Does God-breathed Scripture contradict itself?

[Contarini]

I’m sure this would be a reasonable answer IF the Scriptures were from men and not from God. I would argue that the story Jesus told of Lazarus and the rich man was a true story, and the people who heard it knew who the rich man was.

But can you admit that you think this only because of your theological presuppositions? There is nothing in the text itself to indicate this.

If Judith was truly Scripture, why didn’t God use the same device?

Maybe because God is not a fundamentalist Protestant.

I cannot believe that God would contradict His own written word in any way.

I find it hard to believe that God would inspire books looking so often as if they contradicted each other and then expect us to play elaborate mental games in order to convince ourselves that they really don’t.

I have mentioned before about the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and pointed out that Jesus had 2 parents (Joseph and Mary),

Well, adoptive in the first case–I presume that you aren’t questioning the virginal conception!

and that I found a 3rd or 4th century commentary that mentioned the genealogy found in Matthew was that of Mary.

A clever argument, and it may be true, but the text itself never suggests this.

The different fathers of Joseph, again, points to the 2 different genealogies. Since God made the two (husband and wife) into one, it was normal for the husband to be named, even when giving the wife’s genealogy.

If it was normal, can you give another example of it? I grant that this is possible, but it is somewhat of a stretch.

I have no doubts about the canonicity of the NT, and I have not found any contradictions that remain once they have been examined.

If by this you mean that all of them can be explained away with sufficient ingenuity and guesswork, then you may well be right. There came a point where it seemed to me that the level of stretching and twisting necessary to explain away all these contradictions did a lot more damage to the integrity of Scripture than simply accepting that God chose to inspire a text with many of the discrepancies and problems you’d expect in any large collection of human writings.

Edwin

 

[AmbroseSJ]

If by this you mean that all of them can be explained away with sufficient ingenuity and guesswork, then you may well be right. There came a point where it seemed to me that the level of stretching and twisting necessary to explain away all these contradictions did a lot more damage to the integrity of Scripture than simply accepting that God chose to inspire a text with many of the discrepancies and problems you’d expect in any large collection of human writings.

That’s not a bad viewpoint. It is really only fundamentalists that CAN’T see all of the multitude of blatant contradictions that exist in the Bible. This would shatter their whole sola-Scriptura world. The truth is there are many apparent contradictions.

IMHO, many if not most of the apparent contradictions actually do have convoluted explanations, due to the writer’s perspective, proximity to what he is writing about, and just plain human perceptions being so different between people. Now with all of that, add in writings that have been copied over and over for millenium upon millenium, then re-interpreted (in many cases) from historically different viewpoints, and then finally our own 21st century mentality enters into the picture and now we have a REAL PUZZLE!

But fundamentalists, and even just devout Catholics will say, but why would God MAKE IT SO HARD to understand HIS inspired Word? Then I ask, why did Jesus teach in parables? Couldn’t he have spoken in simpler terms that were less vulnerable to interpretation and misunderstanding? But the Truth is, God doesn’t speak to us directly even through the Scriptures! The help of the Holy Spirit is necessary FOR US to be able to understand the Scriptures. We just can’t do it on our own! Without the Holy Spirit HELPING US, the Sacred Scriptures are a sealed book.

If there’s one way guaranteed to repel the aid of the Holy Spirit, it is to read the Scriptures in a spirit of doubt and mistrust.

 

[Cachonga]

DGDDavidson:

Why is it Judith specifically that bothers you? Why not the historical conflicts between Kings and Chronicles? Or anachronisms in Genesis? Or inaccurate namings of kings in Daniel?

Because Judith is filled with numerous errors and contradictions, both historical as well as Scriptural. Also, I am not aware of the other conflicts, anachronisms or inaccuracies you mentioned.

The position you’re working from is incorrect. We do not have painfully accurate manuscripts of the Old Testament books identical in content to the original autographs. The Pentateuch contains several sources stitched together. Isaiah is a collection of three books by three authors. Jeremiah is significantly longer in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, probably because the Hebrew text was lengthened later. A Dead Sea Scroll indicates that Leviticus started its life as a priestly handbook and was edited with narrative sections later.

If this was a discussion on the transmission of the Scriptures, I’d be happy to answer, but it’s not.

Judith is a work of fiction akin to Esther. It includes not only the name Nebuchadnezzar, but the names of several other historical figures who were not contemporaries. It amalgamates several of Israel’s historical enemies from throughout time and depicts them gathering together from throughout the world to attack Israel in the days of the Second Temple, in an exaggerated, fantasized landscape. The story involves the siege of a fictional town delivered by an ideal woman whose name means “Jewess.” The Catholic Answers explanation is probably partly right–it is more difficult for modern readers to interpret than for ancient readers, because ancient readers could no doubt figure out it’s a fictional work, whereas we for some reason go hunting for an historical event to append it to.

Esther is a work of fiction? Then why do the Jews (even in the time of Jesus) celebrate Purim? I do agree that Judith is a work of fiction, but then comes the question - does God inspire fiction? (BTW - I don’t beleive a parable falls in the same category as fiction, because a parable does relate a true, spiritual fact.)

To say Judith contradicts 2 Kings is like saying Bullfinch’s Legends of Charlemagne contradicts the history of Medieval France, or like saying a novel contradicts a science textbook. You’re trying to make a comparison between two unlike things.

I disagree. Since the Church declared Judith to be Scripture, then it should be examined as such. If they are unlike, then it’s because the “infallible” Church made a mistake. Naturally, the Church will never admit this, no matter what evidence can be produced.

Even if you decide to reject the Deuterocanonicals as sacred scripture, you are still, in the end, dependent on the Church for having handed you the Bible you have. It was the Church that declared not just the Deuterocanonicals, but all the rest of the books therein, to be scripture. If the Church could not get it right when defining the Deuterocanonicals, there’s no reason to think she got any of the others right either, and you have no basis for saying with any certainty that there are any canonical books at all.

It was God who authored the Scriptures, and led fallible men to recognize His writings. The Scriptures are Scripture because God inspired them, not because a Church, Council or pope declared them to be so.

 

[Cachonga]

Contarini:

But can you admit that you think this only because of your theological presuppositions? There is nothing in the text itself to indicate this.

This is straying a bit off topic (my fault, I admit), but how many other parables did Jesus give where He used a proper name?

Maybe because God is not a fundamentalist Protestant.

Or maybe because Judith isn’t Scripture.

I find it hard to believe that God would inspire books looking so often as if they contradicted each other and then expect us to play elaborate mental games in order to convince ourselves that they really don’t.

Huh?

Well, adoptive in the first case–I presume that you aren’t questioning the virginal conception!

Mary was unquestionably a virgin at least until after the birth of Jesus (that goes into another discuission that is off topic, so I’ll end it here).

A clever argument, and it may be true, but the text itself never suggests this.

Let’s check - Luke 3:23 “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,” (RSV). That “(as was supposed)” sounds like this is Joseph’s genealogy. Now, let’s look at Matthew - Matt 1:16 “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (RSV). To add “the husband of Mary” sure makes it seem reasonable to beleiv this is her genealogy.

If it was normal, can you give another example of it? I grant that this is possible, but it is somewhat of a stretch.

Once again I prove I am not infallible. I should have said “acceptable” instead of “normal”.

If by this you mean that all of them can be explained away with sufficient ingenuity and guesswork, then you may well be right. There came a point where it seemed to me that the level of stretching and twisting necessary to explain away all these contradictions did a lot more damage to the integrity of Scripture than simply accepting that God chose to inspire a text with many of the discrepancies and problems you’d expect in any large collection of human writings.

Don’t you beleive the Scriptures are consistent with themselves?

 

[Cachonga]

I guess I’ve heard enough. To recap -

1. 
   *]There is no “official” explanation for the contradictions found in Judith with other Scripture.
   *]Catholics accept these as “apparent” errors, without requiring an explanation, because Dei Verbum “explains” it.
   *]Dei Verbum makes excuses, but explains nothing.
   *]Judith could be a parable.
   *]Judith could be a “work of fiction”.
   *]Judith is considered Scripture because the Church says so.
   
   I see no need to continue with this thread, so I leave it to you to do with as you will.
   
   Pax!

 

[davidv]

Because Judith is filled with numerous errors and contradictions, both historical as well as Scriptural. Also, I am not aware of the other conflicts, anachronisms or inaccuracies you mentioned.

You have repeated this claim, but I have not seen any demostration that it is valid.

If this was a discussion on the transmission of the Scriptures, I’d be happy to answer, but it’s not.

Esther is a work of fiction? Then why do the Jews (even in the time of Jesus) celebrate Purim? I do agree that Judith is a work of fiction, but then comes the question - does God inspire fiction? (BTW - I don’t beleive a parable falls in the same category as fiction, because a parable does relate a true, spiritual fact.)

Why would work a of fiction be excluded from God’s inspiration?

I disagree. Since the Church declared Judith to be Scripture, then it should be examined as such. If they are unlike, then it’s because the “infallible” Church made a mistake. Naturally, the Church will never admit this, no matter what evidence can be produced.

Who has suggest that Judith hasn’t been examined as Scripture? Why would the Church admit to a falsehood?

It was God who authored the Scriptures, and led fallible men to recognize His writings. The Scriptures are Scripture because God inspired them, not because a Church, Council or pope declared them to be so.

Properly speaking men authored Scripture through God’s inspiration. You would not know they they were inspired unless God led fallible men to infalibly identify them to you.

 

[Contarini]

This is straying a bit off topic (my fault, I admit), but how many other parables did Jesus give where He used a proper name?

An interesting point. Not conclusive in my opinion, but certainly worth considering, especially in light of Richard Bauckham’s theory that the use of proper names often indicates who the witnesses were who transmitted the story.

Huh?

I’m sorry you find this hard to understand, because it’s really my main point.

Your position may well be just barely tenable, but the question is, why are you so sure you have to hold it? When Scripture is looked at carefully, it shows many of the features that in other cases we would take to indicate error, interpolation, bias, contradiction among different texts or sources used by one of the currently existing texts, etc. Even if you can explain every single one of these away, I think you are doing more damage to the authority of Scripture by making it depend on such explanations. It’s better to grant that Scripture is like other human texts in these ways, because *then *it becomes easier to see how different it is from other texts.

In short, the inerrantist position focuses on the wrong issues. By insisting that a divinely inspired text must be free from error and contradiction, you set the bar in the wrong place. This causes many people to say, “Wow–Scripture really does seem a lot more like other, uninspired ancient texts than these Christians admit.” Why not let all that stuff go and focus on the ways in which Scripture really is unique?

Let’s check - Luke 3:23 “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,” (RSV). That “(as was supposed)” sounds like this is Joseph’s genealogy. Now, let’s look at Matthew - Matt 1:16 “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (RSV). To add “the husband of Mary” sure makes it seem reasonable to beleiv this is her genealogy.

Actually I’ve always heard the reverse–that Matthew is Joseph’s genealogy and Luke Mary’s. Certainly Matthew’s birth narrative focuses on Joseph and Luke’s on Mary. Furthermore, the text very clearly says that Jacob was Joseph’s father, not Mary’s. Obviously the locution “the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born” is there because Jesus wasn’t actually Joseph’s son. Yet again, you are so focused on defending the genealogies that you ignore what is surely the far more important point of the virginal conception.

Don’t you beleive the Scriptures are consistent with themselves?

I believe that the Scriptures provide the true story about who we are as human beings and what the purpose of the universe is. If read in the light of that overarching story (creation, fall, redemption, new creation), yes, Scripture is consistent. But there are many specific points on which different Scriptural books appear to contradict each other. Trying to prove that they don’t not only focuses on the wrong issues (as I said above) but actually distorts the nature of Scripture by preventing us from hearing what each text is saying.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Esther is a work of fiction? Then why do the Jews (even in the time of Jesus) celebrate Purim? I do agree that Judith is a work of fiction, but then comes the question - does God inspire fiction?

If fiction is a legitimate literary genre, why wouldn’t God inspire fiction? As St. Gregory of Nyssa said, nothing is unworthy of God except evil. Do you think fiction is evil?

Edwin

 

[DGDDavidson]

You ask whether God inspires fiction with the implied answer of no, but how did you arrive at that answer?

When a Jewish writer writes an obviously fictional story in which he gathers together the names of Israel’s historic enemies, including an infamous king, an infamous empire, and a Persian general, and has them gather together from around the world and make grandiose claims about themselves and make war on the West, attacking an Israel set in an exaggerated mountainous landscape where even in the Second Temple period Jews still fight with slings and stones, and they are defeated by an archetypal Jewish wise woman–what error or inaccuracy is he committing, exactly?

That brings us to another question. You make a lot of claims about what scripture is, what it should contain, and so forth. But how did you arrive at your opinions of which books are scripture and what scripture could contain? Did you get your ideas of scripture on your own, or did you receive them from somewhere?

You might be misunderstanding what I or some others here are saying. Books don’t become scripture because a Church council calls them that. They are scripture already, but we rely on Church councils to recognize them as such. The Bible in your hand you have because of Church councils who declared the books contained therein to be books of holy writ. My question is, if you do not trust Church councils to tell you what holy writ is, who or what do you trust? If you do not trust the Church when she tells you Judith is scripture, why do you trust her in regards to books like Jude or Revelation (both controversial in their day)? Or Lamentations (rejected by John Wesley)? Or any other book, for that matter?

You don’t appear to be very familiar with the subject you’re trying to discuss. You aren’t familiar with any anachronisms in Genesis? To start with, how about Genesis’ depiction of Philistines or of domestic camels in the Bronze Age?

 

[quettandil]

I guess you think Jesus was “mean” when he openly and publicly called people hypocrites, snakes, and even children of Satan to their face.

To their face. Not behind their back, as He would have been doing if, as you argued last Tuesday (emphasis added),

the story Jesus told of Lazarus and the rich man was a true story, and the people who heard it knew who the rich man was.

But you seem to be backpedaling from that position now:

Also, Jesus wasn’t talking about the rich man, but was relating a true story of the afterlife, so it’s not gossip.

If it was a story about a real person whom the audience could recognize, it would be gossip even if true.

So why would Judith, which gives specific, historical names, places and times, be considered a parable?

Well, that’s the whole point: It gives ahistorical names. There was no king of Assyria named Nebuchadnezzar, and the Assyrian Empire did not rout the Medes (other way around, in fact). The enemy in Judith is a conflation of all the enemies of the People of God throughout history. The story expresses the truth that faith, hope, and charity are the only way to overcome the perennial evil.

If people can write fiction, God can too. I can only second Contarini’s question: Do you think fiction is evil?