Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible

From Freepedia

Some religions believe that the Bible was inspired or received in singular events. Many historians who have analysed the Hebrew Bible and New Testament believe they were written over a long period of time. In addition, various religions assign varying degrees of inerrancy to these Scriptures. Because of this, inconsistencies alleged to be found within the Bible take on an importance in ecumenical and apologetic discussions. Those believing in Scriptural inerrancy sometimes refer to these issues as "difficulties", which some regard as deliberately set there by God, others seek explanations for, and yet others regard as surmountable.

Various explanations are provided for these issues. Advocates of Biblical inerrancy hold that they are not, in fact inconsistencies and that the claims of Bible inconsistencies are often the result of insufficient exegesis since Bible scholarship is multidisciplinary endeavor (language, cultural differences, historiography, etc). For example, scholars who advocate Biblical inerrancy say the text must be interpreted in its true context, and some look for ways to reconcile different texts that allow the Bible to read without contradictions. Alternatively, scholars who analyse stories, myths, and ancient documents interpret many of the apparent inconsistencies as intentional storytelling devices to teach lessons by example.

The Catholic Christian view (especially since the Second Vatican Council), hold that the inerrancy of the Bible is limited to the things that God intended to reveal. The highlighted issues are then deemed not to belong to this group of teachings, or are examples of figurative language and/or allegory. The Jewish view is that such issues may be reconciled by reference to other Biblical verses, or oral teachings. On the other hand, others often see these alleged inconsistencies as evidence the Bible is a human written book of no special divine origin.

Contents

Difficulties in evaluating inconsistencies

Besides the major philosophical/theological differences brought about by different views of Biblical inerrancy and different religions, there are many other factors that may make what is an "inconsistency" to one reader seem perfectly acceptable and unproblematic to another. An inconsistency is considered here to be two statements in the Bible that cannot be true at the same time.

As there is not complete agreement among believers as to which books form the Biblical canon, some alleged inconsistencies will simply not exist for some observers, as they do not consider the particular books containing them as belonging to Scripture. Problems of translation can also cause problems that may be perceived as inconsistencies. However, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that inerrancy applies only to the original languages, not necessarily copies or translations.

For instance the word used in Isaiah 7:14 to indicate the woman who would bear Emmanuel is alleged to mean simply young woman in Hebrew, while the Gospel of Matthew (1:23) follows the Septuagint Greek translation parthenos meaning virgin, thus slightly changing the meaning. Some might term this an inconsistency, while others argue that Matthew and the Septuagint translators were right.[1]

Further, failure to understand the culture of the peoples of the Bible may also cause certain passages to appear inconsistent to a modern reader, when an ancient reader never would have noticed a problem. Hebrew "slaves" were very different from African "slaves" in the New World, even though the same English word is used for both. Most biblical "slavery" is closer to what we would now call indentured servitude.[2], although the Old Testament, as well as passages in the New Testament state that slaves were the property of their owners, assigning values to types of slaves and examples of punishments.

Some alleged inconsistencies might be better termed "incomplete information". When Cain is banished, he is worried that someone might kill him, yet according to the people explicitly mentioned in the Bible, only his mother and father are alive, and don't seem inclined to murder him. For some, this would be taken as evidence of inconsistency in the Biblical narrative. Others point to the 'other sons and daughters' that Adam and Eve had in Genesis 5:4, which doesn't state when they were born.[3]

In the following sections, several major groups of alleged inconsistencies in the narrative will be discussed, together with explanations for why some persons see no inconsistency in the matter.

Creation

Main article: Creation accounts in Genesis, Genealogies of Genesis

Some argue that a reading of the first two chapters of Genesis produces the impression of two separate accounts of the same event, with details differing considerably between the accounts. However, other scholars disagree that there are any contradictions.[4]

One example of an alleged contradiction is, in the first chapter, man and woman are created simultaneously after the animals, while in chapter two, some have understood it to say that man is created, then the animals, then woman. Others have argued that the preterite verb wayyitser in Gen. 2:19 is a pluperfect: “he had formed the animals,” in which case the contradiction vanishes.

Others consider the two segments to be consistent: that the first segment describes the creation of the Earth, while the second segment describes the creation of the Garden of Eden, and domesticable plants and animals. The story of Lilith told in the Alphabet of Ben Sira also partly stems from an attempt to harmonize these two accounts. Some advocates of Biblical inerrancy see two different creations here, one of which was destroyed or ended before the second. Since Wellhausen, the documentary hypothesis allegedly provides the explanation for these differences for most critical scholars. According to this theory, the first chapter was written by the late "priestly" source (or possibly an "Elohist" source), while the second stems from the very early "Yahwistic" source. However, if there are no contradictions, then the Wellhausen hypothesis is unnecessary.

Further problems sometimes cited in regard to the creation account because the text only indicates the existence of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Seth after the third chapter. Nonetheless, both Seth and Cain have children, even though Cain has been banished from the rest of the persons listed. Lilith is sometimes cited here as a solution, but most theorists surmise that Eve's daughters simply were not mentioned by the author (or were not mentioned until Genesis 5:4, where there are explicitly mentioned many sons and daughters of Adam and Eve). The incompleteness (or delayed mentioning of facts) in the narrative would thus be no inconsistency.

The same sort of alleged problem continues throughout Genesis and the Pentateuch. Errantists claim that Noah is told once to choose one pair of each living creature for the ark, but another time to choose seven pairs of all clean creatures. Inerrantists have replied: [5].

The phrase "two by two" in 7:9 simply means the animals entered the ark in pairs. So the beasts with 7 representatives came in as 3 pairs and 1 oddball each, paired off male and female and one spare wheel. (Note the difference in phraseology: "by two" and "two and two".)

Another alleged problem is that the definition of what is clean comes afterwards, in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy). Inerrantists would reply that not everything God told Noah is recorded, so He could have told Noah what He later revealed to Moses about clean and unclean animals.

Again, the strictest proponents of Biblical inerrancy generally interpret the text as written as reflecting exactly what happened in the flood, despite the apparent contradictions, while advocates of the documentary hypothesis hold that two different accounts (the "Yahwist" and "Elohist") are mixed here by a later editor (often hypothesized to be the priest Ezra). Supporters of biblical inerrancy reply that the different names of God reflect the different context[6] and point out that many ancient gods had more than one name.

Elohim is a word translated from the original Hebrew as God. At first glance, Elohim is a plural word, the singular form being El and is used to refer specifically to the God of Israel in various parts of the Bible. However, some argue that it is a usage analogous to the Royal We used in other languages, to express the sovereignty of God, and that this interpretation is supported by the surrounding adjectives and verbs taking singular cases rather than plural as would otherwise be expected. However, the kings of Israel and Judah never used the Royal We, which dates from the reign of King John (of England).

Some argue from the variation between Yahweh and Elohim, and the references in the Psalms to El assigning Yahweh to the tribe of Israel as their protecting deity, as well as the extensive finds of statues of Asherah (allegedly Yahweh's wife) throughout Israel, and the presence of similar gods El and Yaw in early religions surrounding Israel, that the Hebrews were not originally monotheistic, but rather henotheistic. This is in contrast to the monotheism of the theological descendants of the ancient Hebrew religion—Judaism, and Islam, and the monotheism of some forms of Christianity (although many strains of Christianity have been and continue to be henotheistic, acknowledging angels, demons, saints, and acknowledging the existence of other, lesser Gods, to whom God is superior. Some accuse Christianity of being polytheistic for asserting the existence of God the Father AND God the Son), but Christian scholars regard that as a blatant misrepresentation.

Various details of the accounts

The various censuses and genealogies in the Bible provide a large number of questions for those who seek to interpret the text completely literally. When the same event is described in two places, often the numbers differ slightly. As examples, according to Matthew, the father of Joseph is named James (or Jacob), while in Luke, he is called Eli. In the Books of Kings, the basin built before the Temple has a volume of 2000 baths (a Hebrew measure, approximately 32 liters or 8 U.S. gallons), while the account in the Books of Chronicles cites a volume of 3000 baths. David's census yields a result of 800,000 people in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, according to the Books of Samuel, but 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah according to the Chronicler. Bible inerrantists and conservative Christians scholars, however, often complain that when skeptics raise such objections they fail to take into account (or fail to mention) the issue of copyists' errors or the issue of estimations (which is a cultural difference) or other important matters when they make such exegetical commentary. [7] [8]. Moreover, Bible inerrantists and conservative Christian scholars see copyists errors as not affecting the legitimacy of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and a unreasonable complaint of skeptics who raise this objection. [9].

Questions of this kind formed the subject of Anglican bishop John William Colenso's 1863 book, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined. The book created a sensation; its impact at the time was comparable to that of The Origin of Species. An example of Colenso's sort of analysis is provided by chapter IV, "The size of the court of the Tabernacle compared with the number of the congregation." Leviticus 8:1-4 says that "the Assembly was gathered unto the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation." To Colenso "it appears to be certain" that phrases such as "the Assembly" refer to "the whole body of the people—at all events, the adult males in the prime of life," which would in turn include "the 603,550 warriors" mentioned in Numbers 2:32. Colenso says there are multiple references to this whole congregation's being assembled within the court of the Tabernacle. Exodus 27:18 gives the court's dimensions as 100 x 50 cubits, which he calculates as 1800 square yards; he deducts 108 square yards for the Tabernacle itself, leaving 1692 square yards for the area of the court. He concludes that, "The court, when thronged, could only have held 5000 people; whereas the able-bodied men alone exceeded 600,000." However, conservative Bible commentators believe that Bishop Colenso's exegesis was very unsound. [10] [11].

For some of those who support the results of critical scholarship, these inconsistencies stem from different reports of the same event, with the details having become muddied in time. Many people have no problem with considering the Bible to be inerrant in its message as God intended it to be given, while allowing errors on ancillary data. Others seek to explain these "errors" by providing additional information not found in the letter of the Bible to achieve harmony.

Alleged Variations of morality in the Old and New Testament

According to some Christian accounts, God in the Old Testament is often pictured as a vengeful god, a consuming fire that blazes forth on his enemies, conflicting with the opinions of some of what constitutes morality. For example, God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute (despite forbidding adultery), and David commits adultery and murder but God kills David's son rather than David as punishment. However, Bible inerrantist have offered what they see as reasonable explanations for the Hosea and the death of David's son. [12] [13] In addition, while many of the acts would ordinarily be considered immoral when witnessed in isolation, some argue that they were not considered immoral in the context of the text - for example, the text does not state that God condemns incest until after Abraham and Sarah married. In other cases morality is alleged to be upheld with a more strict understanding of the text - e.g. whilst Moses is upheld as the saviour of Israel from slavery, nevertheless his slaughter was not explicitly condoned or ordered by God, and whilst God instructed Hosea to marry a prostitute, God said he did so to illustrate God's love for unfaithful Israel. Also, Hosea himself did not commit adultery by marrying Gomer.

In addition, defenders of Biblical inerrancy state the God of the New Testament gets angry regarding men's moral failings and is vengeful as well. For example, Jesus talked about hell more than anyone in the New Testament. The book of Revelation is filled with judgement. Conservative theologians argue that man's history is filled with attrocities and that man is sinful by nature and that the 200 million people who died in the twientieth century through manmade famines, genocide, tyranny, wars, and martydoms are the result of man's sinful nature. [14] Conservatives theologians, as a result, argue that when God's wrath is poured forth God is merely displaying the righteous indignation of a holy God. Bible scholar R. C. Sproul's book The Holiness of God or Jonathon Edwards' sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" reflect this view. [15]

It is also important to note that even within the Old Testament, God is described as kind and merciful, slow to anger - an apparent inconsistency that Jews respond to by stating that God is angered by sin and evil, even though he loves humanity and desires the good for them. Some Christians proclaim that, in consequence, due to the stain of an original sin, mankind was prey to passion and instinct, angering God, until mankind learned control - at which point God's mercy shone through resulting in Jesus. The vast majority of Christians do not see a complete rupture between the two parts of the Bible, though many advocate some form of supersessionism.

Supporters of less liberal laws and morality also seek to justify the text by declaring that, in the text, God, and man, had specified stricter regimes - visiting the sins of the father on the sons (i.e. killing David's son for David's sin, although in Deuteronomy this is forbidden), using capital punishment for supporters of non-Jewish religions and for women who engage in extra-marital sex, etc. Other possible explanations are offered by supporters of the Biblical text: God is not bound by his own laws due to his omnipotence; God is supporting the individuals not what they do; God is not condoning the sin, but making an example out of it; and that the descriptions are of real people rather than perfect ones.

In contrast, some people believe the New Testament declares that God is love and He is more loving. This apparent contradiction to some led Marcion to claim that the God of the Old Testament is not the same god as that of the New, and in fact, that the God of the Hebrew Bible was the personification of evil. Marcion gave significant financial support to the early church and so his views on this, and on other matters such as whether Jesus was human, could not be ignored, and quickly they grew into a large following known as the Marcionites. Justin Martyr declared that his views were spread through every race of men. Marcion was excommunicated, but he afterwards continued to develop the Marcionite sect independently of the rest of Christianity.

The threat Marcion represented to the other views in the 2nd century church was perceived of as so significant that those opposed to him collected together, even though they agreed on little else, and individuals wrote vast series of books on him. The influence of Marcion on the early church was vast - The result of anti-Marcion action was that the church formally defined its teaching, produced a creed to explicitly exclude Marcionism (known as the Roman Symbol - later evolving into the Apostles' Creed), and listed the Biblical Canon (something he had done, but missing out the whole Old Testament and much of the new). In the 20th Century AD, Marcionism was still regarded as the most heretical of all heresies by the Roman Catholic church.

Inconsistencies claimed in the Resurrection narrative

Main article: Resurrection of Jesus

The last chapters of the four canonical Gospels are dedicated to the description of the Resurrection of Jesus. Taken absolutely literally, it is difficult to reconcile the order of events that are supposed to have taken place in the first few days after Jesus's death. Critics often charge that this is a sign of the disciples having invented the stories.

Some advocates of Biblical inerrancy have offered harmonizations of the four accounts, producing a version that they say represents the truth of what happened "on the third day".[16] Also, those who believe in Biblical inerrancy have claimed that are not contradictions but merely differences in cultural understanding regarding reporting of events. [17] [18] [19] Critical scholars from a Christian background say that these accounts reflect the state of affairs where several people all have limited information about an event and report what they have heard. Just as a modern-day news story often appears very differently when reported by different news agencies having different sources, so the different sources of the resurrection report do not always agree on the details, although they do agree on the heart of the message. Some, such as C.S. Lewis, have argued that the slight inconsistencies in the narratives improve the credibility of the narratives as a whole, as they are evidence that the narratives were written independently. Proponents of this theory hold that the resurrection reports are based on very early traditions. While scholars with a conservative Christian background may disagree, most scholars assert that some passages (such as Mark 16:9–20 and John 21), are later additions to the main Gospel text.

Homosexuality and the Old Testament

Some critics contend that there are at least two same-sex relationships described in the Bible and that these relationships demonstrate, at least, a double standard and, at most, a contradiction in teaching that homosexuality is both sinful and not sinful.

First, in the Book of Ruth, there is a close friendship between Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi. When Naomi's sons die, Naomi commands her two daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah, to return to their respective parents' homes and marry new men. Ultimately, Orpah obeys Naomi's wishes, but Ruth insists (in a passage often read at weddings and union ceremonies) that she will stay with Naomi, who is going back to her homeland:

Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me. (Ruth 1:16-17)

The text also says that "Ruth clave unto (Naomi)" (Ruth 1:14, KJV), and in fact, the word translated here as "clave unto" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Similarly, passages in the Books of Samuel describe an extremely close bond between David and Jonathan, the king's son:

[T]he soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.... Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. (1 Samuel 18:1,3-4, ESV)

And David, on hearing of Jonathan's death in battle, says, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women" (2 Samuel 1:26, ESV).

Some critics find in these passages a (licit or illicit) sexual relationship between Ruth and Naomi and between David and Jonathan and thus identify an apparent discrepancy in the Bible.

Responses to this line of reasoning generally argue that both of these friendships were merely intimate friendships and that sexual intimacy must be read into the text. Additional evidence from the texts that may point away from the alleged same-sex relationships includes that:

  • The word translated "cleave unto" simply means "hold fast to" or "cling to." It is not a technical term for marriage.
  • Ruth and Naomi were each married to men, and Naomi encouraged Orpah and Ruth to find new husbands (Ruth 1:8-14).
  • Ruth soon marries a new husband with Naomi's blessing (Ruth 3:1-5).
  • Naomi is old (past menopause, according to Ruth 1:11-12) and Ruth is apparently young (she married Naomi's son, remarried over ten years later, and bore children in that marriage; compare Ruth 2:6; 4:13). Ruth is described as assisting the elderly Naomi (Ruth 2:11), not being her sexual partner.
  • David married Jonathan's sister Michal (1 Samuel 18:17-29).
  • David had difficulty controlling his sexual passions (compare the incident with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11) and had many wives. While the Bible doesn't shy from showing David's philandering side, there is no evidence he acted likewise with men.
  • If David and Jonathan were not married, then any sexual union would apparently be illicit and morally reprehensible. If they were married (as some argue is the case in 1 Samuel 18:1-4), there appears to be no public recognition of it (compare the celebration that followed David's marriage to Michal). The Old Testament law lacks all provision for homosexual marriages, though it does detail numerous regulations for heterosexual marriages related to divorce, inheritance, and so forth.
  • To this day same-sex friendships in the middle east are much closer (physically) than in the west. Middle eastern men are known to greet each other with kisses (though not on the lips), hold hands, and cuddle, much like women friends might do in Europe (especially Eastern Europe) and Asia. The men involved would be shocked if anyone claimed they were homosexuals, and having sexual or sensual relations.

External links

Pro Bible errancy:


Pro Bible inerrancy:

Retrieved from "http://en.freepedia.org/Alleged_inconsistencies_in_the_Bible.html"


Views
Personal tools
In other languages
Similar Links