Post by iris89 on Oct 17, 2007 14:08:40 GMT -5
Why Sweat Apparent Bible Contradictions:
INTRODUCTION:
Early Bible scholars who specialized in examining apparent Bible contradictions realized they had a lot of work ahead of them due to translation errors, ancient customs that were neither completely known or understood, copyist errors, ancient names of items that were not known to them, differences in what and method of counting between Bible writers, and bias on the part of many scholars.
One such example that baffled scholars for many years was the difference in count between 1 Chronicles 21:5, "And he gave David the number of them, whom he had surveyed: and all the number of Israel was found to be eleven hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and of Juda four hundred and seventy thousand fighting men." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), which was written by the prophet Ezra about 460 BC, and the account at 2 Samuel 24:9, "And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." (DRCB), which was written by the prophets Gad and Nathan about 1,040 BC. But scholars eventually resolved this apparent contradiction as follows, <<<" In 2 Sam 24:9, was the result of the census 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, or was it 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah as 1 Chr 21:5-6 says?
A: There are two different answers.
Copyist error: One verse could have a copyist error.
Both are correct: Alternately, both are correct, because the totals referred to different groups. The numbers in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6 do not include the Levites and Benjamites. The numbers in 2 Samuel 24:9 might also include the 288,000 in the standing army mentioned in 1 Chronicles 27:1-15 and the 12,000 in Jerusalem and the chariot cities (2 Chronicles 1:14). Also, 1 Chronicles 6:1 mentions the standing army of Judah, 30,000 men. One solution is that 1,100,000 - 288,000 - 12,000 = 800,000, and 500,000 - 30,000 = 460,000.
The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.188-189, 221-222 gives both viewpoints. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.482, When Critics Ask p.178, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.158-159, and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.117-118 for more info. Q: In 2 Sam 24:9, was the result of the census 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, or was it 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah as 1 Chr 21:5-6 says?" [source - the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 188-189 and 221-222]>>>.
Interestingly, I wonder why for centuries, scholars missed the clue which was right under their nose with respect this difference in count at 1 Chronicles 21:6, "But Levi and Benjamin he did not number: for Joab unwillingly executed the king's orders." (DRCB).
Some make a big deal out of the difference between 1 Chronicles 21:1, "And Satan rose up against Israel: and moved David to number Israel." (DRCB), and 2 Samuel 24:1, "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). Let's look at the facts, <<<"For many Bible readers, the parallel accounts that describe David's numbering of Israel (found in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21) pose a serious problem. "Why does 2 Samuel 24:1 state that God 'moved' David against Israel, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who 'stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel' "? Can both passages be right, or is this a contradiction?
The Hebrew verb wayyaset, translated "moved" (NKJV) or "incited (NASV), is identical in both passages. God and Satan's actions are described using the same word. The difference lies with the sense in which the word is used: Satan incited (or tempted-cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5) David more directly, while God is spoken of as having incited David because He allowed such temptation to take place. The Hebrews often used active verbs to express "not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do" (Bullinger, 2898, p. 823, emp. in orig.). Throughout the Bible, God's allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord." [source - Apologetics Press :: Alleged Discrepancies, Who Incited David to Number Israel?, by Eric Lyons, M.Min.]>>>.
Which was nothing but a misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew usage on the part of some translators, nothing to sweat over.
AN EXAMPLE OF AN ALLEGED BIBLE ERROR NOT RESOLVED UNTIL A MODERN ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND:
Many claim the Bible has errors, but what they claim are errors are in reality errors with respect to our understanding and NOT God's word. Here is one example of something many claimed to be an error, but later archeological findings proved it was only an error in our understanding and not the Bible.
Although the word "pim" occurs only once in the Bible. In the days of King Saul, the Israelites had to get their metal tools sharpened by Philistine smiths. "The price for sharpening proved to be a pim for the plowshares and for the mattocks and for the threetoothed instruments and for the axes and for fixing fast the oxgoad," states the Bible. -1 Samuel 13:21.
What was a pim? The .answer to that question remained a mystery until 1907 C.E. when the first pim weight stone was excavated at the ancient city of Gezer. Bible translators of earlier dates had difficulty translating the word "pim." The King James Version, for example, rendered 1 Samuel 13:21: "Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."
. .
Scholars today know that a" pim was a weight measure averaging 7.82 grams, or approximately two thirds of a shekel, the basic Hebrew unit of weight. A pim measure of silver scrap was the price the Philistines charged the Israelites for sharpening their tools. The shekel weight system went out of use with the fall of the kingdom of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem, in 607 B.C.E. So how does the pim measure testify to the historicity of the Hebrew text?
Some scholars, Muslim and pseudo Christians infidels of the past to whom truth was of no importance, hence unbelievers, used to argue that the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures, including the book of I First Samuel, dated to the Hellenistic-Roman era, even as late as from the second to the first century B.C.E. They falsely claimed, therefore, that "they are. . . 'unhistorical,' of little or no value for reconstructing a 'biblical' or an 'ancient Israel,' both of which are simply modern Jewish and Christian literary constructs."
Referring to the pim measure mentioned at 1 Samuel 13:21, however, William G. Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology, says: "[It] cannot possibly have been 'invented' by writers living in the Hellenistic-Roman period several centuries after these weights had disappeared and had been forgotten. In fact, this bit of biblical text. . . would not be understood until the early 20th century A.D., when the first actual archaeological examples turned up, reading pim in Hebrew." The professor continues: "If the biblical stories are all 'literary inventions' of the Hellenistic-Roman era, how did this particular story come to be in the Hebrew Bible? One may object, of course, that the pim incident is 'only a detail.' To be sure; but as is well known, 'history is in the details.'" .
Therefore, though many critics of all flavors have tried to discredit the Bible through items like the pim which was not really understood until archeological findings revealed the facts, the Bible, being the inspired word of God (YHWH) creator of heaven and earth is always correct even if our understanding may be incomplete and regardless of what infidel critics may say.
APPARENT CONTRADICTION AND ITS EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO MATTHEW 12:37-40:
Some see an error or contradiction in these scriptures related to the amount of time Jesus (Yeshua) was in the grave, but there is NONE. The true facts are:
"Yes, it does seem that way. We must remember that the Bible was written in other languages by cultures far removed from ours. Most alleged contradictions stem from a misunderstanding of certain terms and phrases. For example, Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave for "three days and three nights"(Matt.12:40). When we read the passion narratives, we see that He was crucified late Friday afternoon and that He rose from the dead, early on Sunday morning. It is impossible to get three days and three nights out of this, and I have seen many atheists refer to Jesus' prophecy as a "blatant error which completely destroys the credibility of the Bible."[source - I'd Like To Believe In Jesus, But...By Bob Siegel , Published by Campus Ambassador Press, A ministry of Mission To the Americas Wheaton, Illinois]
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 12:37-40 EXPLAINING THESE SCRIPTURES:
For those who want a more detailed explanation, here is an exert from a well known commentary, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament:
Verse 37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Speech is one of the greatest endowments of humanity; and the greater the gift, the greater the sin of perverting it to unworthy purposes. It would be impossible to sum up all the sins of mankind in the area of sinful speech. It must appear even to casual thought of it that words, as used by millions, constitute the bulk of human shame and wickedness. James said, "If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also" (James 3:2). Beyond everything else, man should watch what he says. One's words can justify when they confess Christ, or teach the truth, or serve to make peace, bestow a blessing, or give encouragement; but on the other hand, when words condemn, cast a reflection, subvert the truth, utter profanity, vulgarity, hatred, or malice, or any one of a million other evil things - then such words bring the condemnation of those who speak them.
Verse 38
Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee.
This arrogant request came from a group who had already accused Jesus of being in league with the devil and who had already seen signs aplenty; but in this case, they were demanding a sign of their own choosing. Luke stated that they sought a "sign from heaven" (Luke 11:16). By that, they no doubt meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to a man's curiosity. Christ always rejected that type of sign, as, for example, when he refused to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:6). In fact, there is more than a suggestion that the Pharisees' request for a sign was but a renewal of Satan's temptation of the Lord in the wilderness. Christ always refused to perform wonders for his enemies like Herod or the Pharisees. He did work miracles for the benefit of John's disciples (Luke 7:18-22), and raised Lazarus that the people might believe (John 11:42). For more on "a sign from heaven," see under Matthew 16:1.
Verse 39
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.
The "adulterous generation" refers not merely to the morals of the people but to the rejection of Israel's covenant with their God. Barnes wrote:
The relation of the Jews to God was represented as a marriage contract with God as the husband and the Jewish people as his wife (Isa. 57:3; Hosea 3:1; Ezek. 16:15). Hence, their apostasy and idolatry are often represented as adultery.
The "sign of the prophet Jonah" refers to the resurrection of Christ, the greatest and most wonderful miracle of all time. Jesus' announcement of this "sign" at that time was actually a prophecy of his death, burial and resurrection. The Old Testament had plainly indicated the Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalms 16:10); but, in keeping with his usual methods, Christ again laid claim to Messiahship, but in such terminology, and in such analogies, that his enemies would not see it, or if they did, would be unable to prove what he meant!
Verse 40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The use of "whale" in this verse is in error; the Greek word is "sea-monster," as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will show; not that there is any essential difference, for the Bible states that "God prepared" a great fish (Jonah 1:17). In the book of Jonah is related also how God "prepared" a gourd (Jonah 4:6), a worm (Jonah 4:7), and a sultry east wind (Jonah 4:8)! Why it should be considered for God a more difficult matter to prepare a great fish than any of those other "preparations" is surely a mystery!
Regarding the truth of the Jonah narrative, it appears absolutely incredible that Christ, one of the Godhead, would have made a mere folk tale the principal prophecy and sign of his resurrection from the dead. We here register a protest against those expositors who are so wise above their Saviour in casting a reflection of doubt upon this astounding incident from the Old Testament. From Jesus' reference to it here, it appears that the experience of Jonah was an authentic event which God "prepared" to be a prophecy of a still greater one, the resurrection of Christ.
The question of "three days and three nights," as signifying the time of our Lord's remaining in the tomb, is one of the most widely discussed issues in the New Testament. An overwhelming number of scholars hold the conviction that the expression is a Hebrew idiom referring to any part of three days and nights which included an entire day, the two nights on either side of it, and portions of the other two days. The present custom of accepting a month to be 28, 30, or 31 days is held to be similar to the Hebrew custom of so loosely determining "three days and three nights." The traditional view that Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday draws its principal support from Matthew's word that Christ should be raised "the third day" (Matthew 16:21). This view asserts that if he was crucified on Thursday, and raised on Sunday, then he would have been raised on the fourth day.
In spite of the fact that a good case can be made out for the above explanation, some very respected students of God's word take another view. Torrey said, "There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion." F12 Torrey's argument is the following: (1) Christ was crucified the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). (2) This does not necessarily mean the day before the ordinary sabbath, because the Jews always honored the day before the Passover (15th of Nisan) as a special "high" sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell upon (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). (3) The truly important question is, therefore, whether "day before the sabbath" refers to an ordinary Saturday, or the special "high" sabbath related to the Passover, and occurring on any day of the week, depending where the 15th of Nisan fell. (4) John's gospel plainly says it was "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14), and that it was "an high day" (John 19:31). These Scriptures plainly show that the ordinary sabbath was not meant. (5) Thus, Christ was crucified on the day before the "high day," or first day of Passover. Since the Passover (15th of Nisan) in the year 30 A.D. fell on Thursday, the "day before" would make it Wednesday on which Christ was crucified. (6) Scriptures supporting this view are: Christ said he would rise "after three days" (Mark 8:31). "After three days" he would rise again (Mark 9:31; 10:34). "This is now the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:31). Whatever one thinks of Torrey's argument, it must be admitted that it is supported by more Scriptures than the traditional view.
Warning: devout souls will not be troubled by this question; for, if it had been necessary to know the day of the week, the Lord would have revealed it. Furthermore, to resolve this question finally and dogmatically, it would be positively necessary to know the exact year of our Lord's passion; and THAT is not certainly known. Not even the exact year of his birth can be determined. It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of WHAT YEAR is fixed. This, of course, is the weakness of Torrey's position. He takes the year 30 A.D. as the base of his calculations.
The heart of the earth is a figurative expression for the grave which is also called "the lower parts of the earth" (Psalms 63:9; Ephesians 4:9).[source - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, by Coffman, James Burton, Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.]
EXPLANATION OF HIGHER CRITICISM FROM THE WRITINGS OF DR. GRIESBACH:
A Jewish scholar, ri Kuchinsky, wrote this about Dr. Griesbach:
"Eminent German rationalist theologian & father of modern literary/historical analysis of the biblical text. Born in Hesse, Griesbach studied under Johann S. Semler at Halle (Prussia). He expanded the base of the Greek with what he discovered during extensive travels & published (1774-75) the first revised edition of the traditional Greek complete with an extensive critical apparatus. He was appointed professor of NT studies at the U of Jena (1775). In 1776 he published A Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke, the work that launched modern gospel studies. Since that time these three gospels have been referred to as "the synoptics."
Pointing to discrepancies between gospel narratives, Griesbach dismissed traditional attempts to harmonize these accounts & focused attention on their literary dependence instead. He accepted J. B. Koppe's observation that the text of Mark is often closer to Luke. This led him to turn Augustine's theory that Luke used Matthew & Mark around and claim that Mark was an uninspired compilation from Matthew & Luke. In 1789 he published his defense of this thesis as "A Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke." In the 19th c. Griesbach's thesis was championed by his student, W. L. de Wette. After years of neglect it was revived in 1964 by the American scholar, W.R. Farmer as "the Two Gospel hypothesis."
In his Demonstration, Griesbach summed up his argument as follows:
This is a summary of the thesis we are defending:
* When writing his book, Mark had not only Matthew but also Luke positioned before his eyes;
* and from these (texts) he excerpted whatever deeds, speeches and sayings of the Savior he committed to memory;
* so that mainly & most often he followed Matthew as a guide;
yet sometimes, leaving Matthew, he allied himself with Luke;
* where he would stick to Matthew's tracks, he still would not let Luke out of his eyesight, but would compare him with Matthew and vice-versa;
* he would try to be brief, as he wanted to write a book with minimum mass; So not only did he leave out what was not pertinent to the role of teacher, which the Lord performed in public..., he also passed over several of Christ's wordier speeches.
* Furthermore, ...he kept in mind his readers: that is, people far from Palestine, among whom the maxims & customs of Palestinian Jews, especially the Pharisees, were not well known, nor were necessary to know; so, partly for this reason,
* he would cut out some things found in Matthew or Luke that were meant only for Jews, especially those in Palestine, or fit their way of thinking...,
* he would be stingier in citing OT passages...,
* he would add things that he thought necessary as illustration or useful for his readers to understand the narrative....
Thus, in Griesbach's view, Mark worked like a cross between a researcher & a Reader's Digest editor to produce for non-Jewish readers a single condensed version of two books, adding only minor details & 24 new sentences to passages quoted from his sources. Other scholars, like J. G. Herder, were not persuaded that this presented a realistic picture of how ancient scribes functioned.
[reference - For full text & further information see J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text- critical studies 1776-1976 (ed. by B. Orchard & T. R. W. Longstaff) Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1978. The passage translated here from Latin is found on pp. 76-77].
New Testament Textual Criticism is often seen as the most obscure of all biblical disciplines. The textual scholars are the folks whose responsibility it is actually to produce the text of the NT that the Christians are reading today. All English translations of the gospels are based on the work of these Textual Critics, who have assembled the Greek text of the gospels from many old biblical manuscripts as they saw fit.
Yes, generally, it's quite an obscure field... The disputes among the professional Textual Critics are still many and bitter. They still keep disputing about the simplest things. For example, they still cannot agree among themselves, Which of the three main NT texts-types -- Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western -- is the earliest?
But, actually, I'm saying that the Textual Criticism isn't such a difficult area at all... In fact, the whole thing is extremely simple!
Just how simple it is? It's actually so simple that, as I see it, the biggest problem in this area had already been solved over 200 years ago! And it seems like it's been downhill ever since...
Thus, today's NT Textual Criticism seems to be mostly smoke and mirrors. Indeed, it now looks to me like these folks spend far more time obscuring some of the most obvious things in this area, rather than clarifying them. And, as a result -- sorry to say, friends -- our mainstream "eclectic" text of the gospels, as well as all the English translations based on it, appear to be all wrong...
The following is a brief review of the work of Griesbach, and of some other famous Textual Critics of the times long past -- the scholars such as Hug and Lachmann. This review is based on the information that I've assembled from other biblical historians. All this can be easily verified.
See Part Two
INTRODUCTION:
Early Bible scholars who specialized in examining apparent Bible contradictions realized they had a lot of work ahead of them due to translation errors, ancient customs that were neither completely known or understood, copyist errors, ancient names of items that were not known to them, differences in what and method of counting between Bible writers, and bias on the part of many scholars.
One such example that baffled scholars for many years was the difference in count between 1 Chronicles 21:5, "And he gave David the number of them, whom he had surveyed: and all the number of Israel was found to be eleven hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and of Juda four hundred and seventy thousand fighting men." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), which was written by the prophet Ezra about 460 BC, and the account at 2 Samuel 24:9, "And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men." (DRCB), which was written by the prophets Gad and Nathan about 1,040 BC. But scholars eventually resolved this apparent contradiction as follows, <<<" In 2 Sam 24:9, was the result of the census 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, or was it 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah as 1 Chr 21:5-6 says?
A: There are two different answers.
Copyist error: One verse could have a copyist error.
Both are correct: Alternately, both are correct, because the totals referred to different groups. The numbers in 1 Chronicles 21:5-6 do not include the Levites and Benjamites. The numbers in 2 Samuel 24:9 might also include the 288,000 in the standing army mentioned in 1 Chronicles 27:1-15 and the 12,000 in Jerusalem and the chariot cities (2 Chronicles 1:14). Also, 1 Chronicles 6:1 mentions the standing army of Judah, 30,000 men. One solution is that 1,100,000 - 288,000 - 12,000 = 800,000, and 500,000 - 30,000 = 460,000.
The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.188-189, 221-222 gives both viewpoints. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.482, When Critics Ask p.178, Bible Difficulties & Seeming Contradictions p.158-159, and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.117-118 for more info. Q: In 2 Sam 24:9, was the result of the census 800,000 in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, or was it 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah as 1 Chr 21:5-6 says?" [source - the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 188-189 and 221-222]>>>.
Interestingly, I wonder why for centuries, scholars missed the clue which was right under their nose with respect this difference in count at 1 Chronicles 21:6, "But Levi and Benjamin he did not number: for Joab unwillingly executed the king's orders." (DRCB).
Some make a big deal out of the difference between 1 Chronicles 21:1, "And Satan rose up against Israel: and moved David to number Israel." (DRCB), and 2 Samuel 24:1, "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). Let's look at the facts, <<<"For many Bible readers, the parallel accounts that describe David's numbering of Israel (found in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21) pose a serious problem. "Why does 2 Samuel 24:1 state that God 'moved' David against Israel, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who 'stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel' "? Can both passages be right, or is this a contradiction?
The Hebrew verb wayyaset, translated "moved" (NKJV) or "incited (NASV), is identical in both passages. God and Satan's actions are described using the same word. The difference lies with the sense in which the word is used: Satan incited (or tempted-cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5) David more directly, while God is spoken of as having incited David because He allowed such temptation to take place. The Hebrews often used active verbs to express "not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do" (Bullinger, 2898, p. 823, emp. in orig.). Throughout the Bible, God's allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord." [source - Apologetics Press :: Alleged Discrepancies, Who Incited David to Number Israel?, by Eric Lyons, M.Min.]>>>.
Which was nothing but a misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew usage on the part of some translators, nothing to sweat over.
AN EXAMPLE OF AN ALLEGED BIBLE ERROR NOT RESOLVED UNTIL A MODERN ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND:
Many claim the Bible has errors, but what they claim are errors are in reality errors with respect to our understanding and NOT God's word. Here is one example of something many claimed to be an error, but later archeological findings proved it was only an error in our understanding and not the Bible.
Although the word "pim" occurs only once in the Bible. In the days of King Saul, the Israelites had to get their metal tools sharpened by Philistine smiths. "The price for sharpening proved to be a pim for the plowshares and for the mattocks and for the threetoothed instruments and for the axes and for fixing fast the oxgoad," states the Bible. -1 Samuel 13:21.
What was a pim? The .answer to that question remained a mystery until 1907 C.E. when the first pim weight stone was excavated at the ancient city of Gezer. Bible translators of earlier dates had difficulty translating the word "pim." The King James Version, for example, rendered 1 Samuel 13:21: "Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads."
. .
Scholars today know that a" pim was a weight measure averaging 7.82 grams, or approximately two thirds of a shekel, the basic Hebrew unit of weight. A pim measure of silver scrap was the price the Philistines charged the Israelites for sharpening their tools. The shekel weight system went out of use with the fall of the kingdom of Judah and its capital, Jerusalem, in 607 B.C.E. So how does the pim measure testify to the historicity of the Hebrew text?
Some scholars, Muslim and pseudo Christians infidels of the past to whom truth was of no importance, hence unbelievers, used to argue that the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures, including the book of I First Samuel, dated to the Hellenistic-Roman era, even as late as from the second to the first century B.C.E. They falsely claimed, therefore, that "they are. . . 'unhistorical,' of little or no value for reconstructing a 'biblical' or an 'ancient Israel,' both of which are simply modern Jewish and Christian literary constructs."
Referring to the pim measure mentioned at 1 Samuel 13:21, however, William G. Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology, says: "[It] cannot possibly have been 'invented' by writers living in the Hellenistic-Roman period several centuries after these weights had disappeared and had been forgotten. In fact, this bit of biblical text. . . would not be understood until the early 20th century A.D., when the first actual archaeological examples turned up, reading pim in Hebrew." The professor continues: "If the biblical stories are all 'literary inventions' of the Hellenistic-Roman era, how did this particular story come to be in the Hebrew Bible? One may object, of course, that the pim incident is 'only a detail.' To be sure; but as is well known, 'history is in the details.'" .
Therefore, though many critics of all flavors have tried to discredit the Bible through items like the pim which was not really understood until archeological findings revealed the facts, the Bible, being the inspired word of God (YHWH) creator of heaven and earth is always correct even if our understanding may be incomplete and regardless of what infidel critics may say.
APPARENT CONTRADICTION AND ITS EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO MATTHEW 12:37-40:
Some see an error or contradiction in these scriptures related to the amount of time Jesus (Yeshua) was in the grave, but there is NONE. The true facts are:
"Yes, it does seem that way. We must remember that the Bible was written in other languages by cultures far removed from ours. Most alleged contradictions stem from a misunderstanding of certain terms and phrases. For example, Jesus predicted that He would be in the grave for "three days and three nights"(Matt.12:40). When we read the passion narratives, we see that He was crucified late Friday afternoon and that He rose from the dead, early on Sunday morning. It is impossible to get three days and three nights out of this, and I have seen many atheists refer to Jesus' prophecy as a "blatant error which completely destroys the credibility of the Bible."[source - I'd Like To Believe In Jesus, But...By Bob Siegel , Published by Campus Ambassador Press, A ministry of Mission To the Americas Wheaton, Illinois]
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 12:37-40 EXPLAINING THESE SCRIPTURES:
For those who want a more detailed explanation, here is an exert from a well known commentary, Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament:
Verse 37
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Speech is one of the greatest endowments of humanity; and the greater the gift, the greater the sin of perverting it to unworthy purposes. It would be impossible to sum up all the sins of mankind in the area of sinful speech. It must appear even to casual thought of it that words, as used by millions, constitute the bulk of human shame and wickedness. James said, "If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also" (James 3:2). Beyond everything else, man should watch what he says. One's words can justify when they confess Christ, or teach the truth, or serve to make peace, bestow a blessing, or give encouragement; but on the other hand, when words condemn, cast a reflection, subvert the truth, utter profanity, vulgarity, hatred, or malice, or any one of a million other evil things - then such words bring the condemnation of those who speak them.
Verse 38
Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee.
This arrogant request came from a group who had already accused Jesus of being in league with the devil and who had already seen signs aplenty; but in this case, they were demanding a sign of their own choosing. Luke stated that they sought a "sign from heaven" (Luke 11:16). By that, they no doubt meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to a man's curiosity. Christ always rejected that type of sign, as, for example, when he refused to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:6). In fact, there is more than a suggestion that the Pharisees' request for a sign was but a renewal of Satan's temptation of the Lord in the wilderness. Christ always refused to perform wonders for his enemies like Herod or the Pharisees. He did work miracles for the benefit of John's disciples (Luke 7:18-22), and raised Lazarus that the people might believe (John 11:42). For more on "a sign from heaven," see under Matthew 16:1.
Verse 39
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.
The "adulterous generation" refers not merely to the morals of the people but to the rejection of Israel's covenant with their God. Barnes wrote:
The relation of the Jews to God was represented as a marriage contract with God as the husband and the Jewish people as his wife (Isa. 57:3; Hosea 3:1; Ezek. 16:15). Hence, their apostasy and idolatry are often represented as adultery.
The "sign of the prophet Jonah" refers to the resurrection of Christ, the greatest and most wonderful miracle of all time. Jesus' announcement of this "sign" at that time was actually a prophecy of his death, burial and resurrection. The Old Testament had plainly indicated the Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalms 16:10); but, in keeping with his usual methods, Christ again laid claim to Messiahship, but in such terminology, and in such analogies, that his enemies would not see it, or if they did, would be unable to prove what he meant!
Verse 40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The use of "whale" in this verse is in error; the Greek word is "sea-monster," as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will show; not that there is any essential difference, for the Bible states that "God prepared" a great fish (Jonah 1:17). In the book of Jonah is related also how God "prepared" a gourd (Jonah 4:6), a worm (Jonah 4:7), and a sultry east wind (Jonah 4:8)! Why it should be considered for God a more difficult matter to prepare a great fish than any of those other "preparations" is surely a mystery!
Regarding the truth of the Jonah narrative, it appears absolutely incredible that Christ, one of the Godhead, would have made a mere folk tale the principal prophecy and sign of his resurrection from the dead. We here register a protest against those expositors who are so wise above their Saviour in casting a reflection of doubt upon this astounding incident from the Old Testament. From Jesus' reference to it here, it appears that the experience of Jonah was an authentic event which God "prepared" to be a prophecy of a still greater one, the resurrection of Christ.
The question of "three days and three nights," as signifying the time of our Lord's remaining in the tomb, is one of the most widely discussed issues in the New Testament. An overwhelming number of scholars hold the conviction that the expression is a Hebrew idiom referring to any part of three days and nights which included an entire day, the two nights on either side of it, and portions of the other two days. The present custom of accepting a month to be 28, 30, or 31 days is held to be similar to the Hebrew custom of so loosely determining "three days and three nights." The traditional view that Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday draws its principal support from Matthew's word that Christ should be raised "the third day" (Matthew 16:21). This view asserts that if he was crucified on Thursday, and raised on Sunday, then he would have been raised on the fourth day.
In spite of the fact that a good case can be made out for the above explanation, some very respected students of God's word take another view. Torrey said, "There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion." F12 Torrey's argument is the following: (1) Christ was crucified the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). (2) This does not necessarily mean the day before the ordinary sabbath, because the Jews always honored the day before the Passover (15th of Nisan) as a special "high" sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell upon (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). (3) The truly important question is, therefore, whether "day before the sabbath" refers to an ordinary Saturday, or the special "high" sabbath related to the Passover, and occurring on any day of the week, depending where the 15th of Nisan fell. (4) John's gospel plainly says it was "the preparation of the Passover" (John 19:14), and that it was "an high day" (John 19:31). These Scriptures plainly show that the ordinary sabbath was not meant. (5) Thus, Christ was crucified on the day before the "high day," or first day of Passover. Since the Passover (15th of Nisan) in the year 30 A.D. fell on Thursday, the "day before" would make it Wednesday on which Christ was crucified. (6) Scriptures supporting this view are: Christ said he would rise "after three days" (Mark 8:31). "After three days" he would rise again (Mark 9:31; 10:34). "This is now the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24:31). Whatever one thinks of Torrey's argument, it must be admitted that it is supported by more Scriptures than the traditional view.
Warning: devout souls will not be troubled by this question; for, if it had been necessary to know the day of the week, the Lord would have revealed it. Furthermore, to resolve this question finally and dogmatically, it would be positively necessary to know the exact year of our Lord's passion; and THAT is not certainly known. Not even the exact year of his birth can be determined. It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of WHAT YEAR is fixed. This, of course, is the weakness of Torrey's position. He takes the year 30 A.D. as the base of his calculations.
The heart of the earth is a figurative expression for the grave which is also called "the lower parts of the earth" (Psalms 63:9; Ephesians 4:9).[source - Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, by Coffman, James Burton, Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.]
EXPLANATION OF HIGHER CRITICISM FROM THE WRITINGS OF DR. GRIESBACH:
A Jewish scholar, ri Kuchinsky, wrote this about Dr. Griesbach:
"Eminent German rationalist theologian & father of modern literary/historical analysis of the biblical text. Born in Hesse, Griesbach studied under Johann S. Semler at Halle (Prussia). He expanded the base of the Greek with what he discovered during extensive travels & published (1774-75) the first revised edition of the traditional Greek complete with an extensive critical apparatus. He was appointed professor of NT studies at the U of Jena (1775). In 1776 he published A Synopsis of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke, the work that launched modern gospel studies. Since that time these three gospels have been referred to as "the synoptics."
Pointing to discrepancies between gospel narratives, Griesbach dismissed traditional attempts to harmonize these accounts & focused attention on their literary dependence instead. He accepted J. B. Koppe's observation that the text of Mark is often closer to Luke. This led him to turn Augustine's theory that Luke used Matthew & Mark around and claim that Mark was an uninspired compilation from Matthew & Luke. In 1789 he published his defense of this thesis as "A Demonstration that the Whole Gospel of Mark is Excerpted from the Narratives of Matthew & Luke." In the 19th c. Griesbach's thesis was championed by his student, W. L. de Wette. After years of neglect it was revived in 1964 by the American scholar, W.R. Farmer as "the Two Gospel hypothesis."
In his Demonstration, Griesbach summed up his argument as follows:
This is a summary of the thesis we are defending:
* When writing his book, Mark had not only Matthew but also Luke positioned before his eyes;
* and from these (texts) he excerpted whatever deeds, speeches and sayings of the Savior he committed to memory;
* so that mainly & most often he followed Matthew as a guide;
yet sometimes, leaving Matthew, he allied himself with Luke;
* where he would stick to Matthew's tracks, he still would not let Luke out of his eyesight, but would compare him with Matthew and vice-versa;
* he would try to be brief, as he wanted to write a book with minimum mass; So not only did he leave out what was not pertinent to the role of teacher, which the Lord performed in public..., he also passed over several of Christ's wordier speeches.
* Furthermore, ...he kept in mind his readers: that is, people far from Palestine, among whom the maxims & customs of Palestinian Jews, especially the Pharisees, were not well known, nor were necessary to know; so, partly for this reason,
* he would cut out some things found in Matthew or Luke that were meant only for Jews, especially those in Palestine, or fit their way of thinking...,
* he would be stingier in citing OT passages...,
* he would add things that he thought necessary as illustration or useful for his readers to understand the narrative....
Thus, in Griesbach's view, Mark worked like a cross between a researcher & a Reader's Digest editor to produce for non-Jewish readers a single condensed version of two books, adding only minor details & 24 new sentences to passages quoted from his sources. Other scholars, like J. G. Herder, were not persuaded that this presented a realistic picture of how ancient scribes functioned.
[reference - For full text & further information see J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text- critical studies 1776-1976 (ed. by B. Orchard & T. R. W. Longstaff) Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1978. The passage translated here from Latin is found on pp. 76-77].
New Testament Textual Criticism is often seen as the most obscure of all biblical disciplines. The textual scholars are the folks whose responsibility it is actually to produce the text of the NT that the Christians are reading today. All English translations of the gospels are based on the work of these Textual Critics, who have assembled the Greek text of the gospels from many old biblical manuscripts as they saw fit.
Yes, generally, it's quite an obscure field... The disputes among the professional Textual Critics are still many and bitter. They still keep disputing about the simplest things. For example, they still cannot agree among themselves, Which of the three main NT texts-types -- Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western -- is the earliest?
But, actually, I'm saying that the Textual Criticism isn't such a difficult area at all... In fact, the whole thing is extremely simple!
Just how simple it is? It's actually so simple that, as I see it, the biggest problem in this area had already been solved over 200 years ago! And it seems like it's been downhill ever since...
Thus, today's NT Textual Criticism seems to be mostly smoke and mirrors. Indeed, it now looks to me like these folks spend far more time obscuring some of the most obvious things in this area, rather than clarifying them. And, as a result -- sorry to say, friends -- our mainstream "eclectic" text of the gospels, as well as all the English translations based on it, appear to be all wrong...
The following is a brief review of the work of Griesbach, and of some other famous Textual Critics of the times long past -- the scholars such as Hug and Lachmann. This review is based on the information that I've assembled from other biblical historians. All this can be easily verified.
See Part Two