Actually, this post wasn’t part of my planned series – it is reflecting about on-and-off-site discussions. In some way, this post could be titled Disagreeing with “disagreeing with the Bible”.
If you want to catch up on what’s been covered so far, read the posts and the comments:
Read Disagreeing With The Bible Part 1
and Disagreeing With The Bible Part 2
and Disagreeing With The Bible 3
and The Bible Says
and Disagreeing With The Bible 4
Friend and fellow-blogger, Peter Carrell, pointed to an article which stands in helpful dialogue with this series:
— Peter Carrell ن (@petercarrell) November 5, 2018
In the post Peter points to, its author, The Rev. Dr Ian Paul begins with
the apparent contradictions between the two accounts of Judas’ death, in Matt 27.3–8 and in Act 1.18. In the first, Judas hangs himself, the priests buy the field, and it is named ‘Field of Blood’ because of the betrayal by Judas. In the second, briefer account, Judas buys the field first, falls to his death there, and it is named ‘Field of Blood’ because of Judas’ death.
Ian Paul’s post is responding to Mark Woods. Mark presents a pretty classic combining of the two stories:
Judas hanged himself on a tree – as told by Matthew – at the top of a cliff. The rope broke and he fell all the way to the bottom. When he landed, he suffered the injuries described in Acts 1.
Like Mark Wood, I find this unnecessarily complicated and complicating. Ian Paul, however, contends
If there really are two stories, and they really cannot be reconciled, the logical conclusion is not that one is right and one is wrong—but that they are both wrong since historical reliability (at least in our understanding of the idea) is not important to the NT writers.
Already, Ian Paul is making an assumption that I think needs challenging: that the approach, purpose, skills, and knowledge of all NT writers are identical, and that the genres of their texts are homogenous. I suggest it is logically possible that to one NT writer (and his text) “historical reliability (at least in our understanding of the idea)” may very well be important, whilst another may have a different approach. So one version may be historically correct and the other not.
Ian Paul goes on to describe an event as if filmed and edited quite differently for two different films – so much so that if you were watching the two versions, one might not spot immediately that this was the same event. For him, something like this is at work in disagreeing biblical material. He contends that “it is vital that [reconciling the two stories of Judas’ death] is possible”. “If they cannot be reconciled”, he says, “if they are not at some level reliable accounts of what happened—then they are not a credible witness. And if they are not, then they cannot tell me the truth about Jesus Christ.”
This, I suggest, is a path to a shrinking church for intelligent people. Ian Paul’s article would have us abandon the Bible as presenting the Truth if we find even one irreconcilable historical detail, one point we disagree with it. I am not prepared to do that.
To me, the Bible is more akin to a series of paintings than to a collection of videos.
I am with Mark Woods:
I don’t believe for one moment that the Bible is compromised by honesty about the parts where it contradicts itself or where the biblical writers, speaking spiritual truth in the context of erroneous ideas about science and nature, simply got things wrong.
During this Southern Hemisphere summer holiday period, posts will be less frequent, and any comments may take longer to get onto the site.