FINDING BIBLE TRUTH - TWO VIEWS OF APPARENT DISCREPANCIES


In this article we examine some of the ways, and the validity of some of the arguments, used to try to reconcile or confirm the internal discrepancies found in the Bible.

HALEY

A fairly comprehensive collection of such arguments can be found in a book entitled "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by John W. Haley (Whitaker House). The book dates back to the end of the last century and has been re-printed a number of times. Although old the arguments in the book are in constant use by defenders of the notion that the Bible cannot err. The book lists and claims to reconcile some 900 discrepancies; it is far from complete and does not consider conflicts with science or with secular history. It is clearly the result of painstaking, and scholarly research, and includes the views of such thinkers as Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine.

Haley's conclusion is that every difficulty and discrepancy in the Bible is capable of a fair and reasonable solution.

Explanations divide into ten main categories:

Category 1. Separate events occurring at different times. For example there are three reports of a husband pretending that his wife is a sister, twice by Abraham and once by Isaac. Notwithstanding close similarities in these reports they are held to be different events.

Category 2. Words not uttered under Divine inspiration. The principle here is that only the actual writers of the books of the Bible were divinely inspired. These writers may report statements made by others, but the inclusion of such statements does not necessarily mean that they are true. The application of this concession is very arbitrary, and is not extended to the Gospels or to Acts.

Category 3. Differences in the standpoint of the writers, or of writer and reader. From a physical standpoint one writer may say that man is mortal, while another, writing from a spiritual standpoint can say that man is immortal. The explanation is sometimes reasonable, but is often abused.

Category 4. Different methods of arrangement. A number of discrepancies can be made to disappear if it is assumed that the writer is not maintaining true chronological order, or is condensing his narrative by grouping similar incidents, or omitting incidents that he considers have no direct relevance. Such assumptions too often appear to have no justification.

Category 5. Different ways of calculating dates and times, and numbers. In Hebrew reckoning any part of a day was counted a whole day, and any part of a year as a whole year. Hence the Bible can say that Christ rose on the third day where by modern reckoning he rose on the second day. Also it is known that in Christ's time two different calenders were in use, civil and sacred. In regard to the improbably large numbers that often appear it is claimed that Hebrew allows numbers to be written in reverse order. This claim is not generally accepted.

Category 6. Oriental style and idiom. Allowance must be made for middle-Eastern style, which employs a much greater degree of fanciful hyperbole and exaggeration than we would consider acceptable in a historical record. It cannot be termed a discrepancy where Psalm 91 speaks of God as having wings and feathers.

Category 7. Plurality of names. A single individual may be referred to by many different names. For example the Apostle Peter is also called Simon, Simeon, Cephas, Simon Peter, Simon Bar-jonas, and Simon son of Jonas. Further the names of people and places not infrequently were changed, commonly to mark some important event.

Category 8. Different meanings of the same word. It often happens that the same English word is used to translate a number of Hebrew or Aramaic words having substantially different meanings; conversely a single Hebrew or Aramaic word may have many English meanings - the result may be that the translation is untrue to the original.

Category 9. Copying errors. Several letters in the Hebrew alphabet are very similar to others, for example Beth and Kaph, Daleth and Resh. It would be easy, even inevitable, for a careless copyist to make some mistakes, while other copying errors can also occur. This explanation can be acceptable where a specific error is occasional and random, but not where it is common or systematic.

Category 10. Critic's imagination. This is the largest group - where some critic imagines there is a conflict which does not in fact exist. The author's judgement here is usually sound and acceptable.

Where no direct explanation can be found the author claims that it is quite sufficient for him to provide a reasonable hypothesis, whether or not there is any Biblical or other support for it, that will remove the discrepancy. The onus is then on the critic to prove the hypothesis false. Given this latitude his claim that all the listed discrepancies can be resolved is scarcely surprising, nor is it surprising that some of his explanations are somewhat far-fetched and involve assumptions that would generally be considered unacceptable. Some examples:

The death of Judas:

Acts 1:18 "Now [Judas] purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
Mat 27:5 "Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself." Matthew goes on to say that the priests bought a field with the money, for use as a burial ground.

The discrepancy over who actually bought the field is covered by an assumption that in Matthew the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas, which would contradict vs 6-7. The discrepancy over the manner of death is explained by an assumption that Judas hung himself from a branch overlooking the land bought by the priests. After hanging there long enough for the corpse to become sufficiently rotten for it to burst on impact, the branch broke and Judas fell.

Balaam's journey:

Num 22:20 "If the men come to call you, rise and go with them . . . So Balaam rose in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moab".
Num 22:21 "Then God's anger was aroused because he went"

One of a number of explanations offered is that the condition "If the men come to call you" was not met, but it is plain that the men - the princes of Moab, must have come. The alternative explanations are even less acceptable.

Destruction of the Amalekites:

1 Sam 15:3 "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child . . ."
1 John 4:16 "God is love"

The author explains: "It seemed best to the Almighty to extirpate a race so hardened and depraved, so utterly lost to the nobler feelings of mankind". The only offence of the Amalekites was that they harassed the Israelites during their passage through Amalekite lands during the exodus.

Korah's fate:

Num 16:31-33 says that Korah and all those with him were swallowed by the earth.
Num 16:19 and 35, Psa 106:18, say that the whole group were burned.

The explanation supposes that Korah left the main group and joined other co-conspiritors immediately before the earth opened up. A loose reading then allows an assumption that there were two groups, one being swallowed up and the other burned. It may be of interest that the story of Korah can, like that of the Flood, be divided into two separate internally consistent accounts.

MCKINSEY.

A totally opposed view is to be found in the book "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy" by C. Dennis McKinsey, published by Prometheus Books. This includes a lesser number of discrepancies but tries to show that the great majority cannot be honestly rationalised. A complete or direct comparison with Haley's book is not possible, partly because while he gives many examples of each type of error he does not attempt a complete list, partly because he also looks at areas such as conflicts with external scientific and moral considerations. Nevertheless the overlap is wide enough to show two entirely different paradigms at work.

How do such differences arise? Some reasons are:

In a lot of cases McKinsey establishes the reality of a discrepancy by taking words as being intended literally where the context makes it clear that a literal interpretation is not appropriate. On the other hand Haley claims a freedom to adopt the most improbable re-interpretation of words where there is no reason not to take them literally.

McKinsey denies the writers any freedom to interpret or paraphrase. Haley often claims that a writer is only interpreting or paraphrasing when he is in fact deliberately distorting an event or quotation.

McKinsey not infrequently resorts to nit-picking in place of solid reasoning. Haley may claim that real differences are of no significance and should be ignored.

McKinsey requires a high standard of proof for any proposed explanations, Haley maintains that it is sufficient to show that a reasonably possible explanation could exist.

McKinsey plays down and sometimes denies the possibility of copyist error while Haley seriously over-uses it.

Both Haley and McKinsey commonly and culpably distort the meaning of extracts.

Both, where it suits them, may ignore the context of a passage.

In short while the sincerity of both authors may well be real, their intellectual honesty and judgement are wholly questionable. The influence of blind and unreasoning dogma and of self-delusion is plain in both.

Perhaps you should be warned that a significant part of McKinsey's book is devoted to a personal denigration of Jesus, attempting to show him as dishonest, violent, inconsistent, deceiving, hypocritical, superficial, contemptible - while at the same time denying his existence, and suggesting that the Gospels are deliberate fabrications intended to present a picture of perfection. This produces something of a credibility gap.

Some examples where McKinsey's dogma may have overcome his reason are:

Unclean Spirits:

Mark 1:23-24 says that a man with an unclean spirit identified Jesus as 'The Holy one of God'.
1 John 4:1-2 says that anyone who confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is of God.

The claim is made that the verses from Mark imply that God had an unclean spirit or that an unclean spirit existed within God.

Miracles:

Matt 9:24-25: Jesus is told that a girl is dead, but replies that she is only sleeping. She rises when he takes her hand.

The claim is that if the girl really was dead Jesus lied, if she was not dead he did no miracle and deceived those present. But Jesus never claimed a miracle, so where is the deception?

Drunkenness:

Jer 25:27 says "Drink, be drunk, and vomit! . . ." The claim is made that God is contributing to the social evil of drunkenness. Reading the context shows the absurdity of this.


CONCLUSION

The conclusion has to be that the only way of arriving at any reasonable answer to the problem of discrepancy or error is to rid yourself of dogmas, prejudice, and pre-conceptions before you start.

* Return to HOME