Resolving Apparent Contradictions and Difficulties in the Biblical Text

Resolving Apparent Contradictions and Difficulties in the Biblical Text

Scholars utilise a variety of established guidelines and principles to resolve apparent contradictions and difficulties in the biblical text. These approaches focus on proper textual analysis, historical context, and literary understanding.

Foundational Presuppositions

• Scholars approach difficulties with the conviction that an adequate explanation exists and that the Bible should be presumed "innocent" until proven guilty.
• They avoid shifting to the assumption that the Bible is an errant record, recognising instead that while God's written Word is infallible, human interpretations of it are fallible.
• Rather than assuming the unexplained is unexplainable, they patiently continue their research.

Context and Exegesis

• A fundamental principle is to carefully study the context and framework of a verse, comparing Scripture with Scripture to avoid taking texts out of context.
• Scholars ensure that interpretations are based on careful exegesis, seeking to discover exactly what the ancient author meant through word studies, dictionaries, and parallel passages.
• Furthermore, they interpret difficult or obscure passages in the light of clear ones, avoiding building major doctrines on rare or isolated verses.

Literary and Language Considerations

• It is crucial to recognise that the Bible is a human book reflecting human literary styles, perspectives, and emotions.
• Scholars note that the Bible uses everyday, observational language and round numbers rather than modern scientific precision, which would be anachronistic for the time it was written.
• They also account for various literary devices, such as poetry, parables, and figures of speech, which should not be interpreted literally.
• Other literary principles include:
  • The Bible records events without necessarily approving them, meaning the faithful recording of a lie or a sin does not equal divine endorsement of that act.
  • General statements must be distinguished from universal laws, as seen in Proverbs, which offer general guidance that admits individual exceptions.
  • Progressive revelation means that later commands may supersede earlier ones as God adapts His instructions to different circumstances in His overall plan of redemption.

Harmonizing Parallel Accounts

• When dealing with parallel passages, scholars employ harmonisation, treating differing testimonies as trustworthy reports viewed from different perspectives.
• They understand that a partial or divergent report is not a false one, as multiple accounts are often mutually complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
• Additionally, they do not demand that New Testament writers quote the Old Testament with exact, word-for-word precision, recognising that summarising, paraphrasing, or conveying the essence of a statement was a perfectly acceptable literary practice.

How does harmonisation help resolve differing gospel reports? Harmonisation resolves differing gospel reports by treating all the testimonies of the various writers as trustworthy accounts viewed from slightly different perspectives. Rather than assuming that differences indicate falsehoods, scholars line up the parallel passages and piece them together to form a self-consistent, comprehensive picture of an event.

This approach is grounded in several key principles and insights:

• A partial report is not a false report: Critics often mistakenly assume that if an account is incomplete, it must be false, but time and space rarely permit an absolutely complete report of any event. Because the Gospel writers were addressing different audiences and emphasising different facets of Christ’s life, their selection and arrangement of material naturally varied. Divine inspiration does not exclude this normal diversity of expression.
• The courtroom analogy: Harmonisation applies the exact same standard used in a properly conducted court of law, where a judge and jury listen to a multiplicity of witnesses. Each witness may contribute different details based on their unique vantage point, and the court's task is to fit these contributions together into a coherent whole. To assume a witness is untruthful simply because their account differs from another's would lead to total injustice.
• The photograph and classroom analogies: If a room is photographed from multiple angles, each picture will capture different contents, yet all the photographs are entirely accurate. Similarly, if multiple students take notes on the exact same lecture, each might record details the others missed, but none are making a false report.
• Creating a "stereophonic" understanding: When we sort out the differing accounts, line them up, and synthesise them, we are able to gain a much fuller and richer understanding of the event than we could obtain from any single testimony.

By recognising that the Gospel writers selectively arranged their material to suit their distinct theological themes and audiences, harmonisation allows readers to benefit from all the reports and assemble the most complete understanding possible of Jesus's encounters and teachings.

Tell me more about the courtroom analogy The courtroom analogy compares the evaluation of biblical accounts to the standards used by a judge and jury when listening to witness testimony in a court of law. Scholars use this analogy to illustrate how the Gospels, and the Bible as a whole, should be examined for reliability:

• The Presumption of Truthfulness: In a properly conducted legal inquiry, the judge and jury are expected to receive each witness's testimony as true from their own unique perspective, unless the witness is exposed as an untrustworthy liar. It would be a complete injustice to assume that a witness is automatically untruthful simply because their account lacks corroboration from outside sources. Scholars point out that opponents of biblical inerrancy frequently make this unjust assumption when reading the sources, which leads them to false conclusions.
• The Test of Cross-Examination: The analogy also highlights how a witness's overall credibility is tested. In civil or criminal cases, an opposing attorney will use cross-examination to try to trap a witness into contradicting previous statements or to reveal that they have a reputation for being untruthful. If a witness is proven to be untruthful—even on matters completely unrelated to the present litigation—the judge and jury are logically compelled to discount their testimony regarding the case itself because they have no way of being sure the witness is giving a true report.
• Application to Scripture: When applied to the Bible, this means that the text is treated as a "witness on the stand". If the Bible's statements concerning verifiable matters of history and science could be proven false by extrabiblical records or archaeological discoveries, there would be grave doubt about its trustworthiness in matters of religion. If the Bible were proven fallible in areas that can be physically tested, it could not be trusted in spiritual areas that cannot be tested, and it would be thoroughly discredited as a reliable witness for God.

What is the test of cross-examination for the Bible? The test of cross-examination is a method used to evaluate the overall credibility and trustworthiness of a witness, much like an opposing attorney would do in a civil or criminal court case. In a legal setting, an attorney will use cross-examination to try to trap a witness into contradicting their previous statements or to reveal that they have a general reputation for untruthfulness. If a witness can be proven untruthful—even on matters completely unrelated to the current case—the judge and jury are logically compelled to discount their entire testimony because they have no way of knowing if the witness is telling the truth about the case itself.

When this standard is applied to the Bible, Scripture is treated as a witness on the stand whose overall reliability is being tested. Under the test of cross-examination, if the Bible's statements concerning verifiable matters of history and science were proven to be false by modern scientific facts, archaeological discoveries, or extrabiblical records, there would be grave doubt regarding its trustworthiness in matters of religion. If the biblical record were proven fallible in physical areas of fact that can be verified, it could not be trusted in spiritual areas that cannot be tested.

Ultimately, if the Bible were to fail this cross-examination, it would be completely discredited as a reliable witness for God. In such a scenario, any solid truth the Bible might contain would be left to mere conjecture, forcing individuals to pick and choose what to believe based only on their personal intuition, traditional sentiments, or canons of likelihood.

How does the courtroom analogy apply to verifiable facts? It applies by testing the Bible's reliability in verifiable areas of history and science. If proven false there, its trustworthiness in spiritual matters would also be undermined.

Textual and Historical Analysis

• Scholars acknowledge that only the original manuscripts are inerrant, meaning some difficulties arise from minor copyist errors in transmission, particularly regarding similar-looking consonants, vowels, names, and numbers.
• To resolve these transmissional issues, they apply the canons of textual criticism, which generally prefer manuscript readings that are older, more difficult, shorter, geographically widespread, and devoid of doctrinal bias.
• Finally, they treat the Bible as an archaeological document of the highest calibre, refusing to automatically assume it is wrong when it conflicts with secular pagan records, since ancient kings often utilised self-laudatory propaganda.

Can you explain the difference between original and transmissional errors? Original errors would be in the inspired autographs (which scholars hold are inerrant). Transmissional errors are copyist mistakes introduced later in manuscript transmission.

Can textual criticism rectify all scribal errors in Scripture? While textual criticism is a highly effective science, it cannot rectify absolutely every scribal error that has crept into the biblical manuscripts.

Well-trained textual critics are able to rectify almost all the misunderstandings that arise from minor copyist errors by utilising sound methodology and comparing the earliest available manuscripts. Usually, by examining the context or consulting parallel passages, scholars can confidently determine which reading contains the error and what the original text likely said.

However, there are some rare cases where an error or omission cannot be definitively corrected. For instance, when a word or number has accidentally dropped out of the text entirely and is not preserved in any ancient version, there is no objective way to ascertain the exact original wording with absolute certainty. A prime example of this is 1 Samuel 13:1, where the number indicating Saul's age when he began to reign is missing from the Masoretic Text. In situations where neither the received text nor other ancient witnesses offer a plausible reading, conjecture is the only course left to the critic. Scholars attempt to fill in the missing information based on other historical data and typical scribal mistakes, but such reconstructions remain a matter of opinion and informed guesswork.

Despite the fact that a few transmissional errors cannot be completely rectified, scholars emphasise two vital points regarding the reliability of the text:

• The uncorrectable errors are extremely minor, almost exclusively involving the spelling of unfamiliar proper names or numerical discrepancies. Ancient numbers were particularly susceptible to copyist errors because the Hebrews used letters or strokes for numerical notation, which could easily be misread if a manuscript was smudged or damaged.
• None of these minor scribal slips affect, obscure, or pervert any essential doctrine or theological message of the Christian faith. The overarching message of the original, inspired documents is perfectly preserved and communicated to the reader despite occasional technical mistakes in copying.

What are some biblical errors that textual criticism can't fix?

• Accidental omissions lacking ancient witness support (e.g., the missing age in 1 Samuel 13:1).
• Logical emendations lacking manuscript evidence (e.g., the suspected "plow the sea" in Amos 6:12).
• Textual obscurities translated by guesswork, especially foreign names.

These remain minor and do not affect core doctrines.

How do scholars explain the missing number in 1 Samuel 13:1 / the missing numbers in 1 Samuel 13? The text literally reads, "Saul was the son of ... years when he became king." The omission occurred early (before the third century B.C.), so even the Septuagint does not preserve it. Modern versions suggest thirty or forty based on context and historical data, but it remains an educated guess.

How do scholars reconcile discrepancies in ancient numbers? Scholars generally resolve discrepancies in ancient biblical numbers by identifying them as minor scribal or transmissional errors that occurred as manuscripts were hand-copied over many centuries.

Because ancient Hebrews used letters and words of their alphabet to represent numbers, numerical values were particularly susceptible to being miscopied. Many letters and number words looked visually similar, and errors could easily occur if the source manuscript was worn, faded, smudged, or moth-eaten.

Scholars have identified several specific causes for these numerical discrepancies:

• Confusion over decade marks (e.g., Jehoiachin's age: 18 in 2 Kings 24:8 vs. 8 in 2 Chronicles 36:9).
• Missed multiplication marks (supralinear dot for "thousand").
• Accidental omissions.

To determine which number is correct, scholars compare parallel passages and rely on logical context (e.g., Ahaziah's age: 42 in 2 Chronicles 22:2 vs. 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; the 42 is impossible as it exceeds his father's age at death). These are viewed as technical slips in copies, not originals.

What are some common examples of copyist errors in the Old Testament? Examples include numerical discrepancies like those for Jehoiachin and Ahaziah, missing numbers (1 Samuel 13:1), and potential word fusions or obscurities (e.g., Amos 6:12).

Archaeological and Historical Considerations

• How do scholars handle archaeological findings that seem to conflict? When evaluating apparent conflicts between the biblical text and archaeological findings or secular historical records, scholars rely on several key principles and rules of evidence:

  • The Bible is a Premier Archaeological Document: Scholars emphasise that the Bible itself must be treated as an archaeological document of the highest calibre. Because of the Old Testament's unparalleled pattern of accuracy and integrity, it is considered "crass bias" and a violation of the rules of evidence to automatically assume the biblical author is wrong whenever a secular or pagan record disagrees.
  • Accounting for Pagan Propaganda: It is incredibly naive to assume an ancient statement is inherently more factual simply because it was written in Egyptian hieroglyphics or Assyrian cuneiform. Scholars note that ancient pagan kings frequently utilized self-laudatory propaganda, exaggerating their achievements just as some modern leaders do.
  • Rejecting the Argument from Silence: When critics point to a lack of extra-biblical confirmation for a biblical person (such as Zerah the Ethiopian) or group (such as the Philistines in Abraham's day), scholars identify this as a fallacious "argument from ignorance". Simply because extrabiblical sources are currently silent does not mean the biblical subjects did not exist; it merely means we lack that specific outside information at present.
  • Anticipating Future Confirmation: Scholars point out that critics have historically doubted the existence of many biblical figures and cities—such as the Hittites, Belshazzar, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—only to be completely refuted by later archaeological discoveries. Because of the Bible's proven track record of trustworthiness, scholars approach unexplained historical difficulties with the confident expectation that future archaeological excavations will eventually provide the missing answers.
  • Reevaluating Archaeological Data: When prevailing archaeological interpretations seem to directly contradict the Bible, scholars actively re-examine the data. For example, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon previously concluded that the city of Jericho had been destroyed long before Joshua's time. However, when scholars subsequently re-evaluated the stratigraphy, pottery, and Egyptian scarabs from the site, they discovered that the ruins actually corresponded with stunning accuracy to the biblical account, right down to the time of year the siege occurred, the short duration of the siege, and the fact that the city was burnt but not plundered.

What is an 'argument from silence' in biblical archaeology? Tell me more about the 'argument from silence' principle The "argument from silence" (often equated with the "argument from ignorance") is a logical fallacy frequently employed by critics who doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible simply because there is currently no extra-biblical or archaeological evidence to confirm a specific scriptural claim.

Scholars argue that using a lack of outside evidence to dismiss biblical accounts as legendary is an "irresponsible violation of logic" and "faulty reasoning". Simply because ancient secular sources are silent does not prove that a biblical person, place, or event never existed; it merely means we lack the necessary information at this time.

Historical Refutations: The Hittites (library discovered), Sodom and Gomorrah (Ebla tablets), etc.

Internal Biblical Silence: Absurd to conclude Jesus never kissed His mother or Adam never repented simply because not explicitly recorded. Dating events based on omissions in Judges is valueless.

How does the Bible handle historical accounts that secular records miss? It records them reliably; scholars expect future confirmation due to the Bible’s track record and reject automatic preference for pagan sources.

What are some common gospel reports that scholars harmonise? Differing details in parallel accounts of events in Jesus’s life (e.g., varying selections and emphases by different Gospel writers), resolved by viewing them as complementary perspectives.

Tell me more about the 'photograph and classroom' analogies. What is the 'photograph analogy' for Gospel accounts? If a room is photographed from multiple angles, each picture captures different contents, yet all are accurate. Similarly, multiple students’ notes on the same lecture record different details without falsehood. This illustrates how Gospel accounts from different perspectives provide a fuller "stereophonic" understanding.

Explain the difference between universal laws and general statements in Proverbs. General statements in Proverbs offer broad guidance that admits exceptions, while universal laws are absolute without exception. Proverbs provide practical wisdom with room for individual cases, not rigid universals.