Program / Course 17: Defending Scripture / Lesson 4.1
What you will learn
- Define what counts as a contradiction and distinguish it from a difference or a tension.
- Apply a five-step method to any claimed conflict between two passages.
- Recognize the mistakes that defenders and critics both make.
- Report the result of a test honestly in one of four categories.
The big idea
Two statements contradict each other only if they cannot both be true at the same time, in the same sense and in the same respect. Many claimed contradictions in the Bible turn out to be differences of detail, emphasis, selection or purpose, but some tensions are real and have not been fully resolved. A sound method reads both passages in context, identifies the genre and intention, tests the readings that each side would accept, and reports the result without forcing it. A method that always finds a solution is not testing anything.
Key terms
- Contradiction
- A pair of statements that cannot both be true in the same sense, at the same time and in the same respect.
- Difference
- A variation between accounts that does not by itself make them incompatible, such as one writer including a detail that another leaves out.
- Tension
- An apparent conflict that has plausible but not certain explanations, or that is left unresolved.
- Harmonization
- An attempt to show that two passages are compatible by combining or explaining them. It can be sound or forced.
- Law of non-contradiction
- The principle that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect.
- Redaction
- The shaping of source material by an author or editor for a purpose. Scholars use the term when comparing parallel accounts.
- Steelman
- To state an opposing argument in its strongest form before replying to it. The opposite of a straw man.
Background
Claims that the Bible contradicts itself are very old. The pagan critic Celsus, in the second century, and Porphyry, in the third, pressed such arguments, and Christian writers such as Origen and Augustine replied. Augustine wrote a whole work on the harmony of the Gospels. Today lists of alleged contradictions circulate online and in books, and defenders produce lists of replies. Both lists vary widely in quality.
Because the topic is contentious, it helps to agree on rules before looking at examples. The method here asks the student to treat the critic’s best argument as seriously as the defender’s best reply. It does not assume that every apparent conflict must have a solution, nor that every conflict shows the Bible to be worthless. It asks what the passages say, what the authors intended, and what remains unresolved.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: State the claim precisely
Write down the two statements in full, with references, and say exactly what the conflict is supposed to be. A vague claim such as the Gospels disagree about the resurrection cannot be tested. A precise claim such as Matthew says two women went to the tomb and John says one can be tested. Be sure that you quote what the text says and not what a summary says.
At this stage, also ask whether the claim depends on a translation. Check the passages in more than one translation and, if possible, consult a commentary on the Greek or Hebrew. Check the footnotes for variants. Sometimes a conflict exists only in an English rendering.
Step 2: Read both passages in context
Read the whole paragraph and chapter around each passage. Ask who is speaking, to whom and why. A statement by a character in a story may be recorded without being endorsed. Job’s friends say many things that the book itself criticizes (Job 42:7). A quotation of someone’s view is not a claim by the author.
Ask whether the passages are speaking about the same thing. Paul says that a person is justified by faith apart from works (Romans 3:28), and James says that a person is justified by works and not by faith only (James 2:24). The words are alike, but scholars note that the two authors use justified and works in different ways and address different problems. Whether this fully removes the conflict is something interpreters still discuss.
Step 3: Identify genre and intention
Ancient historians did not follow modern conventions of exact quotation or strict chronology. A writer might group events by theme, report the substance of a speech, or round numbers. A poem or a prophecy uses images and not measurements. If two accounts of a battle give different numbers, ask whether either claims to count precisely.
The same point applies in reverse. A defender cannot treat any difference as harmless on the grounds of genre without evidence that the genre allows it. The claim that ancient writers permitted flexibility should be supported by comparison with other ancient writings, not assumed. A critic who treats ancient narrative as if it were a modern police report is making the opposite mistake.
Step 4: Test the possible readings
List the main ways the passages can be read. Include the reading the critic proposes, the reading the traditional defender proposes and any scholarly middle path. Ask which are consistent with the words, which require adding unstated details, and which are the simplest. A harmonization that requires inventing events not in the text deserves suspicion. One well-known proposal that Peter denied Jesus six times, to satisfy all four Gospels, is widely thought by scholars of many persuasions to strain the text.
State honestly where an explanation is only possible and not probable. The statement that it could have happened is weaker than the statement that it did. Readers can disagree about whether a possible solution is enough to answer a charge of contradiction, and it is fair to describe the question this way.
Step 5: Report the result
Sort the result into one of four outcomes. First, no real conflict: the claim rests on a misreading. Second, a plausible resolution: there is a reasonable reading that removes the conflict, though others remain possible. Third, a tension that remains: the passages differ in a way that has no agreed solution. Fourth, a real disagreement: the authors appear to say different things, and traditions differ on what follows.
Writing the result in this way makes it harder to claim too much. It also keeps the focus on the text instead of on winning an argument. The next lessons apply the method to numbers, to the Gospel accounts and to the tensions that remain.
- Why is it important to state a claimed contradiction precisely before testing it?
- What is the difference between a contradiction and a difference of detail?
- Why should a harmonization that invents events be treated with caution?
- How would you tell the difference between a reasonable appeal to genre and a convenient one?
- Which of the four outcomes do you think is hardest for people to admit, and why?
- How could you steelman the view of someone who thinks the Bible contradicts itself?
Examples
Faith and works
Paul and James appear to say opposite things. A careful reader notes that Paul is arguing against the idea that Gentiles must keep the Jewish law to belong to God’s people, while James argues against a faith that does nothing. Many readers find the conflict apparent only. Others say the two authors still have different emphases, and Luther famously struggled with James.
Kill and not kill
Exodus 20:13 forbids killing, in the older translation, and elsewhere the law commands capital punishment. The Hebrew verb in the commandment concerns unlawful killing in most translations of recent decades. This is a case in which translation, not the text, creates an apparent conflict.
A list of alleged contradictions
A well-known list claims that the Bible says both that no one has seen God (John 1:18) and that Moses saw God face to face (Exodus 33:11). A student applying the method would note the idiom face to face, the context in Exodus 33:20, which says that no one can see God’s face and live, and the debate among interpreters about the sense of seeing.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that Scripture teaches truth without error. Interpreters attend to literary forms and to the intention of the authors, and the church has often held that apparent contradictions arise from misreading, translation or copying errors, as Augustine wrote. Catholic scholars also acknowledge real difficulties and the need for further study.
Orthodox
Orthodox writers tend to read the differences among the Gospels as expressions of a fuller truth that no single account exhausts. Chrysostom and other Fathers noted the differences and explained them by the purposes of the evangelists. The Orthodox approach avoids forced harmonizing and keeps attention on the person of Christ.
Protestant (inerrantist)
Many evangelicals hold that Scripture, in its original form, contains no real contradictions, and they work to show how passages fit together. They argue that a claimed contradiction should be given the benefit of the doubt, as with any trusted author, and warn against critics who assume error.
Protestant (non-inerrantist)
Other Protestants accept that the biblical authors sometimes differ in detail or emphasis and see this as part of the Bible’s human character. They say the authority of Scripture does not rest on perfect agreement on every detail, and they criticize forced harmonization.
Skeptical
Skeptical scholars hold that the Bible contains real contradictions that are better explained by the different authors and times than by clever readings. They argue that the harmonizing habit is driven by a prior commitment to inerrancy. A fair reply notes that every reader brings assumptions, including the skeptic.
Why it matters
A method protects you from two opposite temptations: to dismiss every difficulty and to be overwhelmed by every list. It is also a general skill. The same steps help in reading any ancient document, a legal text or a newspaper account. In this course it will be applied to numbers, the Gospels, and to the harder texts of the Old Testament, and the habit of reporting the result honestly will be used each time.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: If two accounts differ, one must be false.
Correction: Accounts can differ in detail while both are true, as in two witnesses to the same event who notice different things. The question is whether they cannot both be true.
Misunderstanding: A believer must have an answer to every alleged contradiction.
Correction: Many traditions say otherwise. It is honest to say that a tension remains and to describe the possible readings. Faith in Scripture does not depend on a ready answer for each case.
Misunderstanding: Harmonizing is always dishonest.
Correction: Harmonizing is a normal part of reading any set of texts. It becomes dishonest when it adds details the text does not give or ignores the plain sense.
Misunderstanding: Critics who list contradictions have never read the passages.
Correction: Some have not, and some are careful scholars. Judge each argument by its quality.
Knowledge check
What counts as a contradiction?
Two statements contradict each other when they cannot both be true at the same time, in the same sense and in the same respect. A difference of detail, emphasis or selection is not a contradiction by itself. A tension is a case where the passages seem to conflict and the explanations are plausible but not certain. The distinction guides every test.
List the five steps of the method.
First, state the claim precisely, with references, and check translations and variants. Second, read both passages in context. Third, identify genre and the author’s intention. Fourth, test the possible readings, including the critic’s and the traditional defender’s. Fifth, report the result honestly in one of four categories, from no real conflict to a real disagreement.
What is wrong with a forced harmonization?
A forced harmonization adds events or details not found in the text so that two accounts fit together. It can mislead the reader into thinking the text says something it does not. A harmonization is sound if it follows from the words and the setting, and is suspect if it only works by invention.
Why is it important to report that some tensions remain?
Honest reporting shows that the method is a real test and not a device for always reaching the same answer. It protects the reader from false confidence, and it avoids giving critics a fair complaint of evasion. Most traditions allow that some questions remain open without this ending faith in Scripture.
Think it through
- Which step of the method do you think you would be most likely to skip, and why?
- How might your own beliefs lead you to accept a weak harmonization or a weak objection?
- What would it take for you to say that a real contradiction had been found?
Independent assignment
Test one claim
In your own notebook, choose one alleged contradiction from a list you have seen or one of the examples in this lesson. Apply the five steps in order and write the result in 350 to 450 words, ending with one of the four outcomes and a short statement of what remains unresolved. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Augustine of Hippo, The City of God Read selectively for Augustine’s approach to apparent difficulties.
- Origen, On First Principles (De Principiis) Read selectively for Origen’s remarks on difficulties in the text.
- Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth Use the chapters on genre to practice Step 3.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Read for the errors of reasoning that often appear in arguments over contradictions.
- Romans 3:28 Paul on justification by faith.
- James 2:24 James on faith and works.
- Exodus 33:20 No one can see God’s face and live, in tension with verse 11.