Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

[cyberjosh]

Wavy posted this in the Documentary Hypothesis thread, but I found it appropriate to give it it's own thread:

There are numerous contradictions too, which disrupt the unity that allegedly 'implies' singular authorship. I'd like to quote a paragraph from Friedman again and then proceed with a few of my own examples, one of which has already been given above with the Priestly and Jahwist creations. This is what Friedman writes referring to beginning speculations against traditional Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch:

But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it say those same events happened in a different order. It would say there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there were fourteen of that same thing. It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did it. It would describe Moses going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle. People also noticed that the five books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth. (ibid. p.17).

Another example of contradiction is seen when trying to figure out who actually wrote the Ten Commandments: God or Moses. While I currently hold that the Elohist and Jahwist versions of the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exo xx and xxxiv, respectively) are two alternate accounts of what happened the first and only time Moses received them (the Ex xxxiv.1c clause being an editorial comment based upon the Elohist golden calf cipher, where Moses breaks the first set), I'll operate under the assumption that 'Moses' was the sole author and that both versions are sequential rather than alternate. We won't even deal with the fact that both sets of tablets as recorded in both chapters contain different commandments, contrary to Yahweh saying that the words on the second set of tablets would be the same as the first in Exo xxxiv.1. According to this verse and Deut x.2 God wrote on the second set of tablets, and yet Exo xxxiv.28 states that Moses wrote on the second set of Tablets. How could one writer, supposedly present and participative in these events, so flagrantly contradict himself? And while I could make an issue of when the ark was built (see Exo xxv.10 & Deut x.2), and where and by whom, I'll save that for another time.

There are also several passages Moses supposedly wrote that make little sense if he actually wrote them. Two examples are given in a thread I made entitled 'Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch' when I first wanted to discuss this topic with cybershark, but apparently it went ignored (only the user and moderator 'handy' answered, and then she didn't even address my points directly). I'll reproduce those points here:

]Gen.36.31(NASB)
Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.

Does any one care to explain how Moses listed a succession of Edomite kings in detail up until the Israelite monarchy half a millenium (or roughly 2+ centuries, depending on whether we date Moses to the 15th or 13th century) after Moses supposedly died by using 'reigned' (perfect tense)?

...

According to my view Moses neither wrote nor spoke the words of anything in Deuteronomy, and this is demonstrable beginning with the very first words of the book:

Deut.1.1
These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel across the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel and Laban and Hazeroth and Dizahab.

'Across the Jordan' would be the east side of Jordan, and of course, Moses never crossed over from the east to the west. But the phrase 'across the Jordan' itself gives the perspective of an author who's already in Canaan (i.e. west of Jordan).

Deut.1.5; 4.41,46-49 continue to give the persepctive of the true author who's writing in Canaan. Respectively, the author(s) does attempt to properly quote Moses from Moses' perspective east of the Jordan:

Deut.3.19-20
But your wives and your little ones and your livestock (I know that you have much livestock) shall remain in your cities which I have given you, until the LORD gives rest to your fellow countrymen as to you, and they also possess the land which the LORD your God will give them beyond the Jordan [in Canaan] then you may return every man to his possession which I have given you.

Deut.3.25
Let me, I pray, cross over and see the fair land that is beyond the Jordan [in Canaan], that good hill country and Lebanon.'

Deut.11.30
Are they not across the Jordan, west of the way toward the sunset, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?

The author makes the effort to put Moses in proper perspective. However, he unwittingly and mistakenly reveals his own west of Jordan perspective and disconfirms that Moses' speeches are truly Mosaic:

Deut.3.8
Thus we took the land at that time from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the valley of Arnon to Mount Hermon

The land of which Moses speaks is east of Jordan. Moses is already east of Jordan, having never crossed west of Jordan, and he speaks as if the east of Jordan (his location) is across the Jordan.

...

For example, Ex.21.2,7 with Deut.15.12. One says women cannot be released as slaves the same way as men. The other gives women the same right as men.

I'll try to address these as best I can.

But the tradition that one person, Moses, alone wrote these books presented problems. People observed contradictions in the text. It would report events in a particular order, and later it say those same events happened in a different order.

Apart from the previous contention of the chronology of the creation in Genesis (which can be discussed in the thread already made on that topic) what are some other examples of two things told out of chronological order?

It would say there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there were fourteen of that same thing.

Where does this occur?

It would say that the Moabites did something, and later it would say that it was the Midianites who did it.

Tribes often raided in bands, and with other tribes. Also mercenaries in one's army sometimes get credit for battles, such as one instance when Egypt employed Lybian fighters in their army. This is a common occurance in the OT.

It would describe Moses going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle.

Where is this at?

People also noticed that the five books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death.

We do not deny that someone else wrote the account of Moses' death (probably Joshua). Nor that there weren't any later editors who added occasional explanatory details, but we hold for the majority of the Pentatuech that Moses wrote it.

It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth.

Hardly a proof.

Another example of contradiction is seen when trying to figure out who actually wrote the Ten Commandments: God or Moses. While I currently hold that the Elohist and Jahwist versions of the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exo xx and xxxiv, respectively) are two alternate accounts of what happened the first and only time Moses received them (the Ex xxxiv.1c clause being an editorial comment based upon the Elohist golden calf cipher, where Moses breaks the first set), I'll operate under the assumption that 'Moses' was the sole author and that both versions are sequential rather than alternate. We won't even deal with the fact that both sets of tablets as recorded in both chapters contain different commandments, contrary to Yahweh saying that the words on the second set of tablets would be the same as the first in Exo xxxiv.1. According to this verse and Deut x.2 God wrote on the second set of tablets, and yet Exo xxxiv.28 states that Moses wrote on the second set of Tablets. How could one writer, supposedly present and participative in these events, so flagrantly contradict himself? And while I could make an issue of when the ark was built (see Exo xxv.10 & Deut x.2), and where and by whom, I'll save that for another time.

I think there may indeed be a bit of complexity as to how the law was written on the tablets, because we are never told by what agency God wrote them, except for the first set which are said to have been written by the finger of God. Even then later in the Psalms (I think) and elsewhere in the OT and NT it speaks of angels having been mediators for the law. Perhaps the anthropomorphisms ("finger of God") were meant to describe the same inspiration driving-force as theo-pneustos in the NT. I don't know. But aside from that one reference in Exodus it is much more commonly and consistantly referred to as God's work (in whatever form it may have taken or worked through). This is hardly something to base the JEDP on however.


-----------------------------


As for the rest of the examples that seem to indicate later writings:

The reference to Edom reigning (past tense) surely could have been a later insertion, but the list was most probably written by Moses himself. As for the mentioning of "across Jordan" this no more proves that it was inserted later than that every time that it mentions "in the wilderness" that it means it was written when they were out of the wilderness.

I will summarize the point on some of the one's that seem past tense however by saying that it is not far fetched to see an editor coming back and adding short introductory (Fundamentalist commentators even admit that Deut 1:1-5 is probably a later inserted introduction) passages. But trying to prove one-by-one different contradictions does not by any stretch of the imagination prove multiple authorship, nor by any means to the extent that JEDP proposes, because JEDP chops up things that don't even seem to contradict one another.

~Josh

 

[wavy]

Sounds like you're still arguing the DH. If this is about contradictions, let's focus on contradictions and not the DH.


Thanks,
~Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

Sounds like you're still arguing the DH. If this is about contradictions, let's focus on contradictions and not the DH.


Thanks,
~Eric

No I'm not trying to, but I did have to rip them out of that context, so it occasioned a few mentions.

 

[wavy]

Apart from the previous contention of the chronology of the creation in Genesis (which can be discussed in the thread already made on that topic) what are some other examples of two things told out of chronological order?

I can't think of anything specific right now. The accounts of Aaron's death perhaps would be another example. But I think he's specifically referring to the P and J creations.

It would say there were two of something, and elsewhere it would say that there were fourteen of that same thing.

Where does this occur?

He's referring to the P and J versions of the flood story. The P version commands that two animals, a male and his female, be brought aboard the ark (gen vi.19-20). The J version commands 7 of every clean animal, male and female (7 x 2 = 14; see gen vii.2).

Tribes often raided in bands, and with other tribes. Also mercenaries in one's army sometimes get credit for battles, such as one instance when Egypt employed Lybian fighters in their army. This is a common occurance in the OT.

This has nothing to do with a raid, but he's specifically referring to Numbers xxv, where the Israelites fornicated with Moabite women and yet later in the story this is attributed to Midianite women.

It would describe Moses going to a Tabernacle in a chapter before Moses builds the Tabernacle.

Where is this at?

In exo xxxiii.7-11 (in the Elohist stratum according to Friedman), it mentions the 'Tent of Meeting' outside the camp and how Moses would enter in and out of it and speak with Yahweh as he descended in a pillar of cloud. But the instructions for building the Tent of Meeting (i.e., the Tabernacle) aren't given until ch. xxxv, and it is not completed until ch. xxxix (these chapters and the ones in between are assigned to the Priestly stratum).

We do not deny that someone else wrote the account of Moses' death (probably Joshua). Nor that there weren't any later editors who added occasional explanatory details, but we hold for the majority of the Pentatuech that Moses wrote it.

I know you believe that. The problem is that there are no criteria by which to distinguish latter editorial material from Mosaic material except by begging the question of Mosaic authorship.

And you were just ridiculing the proponents of the DH by linking to a blog criticizing them for invoking the 'magical redactor'. Here you are caught doing that exact same thing. Saying it was 'probably Joshua' that wrote Deut xxxiv does not make it so. That is simply a suggestion pulled out of thin air with no evidence whatsoever to support it.

It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth.

Hardly a proof.

Hardly a proof of what? The DH? I never said it was, and again you're focusing too much on the DH in a thread about contradictions.

I think there may indeed be a bit of complexity as to how the law was written on the tablets, because we are never told by what agency God wrote them, except for the first set which are said to have been written by the finger of God. Even then later in the Psalms (I think) and elsewhere in the OT and NT it speaks of angels having been mediators for the law. Perhaps the anthropomorphisms ("finger of God") were meant to describe the same inspiration driving-force as theo-pneustos in the NT. I don't know. But aside from that one reference in Exodus it is much more commonly and consistantly referred to as God's work (in whatever form it may have taken or worked through). This is hardly something to base the JEDP on however.

The tradition about angels mediating the law which is also found in the NT is late and irrelevant. The Pentateuch mentions nothing of mediating angels standing in Yahweh's place when the law was given. Vague, theological explanations about 'inspiration' and assumed anthropomorphisms (i.e., the 'finger of God') are equally irrelevant. The different texts are straightforward in regards to who wrote the Ten Commandments. One tradition says Yahweh did it, the other says Moses did. Variants in the LXX attempt to reconcile this conflict by expanding the text of Exodus xxxiv to mesh with Deut v, which shows that the conflict itself actually existed and was noticed very early. If they noticed it and took action to rectify it, why can't you?

The reference to Edom reigning (past tense) surely could have been a later insertion, but the list was most probably written by Moses himself.

I assume you mean the kings of Edom reigning, not 'Edom reigning'. Despite the fact that this explanation may be dismissed because it just assumes Mosaic authorship (see my comments above), at what point in this mundane, historical list of Edomite kings would an editor or scribe feel the need to mention the Israelite monarchy (IM)? How does that resolve the conflict?

If the kings list without your postulated later insertion contained a record of the kings of Edom up until the IM without actually mentioning the IM, that still leaves the reference to them in the future by using the perfect tense (since kings reigning up until the IM, even without mentioning the IM, would still have lived long after Moses). And if you argue that these kings lived before Moses or during Moses' time, why would a scribe feel the need to insert a reference to the IM? If the kings lived before or during Moses' time, then they obviously lived before the IM and therefore mentioning that they reigned before the IM would be superfluous.

As for the mentioning of "across Jordan" this no more proves that it was inserted later than that every time that it mentions "in the wilderness" that it means it was written when they were out of the wilderness.

This comment is totally non-sequitur. But I'll give you a chance to clarify yourself before I respond.

I will summarize the point on some of the one's that seem past tense however by saying that it is not far fetched to see an editor coming back and adding short introductory (Fundamentalist commentators even admit that Deut 1:1-5 is probably a later inserted introduction) passages. But trying to prove one-by-one different contradictions does not by any stretch of the imagination prove multiple authorship, nor by any means to the extent that JEDP proposes, because JEDP chops up things that don't even seem to contradict one another.

Please see above comments.

Kind regards,
~Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

Please don't respond until I'm finished, and I'll let you know when that occurs.

Are we there yet? :-D j/k

Sorry, I'm in a funny mood today. ;-)

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Since we're getting stuff from other threads, here's one of my posts which may be relevant:

.....Your error come from reading the Bible and expecting facts to correlate as if you were reading a 20th century log book. We Americans like our history books to be precise. God, however, was trying to convey other truths when He inspired the writers, and the particulars of those stories you mention have nothing to do with the truths God is trying to convey. God wants all to know that He, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

These are the truths that the Evangelists convey perfectly in the Gospels. Those details you are focusing on are neither here nor there. Semites did not write history the way we do, with attention to details and minutia. They wrote to convey Truths using broad strokes. This is not fabrication, and neither is it discrepency or error; it is merely the Semitic style of writing - a focus on a major truth, not minor tangential issues.

 

[wavy]

I've edited and completed my post, Josh. (additions are in purple)

Thanks,
~Eric

 

[cyberjosh]

Thanks, I'll get to it when I can.

~Josh

 

[John]

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=15 many supposed "contradictions" are debunked.

 

[wavy]

bump