) and “the man” (13:10-11).

Elsewhere, the angel of the Lord is equated with God (theophany) in Genesis 31:11-13 and Judges 2:1, but differentiated from God as well, as a representative: (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Ki 19:6-7; 2 Ki 19:35; Dan 3:25, 28; 6:23; Zech 1:8-14). Even with Moses and the burning bush, there is a reference to “the Angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2) and yet two verses later, “God called to him out of the bush.”

We also see an equation of God’s work and the work of men who follow Him (“both/and”), in St. Paul and the Gospel of Mark:

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers; . . .

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

1 Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Because of this sort of “both/and” thinking, the idea that the staff or rod could be both Moses’ staff and God’s (and/or also Aaron’s) at the same time is perfectly biblical. Steven himself acknowledges at least this possibility:

Granted some of these references are to be understood metaphorically (e.g. Isa 30-32; Ezek 30:24-25), but others clearly are not, such as the reference in Ex 4:20 to “the god’s staff.” [RSV: “rod of God”] There is nothing metaphorical about this; apparently it is the rod that Moses holds in his hand (4:2-5). . . .

Thus it is not inconceivable that Moses’ rod is some sort of divine staff, or perhaps an extension of Yahweh’s staff, . . . [#91]

A further related biblical passage bears this out:

Exodus 17:9 And Moses said to Joshua, “Choose for us men, and go out, fight with Am’alek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.”

It is simultaneously God’s and it is Moses’ rod or staff. In biblical thinking this is not a contradiction, as shown by analogy above. God calls this same staff of Moses “your rod” (Ex 14:16) and He also refers to “the rod of Aaron” (Num 17:10; cf. 17:6, 8).

It is apparent what the Priestly writer is up to. Moses is relegated to the position of Yahweh’s mouthpiece. And this is the traditional view. It is Moses who communicates verbally with Yahweh and it is Moses who conveys verbally Yahweh’s commandments and wishes. Even in P’s plague narrative Yahweh commands Moses to tell Aaron to take up his staff and perform the sign. [#91]

If Moses can be God‘s “mouthpiece” then by the same token and by analogy, Aaron could be Moses’ mouthpiece and act on his behalf as a representative, with his rod. No problem. No “contradiction.” Nor is it a contradiction later on when Moses habitually acts on his own, with the staff, or rod (Ex 9:23; 10:13; 14:16 cf. 14:21, 26-27). The important thing is that God is in control of the whole thing and His will is accomplished through the words and actions of Moses and Aaron, as His representatives (and Aaron as Moses’ spokesman or mouthpiece or representative / assistant). Where Steven and others see supposed “contradictions” we see men of God working together in concert with God, to do His will, because God was at work in them, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13).

Steven doesn’t fully understand this, so he attempts to create yet another of his innumerable proposed “biblical contradictions” in his piece #105 (see above). Here is the complete passage that he thinks is self-contradictory:

Exodus 7:14-20 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, he refuses to let the people go. [15] Go to Pharaoh in the morning, as he is going out to the water; wait for him by the river’s brink, and take in your hand the rod which was turned into a serpent. [16] And you shall say to him, `The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, “Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness; and behold, you have not yet obeyed.” [17] Thus says the LORD, “By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the rod that is in my hand, and it shall be turned to blood, [18] and the fish in the Nile shall die, and the Nile shall become foul, and the Egyptians will loathe to drink water from the Nile.”” [19] And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, `Take your rod and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, their canals, and their ponds, and all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'” [20] Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded; in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants, he lifted up the rod and struck the water that was in the Nile, and all the water that was in the Nile turned to blood.

It’s quite obvious (the “both/and” biblical / Hebraic thinking that I have explained, being understood prior to interpreting this passage), that Aaron is Moses’ representative. This was already fully explained three chapters earlier. I reiterate the key part of it:

Exodus 4:15-16 And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do. [16] He shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, . . .

With this interpretative / exegetical / cross-referenced understanding and background, the meaning of Exodus 7:14-20 is quite clear. When God says to Moses, “you shall say to him . . .” (7:16), it’s understood that this could or would include Aaron as his spokesman (4:15-16). In case anyone misses this aspect, God specifically tells Moses to “Say to Aaron” [the same stuff God told him to do] (7:19). Then the text summarizes that they worked in concert (“Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded . . .”: 7:20). It’s fascinating that after mentioning both, the text states, “he lifted up the rod . . ” We can’t immediately tell which one did it. But the context of 7:19 strongly suggests that Aaron did: according to his role as assistant. There simply is no difficulty. Steven will have to strike this off of his long “dirty laundry list” of alleged biblical “contradictions” (or else explain to us how what I have argued is incorrect and false).

In case anyone missed the “arrangement” the same thing happens in the next chapter. God told Moses to warn Pharaoh of the plague of frogs (8:1-4). Then God tells Moses to tell Aaron to stretch out his hand, to cause the plague to start (8:5-6). It’s a joint effort. Even Pharaoh knows this, since it is reported, “Pharaoh called Moses and Aaron” (8:8). He addressed both of them. Moses alone answered (8:9-11). Yet the text says that Pharaoh “would not listen to them” (8:15). Then God tells Moses to tell Aaron to cause the plague of gnats (8:16), and again the narrative notes that Pharaoh “would not listen to them” (8:19). They’re workin’ together to do God’s will. It’s no “contradiction” at all. Even Pharaoh (in effect serving as a “hostile witness”) knows it, but our beloved biblical skeptics do not.

Exodus 9 continues the notice of joint effort. God sometimes says what He says to Moses alone (9:1, 12-13, 22), and also sometimes to “Moses and Aaron” (9:8). When God speaks to only one of them; it’s almost always to Moses, as the leader. Then it’s reported that “Moses said to Aaron” (16:9, 33; 32:21). The only time God speaks directly to Aaron alone in the book of Exodus, He says, “Go into the wilderness to meet Moses” (4:27). The same pattern holds in Leviticus. It’s always Moses telling Aaron what God told him, except one time, where God is instructing Aaron of his duties as high priest, which is a different function altogether: one that he alone does, and not Moses (see Ex 10:8-11). Even then, Moses informs Aaron of additional instructions (10:12-15).

[W]hat Yahweh had commanded in Exodus 7:14-18 was not done. Moses did not strike the Nile with his staff. Aaron did, and with his own staff! [#105]

But Steven doesn’t comprehend what has just been explained. I don’t think it’s rocket science. It’s simply taking the Bible at face value, on its own terms. But prior (overly “critical”) bias interferes with that goal. He goes on to indulge in great speculation about how all this is supposedly designed, and is contradictory. But he never considers the factors that I bring to bear above, which are all (I think) plausible exegetical arguments as to how the text can be plausibly harmonized and synthesized. I think he needs to.

Lastly, Steven (using fallacious documentary hypothesis categories and analysis) wants to make an issue of whether the staff was turned into a snake or serpent, in his piece #92 (see above):

Not only do the Elohist and Priestly sources disagree on whose staff we’re talking about: Moses’ or Aaron’s (#91), but they also use different terms when it comes to describing the serpent or snake it turns into. In E (4:3) the staff becomes a snake (nahash) [Strong’s word #5175], but in P (7:10) it becomes a serpent (tannîn) [Strong’s word #8577]. Each author chose a different term, and the Priestly writer might have even had a reason for changing nahash to tannin.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible comments on Exodus 7:10:

and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and it became a serpent: or a “dragon”, as the Septuagint version; this word is sometimes used of great whales, Genesis 1:21 and of the crocodile, Ezekiel 29:3 and it is very likely the crocodile is meant here, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks; since this was frequent in the Nile, the river of Egypt, where the Hebrew infants had been cast, and into whose devouring jaws they fell, and which also was an Egyptian deity.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible adds:

Here a more general term, תנין tannı̂yn, is employed, which in other passages includes all sea or river monsters, and is more specially applied to the crocodile as a symbol of Egypt. It occurs in the Egyptian ritual, nearly in the same form, “Tanem,” as a synonym of the monster serpent which represents the principle of antagonism to light and life.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers interprets Exodus 4:3:

(3) A serpent.—The word here used (nakhash) is a generic one for a snake of any kind, and tells us nothing as to the species. A different word (tannin) is used in Exodus 7:10, while nakhash recurs in Exodus 7:15. Tannin is, like nakhash, a generic term.

The third comment above provides, I think, the best answer to the false conundrum raised by Steven. A generic term doesn’t contradict a more specific term. It would be like references to the same item as “book” and “romance novel paperback”. They don’t contradict, since “paperback” is a species of “book” and “romance novel” is a type of literature in a book (whether hardback or not). Strong’s Concordance defines nahash as “serpent” and tannin as “serpent, dragon, sea monster.” We see, then, that an acceptable translation of both is “serpent”: and thus RSV renders all five of the Exodus passages in question as “serpent.”

The Amplified Bible, which was designed to bring out the literal meanings of words in context, is fascinating in this regard:

Exodus 4:3 . . . a serpent [the symbol of royal and divine power worn on the crown of the Pharaohs] . . . ][“serpent” used for 7:9-10, 12, 15]

The second point made is as important and instructive as the first. The author of Exodus clearly uses the terms as synonyms in some sense (whether generic or not), since he utilizes nahash at 4:3 and 7:15 and tannin at 7:9-10, 12: all (except 4:3, in which God gives a “sneak preview”) referring to exactly the same incident. Thus, within three verses of each other (7:12 and 7:15), the author uses two Hebrew words for the same object. And this is supposed to be a “contradiction”? It’s not. It would be like saying “paperback” and “book.” I could say, for example, about my own books: “my first book is a paperback.” The two words refer to the same thing.

Taking a look at the many Bible translations in my library, I see that the RSV practice of using “serpent” for both 7:12 and 7:15 is followed by at least six major versions (Knox, Douay/Rheims, NASB, KJV, ASV, Jewish 1917; while NRSV uses “snake” twice). In other instances where there are different terms, they can clearly be harmonized with each other as referring to the same thing in different ways:

snake / serpent: Confraternity, NAB

serpent / snake: NEB, REB

reptile / snake: Moffatt, Goodspeed

In none of these instances is there the slightest contradiction. If we look up serpent at Dictionary.com, the very first definition it gives is “snake.” Merriam-Webster Online states first: “1a archaic : a noxious creature that creeps, hisses, or stings” and then “snake.” Snake in the same source is first defined as “any of numerous limbless scaled reptiles (suborder Serpentes . . .” and in Dictionary.com first, similarly, as “any of numerous limbless, scaly, elongate reptiles of the suborder Serpentes . . .”

It’s all much ado about nothing. These are the absurd lengths biblical skeptics will go to find a (or any!) zealously sought-after, notorious “biblical contradiction.” It’s a case study in misguided zeal blinding one. Straining at gnats, Steven thinks he is milking this “rod motif” for all it’s worth and comes up with another of his so-called “contradictions”:

#103. Does Aaron perform the rod-to-snake/serpent trick in front of the Israelites OR Pharaoh? (Ex 4:30 vs 7:10)

Here he writes:

[T]oday’s contradiction is more a doublet than anything else. . . . Yahweh originally commands Moses to perform the signs in front of the people so that they believe Moses (4:5, 4:17), then he commands Moses to do them in front of Pharaoh (4:21).

And how is that a contradiction, pray tell? Signs and miracles always had this dual purpose: to embolden and strengthen the faith of the believers (e.g., Ex 4:8-9, 30-31; 10:2; Num 14:11, 22; Dt 4:34; 7:19; 26:8; Josh 24:17) and to persuade unbelievers that there was a God Who did such things (e.g., Ex 7:3, 9-10; 10:1; Dt 6:22; 11:3; 34:11). This is a common occurrence all through the Bible, and it’s not a contradiction. After Moses parted the Red Sea, the Bible states:

Exodus 14:31 And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did against the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.

Moses and Aaron simply “killed two birds” (persuading the Hebrews and the Egyptians of God’s power and faithfulness) with one “stone” (signs and wonders by means of the “rod of God”).

Case closed . . .

***

Photo credit: Moses and Aaron before Pharaoh (1537), by Master of the Dinteville Allegory [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Critique of Theologically Liberal Bible-Basher

Last updated on: July 5, 2020 at 2:27 pm By Dave Armstrong

See the video by Dr. Rev. Keith Ward.

Ward holds to theological liberalism, which carries over into his interpretation of the Bible. He casually assumes contradictions where (in almost all cases I have seen), two accounts are complementary and not logically contradictory.

See, for example, one of many plausible syntheses of the four accounts of the Easter visits to the tomb.

I just reviewed a book that was about alleged biblical contradictions, which was filled with refutations of these sorts of pseudo-“contradictions”.

He says that the Gospel of John merely put words into the mouth of Jesus, as if Jesus didn’t say them. Using that “method” anyone can (arbitrarily and irrationally) get Jesus to believe whatever they want. If they don’t like something He said, they resort to the tired canard, “well, that was added later, you see. He didn’t really [wink and smirk] say that.”

He flat-out denies that the Gospels can be harmonized. They have different emphases; they do not contradict. He doesn’t understand Hebrew idiom (his example of Jesus saying only God is good; he thus implies that Jesus is saying He Himself is not totally good — nor God, for that matter –, which is not the case at all.

I don’t consider that serious Bible scholarship. In its way, it is as fatally flawed and questionable as the false fundamentalist assumptions that he (often rightly) criticizes. How ironic. And I see this tendency very often in theologically liberal or agnostic / atheist Bible analyses (as well as Muslim).

Now he is saying that a translation means that Jesus’ words aren’t recorded. He completely ignores biblical inspiration.

For much related material, see my Liberal Theology & Modernism Index Page. and final section of my Bible & Tradition page, which includes refutations of scores and scores of alleged biblical contradictions.

***

(originally 6-6-17 on Facebook)

Photo credit: geralt (12-10-19) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Reply to Atheist Ward Ricker Re “Biblical Contradictions”

Last updated on: May 15, 2020 at 11:43 am By Dave Armstrong

Ward Ricker is (as so often) a self-described former “fundamentalist” who likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He describes his current belief as follows:

Some people would refer to me as an “atheist”, which is perhaps accurate, since I don’t believe in god, but I don’t particularly like the word “atheist”, since it only tells you what I don’t believe, i.e,, that I don’t believe in god or gods. It doesn’t tell you what I do believe in. “Scientist” tells you what I do believe in.

He read my article for National Catholic Register, “Atheist Inventions of Many Bogus ‘Bible Contradictions’ “ (9-4-18) and wrote to NCR the following letter. This article is my response. I informed him personally of it. First, here is his letter:

I just came across the Sept. 4, 2018, article, Atheist Inventions of Many Bogus “Bible Contradictions”, by Dave Armstrong. It is an interesting article, in that it claims that “atheists” make unsubstantiated claims about the Bible contradicting itself, yet the article doesn’t list a single one of these unsubstantiated contradictions. Instead, it goes into a ridiculous story about some people going to a Dairy Queen, trying to suggest that this represents the type of arguments that “atheists” use, without giving any example of an “atheist” argument that follows that same reasoning.

*

In fact, Mr. Armstrong is correct; many Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments (such as saying that the Bible says Jonah was swallowed by a whale in one place and by a fish in another). I’m surprised that he didn’t choose to list any. But the fact that some people get carried away and make false claims doesn’t invalidate the claims that are correct. And the fact is that there are a large number of clear contradictions in the so-called “inerrant word of god”. I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book (yes, another of those lists that Mr. Armstrong decries) of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. Would Mr. Armstrong or any of you like to challenge any of the over 400 contradictions that I list in one of the chapters of my book, “Unholy Bible,” that you can download for free at www.WardsBooks.com? (I hope you will also read the other chapters in the book about the vile, evil and abhorrent book that is called the “Holy Bible”.)

One must always determine the purpose and scope of any particular article, before one sets out to critique it. I always try to be very precise and accurately descriptive in titles for my articles. It’s one of the first things any good writer must understand (book and article titles, chapter titles, etc.). We only have 1000 words per article at NCR. I think it’s a nice length, that usually comes out to about 3 1/2 single-spaced pages in a book with a standard font size. People have short attention spans nowadays.

I was specifically going after “bogus ‘contradictions'”: that is, alleged logical contradictions that actually aren’t so, by the laws of contradiction in the field of logic (I took a logic class in college, by the way, along with several other philosophy courses). The Dairy Queen story was, precisely, an analogical example of how atheists and others who don’t properly think through the nature of a literal logical contradiction, make the claim, when in fact, there is no contradiction present at all.

Mr. Ricker may think that is “ridiculous.” I think it is necessary in order to illustrate the common errors in identifying the presence of “contradictions” that I was critiquing. The main gist of my article was to explain the nature of a logical contradiction, as opposed to refuting particular proposed examples of same in the Bible by atheists.

Sure, it would have been nice to include some actual “atheist vs. the Bible” examples, but there simply wasn’t space to do so, after I made what was my primary point in the article: illustrating how many alleged “contradictions” actually aren’t at all. This is a different issue from other examples which appear (at least prima facie) to be actual (honestly alleged) contradictions, that have to be grappled with by the defender of an inspired Bible.

Oftentimes, that comes down to different genres in the Bible, various meanings of particular words or ideas in widely divergent contexts, translation matters, and interpretational particulars: often having to do with the very foreign (to our modern western sensibilities) ancient Hebrew culture and modes of thinking. I know these things firsthand, because I myself have offered what I think are good resolutions or “solutions” to hundreds of proposed biblical “contradictions.”

Other times, it could simply be a matter of manuscript errors that crept in through the years. Of course, that sort of error is only in transmission, and is not part of the original text, so it wouldn’t cast doubt on the non-contradictory nature of the original transcripts of the Bible (if indeed we can plausibly speculate that it was merely an innocent copyist’s error).

I do have an article on my blog of what Mr. Ricker suggests: where I provide several actual examples from atheists: Review of The Book of Non-Contradiction (Phillip Campbell) [5-9-17]. It was 1666 words long.

I have dealt with literally hundreds of supposed biblical “contradictions” (I’ve been engaged in apologetics writing for 39 years). One can see how active I have been in dialoguing with atheists, on my web page devoted to them. On the issue of “Bible contradictions” in particular, I devote a very long section at the end of my Bible and Tradition web page. Mr. Ricker offered a challenge for me or anyone to deal with his “list” of what he thinks are logical biblical difficulties. I like that. It shows that he is confident of his position. I admire that in people, even if I disagree with what they defend or stand for.

I thought that Bob Seidensticker, webmaster of Cross Examined: a major atheist blog with tons and tons of feedback in the comboxes, also possessed this confidence in his own positions, since he directly challenged me on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” This was after Bob had virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. He commented to someone else on 6-22-17: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.”

Again, Bob mocked some Christian in his combox on 10-27-18: “You can’t explain it to us, you can’t defend it, you can’t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It’s clear you have nothing.” And again on the same day: “If you can’t answer the question, man up and say so.” And on 10-26-18: “you refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.” And again: “You’re the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.”

I’m not one to decline a challenge, if I think anything constructive can be accomplished by responding to it, so I took Bob up on his offer, and to date, have written literally 40 refutations of his anti-biblical claims and argumentation. So far, not one peep of a response has been heard from him to any of them. And it sure looks like that will be the case indefinitely. His bark is infinitely worse than his bite. All talk and no action . . .

He’s not the only atheist online who waxes so confidently, but then flees for the hills at the slightest whiff of a refutation of ostensibly self-assured claims. Atheist and former Methodist minister Dr. David Madison writes for the very popular Debunking Christianity site, run by atheist John “you are an idiot!” Loftus, infamous for his literally volcanic explosions and implosions when he is forthrightly challenged (especially when such challenges come from me). I have refuted Dr. Madison’s skeptical, Bible-bashing claims 42 times as of this writing. He hasn’t been heard back from as of yet, either, and made his cramped, insulated mentality quite clear in a comment from 9-6-19:

[T]he burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked. . . . I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

By the time he had written this rationalization of his intellectual cowardice, I had already refuted his particular arguments 35 times. I’ve also done the same with John Loftus, more than ten times. You guessed it: not one word in counter-reply. I had critiqued his book, Why I Became an Atheist: precisely because at one time (in December 2006) he directly challenged me to do so:

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

Eventually, after I became bored and was looking for something to do, I did just that, only to get stony silence and crickets back. This is most unimpressive. It’s now over 100 direct refutations of atheist anti-biblical arguments (there are others, too, besides these three cowards), with no replies whatsoever back from those same atheists: two of whom directly challenged me to do this very thing.

This is pretty much my universal experience with atheists. Mr. Ricker finds the same apathy and/or cowardice or non-interest among Christians. We have that in common. I don’t like to repeat work that I’ve already done, so I would propose the following to him: take on one or more of these 92 papers in which I refuted Dr. Madison, Mr Seidensticker, and Mr. Loftus (since they won’t).

Prove to my Christian readers that atheists are capable of actually defending their positions under scrutiny: not just asserting them and fleeing to the hills in terror at the first hint or sign of a vigorous Christian counter-reply. They won’t respond; maybe Mr. Ricker, having devoted a book to such things, will. In any event, I have put my money where my mouth is, and I am able and willing to 1) defend my general Christian and particular Catholic beliefs, and 2) respond to atheist challenges to same.

***

Photo credit: Clare Black (9-2-09) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***