The differing accounts in the gospels’ as well as differing accounts of the same events in Chronicles and Kings, should give us pause when confronted with an inerrant view of scripture, as it contorts scripture into a caricature of what it represents.
3 Likes
I agree in all but this point. Having been educated that we have to have absolutely no wiggle room for error, that’s the reference where I assume he would come from. I wonder how many students of the Bible have lost all faith in it because they were told any variation was proof that it wasn’t inspired.
George Macdonald, one of C S Lewis’ inspirations to reconvert to Christianity, had one of his characters in a novel say that the variation on small points was no reason to doubt the Resurrection (as you say, it perhaps even highlights the fact that there were more than one witness, and therefore it was more reliable).
Thanks.
2 Likes
Hey Daniel. A question if I may? Whilst I wholeheartedly affirm what you have written, I’m curious how you might answer a hypothetical detractor who may say that this line of thinking amounts to confirmation bias? By that I mean, we’ve already decided that the Resurrection happened to such an extent that even (supposed) evidence against historicity of the event (disagreement among eyewitnesses) is being reinterpreted as evidence in favour of the event. Do you follow, and if so, I’d be interested in your thoughts?
Others feel free to wade in here too if the mood should take them.
1 Like
You are of course, quite correct. Daniel is indeed overstating the case due to confirmation bias. The correct conclusion is simply that those interpreting this as evidence against historicity are indulging in confirmation bias since the simple demonstrable fact is that eyewitness accounts usually do disagree on many details, especially if they are recounted years later rather than only hours later. Though we can also say that perfect agreement between eye witness accounts is routinely considered cause for suspicion of collusion. But even if collusion and fabrication are less likely because of these disagreements, there are other possibilities so the disagreements don’t actually prove or confirm historicity.
2 Likes
Thanks for the thought… briefly, i would hold the resurrection to the same basic standard that we would give to any other historic investigation, or for that matter, a modern criminal investigation. could you or anyone else ever imagine, say, that a police investigator should expect every single eyewitness to agree without discrepancy regarding a murder they witnessed? Some might have noticed certain details, some might have noticed certain people present, others may have missed those details, some may have remembered or relayed details, or conflated various events. to my understanding, this is not just possible, but entirely expected.
But would any police investigator throw out a murder case wherein all the eyewitnesses agreed entirely about having seen the suspect actually shoot the victim, on the basis that various relatively minor details were inconsistent? of course not.
And further… to my understanding having spoken with various military criminal investigators… they are typically very suspicious of multiple eyewitness accounts that agree entirely without any variation, as this is far more likely to be the result of collaboration about testimony.
So no, I wouldn’t see this as confirmation bias, though i could understand the perception… rather i’m trying to use a very common, routine, and objective standard that we do in fact use in many other contexts and apply that to this particular historical study.
Hope that helps?
1 Like
I think i know what you’re getting at, but i feel compelled to point out the basic fallacy in how you presented this… different accounts of the same events do not require that either or both are erroneous… they may simply be, well, “different.”
That may be, but then i would still affirm the author is showing his bias. Core basic rationality and logic of the issue at hand would mean that, if he were convinced there were contradictory accounts of the resurrection, that this would lead to his doubt about the inerrancy of the Bible… there is no direct connection i can see between whether or not Scripture is inerrant, and whether the resurrection did or didn’t happen. it is quite the non sequitur.
if the author is willing to throw out the proverbial baby of the resurrection on the basis of what he perceives as the dirty water of inerrancy, then i can’t help but see something else going on… for which he wants to jettison the entire faith and belief in the resurrection… on the basis of a what on any account would only be a minor discrepancy between the accounts.
1 Like
That goes back how you define inerrant. As someone said, Ihabe no problem affirming it so long as I define can define it.
Thank you, Daniel, very helpful. I liked your murder investigator analogy too that’s a useful one to store away in the ol’ grey matter.
Haha. Yes, agreeing what ‘inerrancy’ is has always seemed to me to be the flying the proverbial ointment. Personally, I prefer to simply say that, when correctly understood and interpreted, the Bible is without error in all matters concern faith and doctrine.
2 Likes
no, it is more how we define and understand basic word “error”, and it is a critical distinction to make in basic reasoning:
If I tell you I ate mashed potatoes last night, and then later I happen to tell Liam that I ate applesauce last night, these accounts are indeed different. But neither statement is erroneous.
Yeessss… but… At first blush that is not what the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (the Gold Standard of Inerrancy) seems to be saying when it talks about Inerrancy. For example:
Short Statement
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives. (ephasis added)
Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
Article XI
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
To me, that reads as ‘everything the Bible records as a fact, is a fact’. Granted, the Statement does make some useful clarifications in the Denial under Article XIII:
We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. (Emphasis Added)
Even so, I would say that there are some aspects of the post-resurrection accounts I would feel uncomfortable including under “the topical arrangement of material” or “variant selections of material in parallel accounts”. But that’s me. 
It would also be useful if they had included their working definition of ‘Error’, alas.
I agree with you. There is a common misconception that memory does or should function like a recording device, made popular by the movies. But that isn’t so. What draws our attention can vary.
1 Like
sure, but in my response to Phil i was not talking specifically about inerrancy… i’m talking about the terrible habit i notice far too often (especially among critics or skeptics such as Bart Ehrman and plenty of others) of finding any “difference” in Scripture and classifying it as evidence of an “error”… especially when we wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) do that in any other context or for any other ancient or modern historical account.
For instance, I remember reading Pete Enns one time describe some differences between Kings and Chronicles… differences that were clearly and obviously explicable entirely as the result of a “variant selection of material”: One account recorded an event, the other omitted it. But of course, Dr. Enns used the author’s omission as evidence against inerrancy… in other words, he conflated a difference (due to an author’s choice to omit certain details) as an error.
That is the logical fallacy I’m trying to combat, and why Phil’s statement just happened to hit one of my pet peeves… In other words, while I might not have agreed with him, I would have had little issue had he said…
But as it is, he said…
And that, I’m afraid, is fallacious… a fallacy all too often utilized and not often enough called out, in my humble opinion.
To me contradiction is far more damning. A differing account can be reconciled, a contradictory one cannot. Or perhaps I am missing something in your view.
1 Like
precisely… hence:
if an account of an event in Kings in fact contradicts the account of the event in Chronicles, this would in fact be evidence of an error… and hence provide a logical basis to “give us pause when confronted with an inerrant view of scripture.”
But as it is, if an account of an event in Kings simply differs from the account of said event in Chronicles, then we have… a difference. Not an error. And a mere difference would have no bearing or impact whatsoever on the concept of an inerrant Scripture.
Gotcha. Sometimes I am a little dense.
Fair enough, but I don’t really have much quibble with that point. My only “soapbox” I was trying to address was the unfortunate way (and it happens far too often) a mere “difference” is upheld, oft without any further argumentation or reasoning, as indisputable proof of an “error.”
A difference may or may not be evidence of an error. But if we conclude that an account has erred, it also means we are claiming enough knowledge to know that there are in fact no alternate explanations. This I think we should be very hesitant to do regarding any ancient text or authority… regardless of the question of inerrancy. We just don’t have that kind of exhaustive knowledge of the ancients’ times, customs, language, figures of speech, situations, perspectives, insights, knowledge… it is a question of humility that an ancient author may in fact be aware something that we are missing. If we are too quick to conclude an error, we may well miss something where we might have in fact learned something.
For instance, Bart Ehrman is one of many that suggests an error regarding when the passover would be eaten:
they refuse to enter Pilate’s headquarters because they want to “avoid ritual defilement” so that they can “eat the Passover” that evening (18:28; remember, though, that in Mark’s Gospel they had already eaten the Passover meal the night before).
A clear error in Ehrman’s mind: In Mark’s gospel the passover had already been eaten by the time of Jesus’s trial, in John’s gospel, it was to be eaten later after the trial. But if Ehrman had been a bit more circumspect, and slower to rush to judgment, he may have learned something… namely, that the feast referred to as the “passover” lasted seven days.
Or perhaps my favorite example… imagine if, in our Bibles, the account of Jesus feeding of 5000 was only found say in Matthew, and the feeding of 4000 was only found in Luke. If so, no doubt many would point to this “difference” as a hopeless contradiction. And we would likely laugh at those fundamentalists desperate enough to try to reconcile the differences who came along and suggested that "maybe Jesus fed the multitudes twice, one where he fed 5000, once where he fed 4000… what a pathetic and baldly desperate attempt to try to harmonize an obvious error, we would probably say. But nonetheless, we know that Jesus did feed the multitudes (at least?) twice, given both accounts occurring in a single book.
That gives me pause to jumping to assume an irreconcilable conflict or error. Just because something appears to conflict at first glance there may well be all manner of good explanations, and sometimes reveals more about our methods or assumptions.
For example: Did Jesus “first” appear to his disciples in Jerusalem or in Galilee? Stop and think about all that is entailed in that question and the unwarranted assumptions therein… if Jesus had more than one follower, the answer could quite well be “both.”
2 Likes
That’s fair. Even away from discussions of inerrancy, I find that line of attack frustrating. I like your illustration of the Feeding of the 5k vs 4k, and the example of the Passover Festival. However, I am not entirely convinced you can apply that to the Jerusalem vs. Galilee meet up. The passages suggest to me that Jesus expected (at least) the 11 to wait in Jerusalem (Luke) or at least the 11 to meet him in Galilee (Matthew). Is it possible that Jesus asked some to wait whilst he went off to meet others, possibly. Is that likely, I’m doubtful. Do I think the sequence of events are factual (e.g. disciples meet Jesus in Galilee and then returned to wait in Jerusalem). Yes, I do.
1 Like
Aye, there’s the rub.
1 Like
The hunt for contradictions by some and the attempts at resolution of apparent contradictions by others seem to me to suffer from the same approach to the Gospel accounts. We have, in our time, conventions for judging the reliability of an account. These conventions are concerned with sequence and timing, very often similar to the concerns of a legal trial establishing cause and effect. The writers of the Gospels did not have the same conventions. The Gospels are theological reflections on the eyewitness events.
Article 13 (oft ignored) of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is helpful here:
Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a Theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. [emphasis added] We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
We will not reach a clear, complete and coherent understanding of the Gospel accounts by imposing modern criteria. We need to learn to read “over the shoulders” (a phrase I attribute to John Walton, in spirit if not in the exact words) of the 1st Century recipients of the Gospels, to read it with their concerns and their questions and their standards for truth and error. That might seem out of reach to 21st Century Christians, but some good work has been done to help us read the New Testament from the point of view of early Christians.
Two helpful books:
- The Gospel and the Eyewitnesses, by R. Bauckham.
- Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to the Interpretation of Luke 15, by Kenneth Bailey.