Inerrancy, harmonization, and understanding

[Difflugia]

Eloi and I have derailed otseng's post about inerrancy and its relation to biblical authority by debating once again whether the Bible is inerrant in fact.

The question I asked of Eloi and will consider the debate topic for this thread is this:

Does denying the possibility of biblical error and instead harmonizing (apparent?) contradiction preclude understanding the text?

[Difflugia]

The better way to talk about anything is with examples.

I'll give you one example about what I told you before:

If you don't know that there were two parts of Jericho near Jerusalem that were separated about a mile from each other (the older city and the newer Roman city) you may think that Matt. 20:29 contradicts Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35. That is why you need to investigate.

This is an excellent example of what I mean. Looking at the whole pericope in each gospel, it's obvious to me that Matthew and Luke are free retellings of Mark in which the details are modified to fit the literary and theological needs of each author. If we don't need to dogmatically assert the literal historical accuracy of any one story, let alone all three together, the evolution of the story becomes clear.

The contradiction pointed out by Eloi in the first verse of each is simply that Mark and Matthew recount the story as occurring as Jesus is leaving Jericho, while Luke's setting is as they enter the town. The harmonization offered is that there's a narrow strip between Jericho and Jericho that isn't Jericho. We then mentally add different bits to each story so that, though each evangelist is apparently incapable of independently telling the correct story, they together tell us that Jesus enters Jericho, leaves Jericho, walks a mile, then enters Jericho again, where he heals two blind beggars, one of which is named Bartimaeus.

I'll just leave that for reference. What I think is more likely, interesting, and offers more insight is this:

In or Out? One or two?

Here's Mark 10:46, but my own translation because Mark's grammar is pretty bad and is usually improved by translators. There's a debate over whether Mark is a native Aramaic speaker and his Greek is genuinely inexpert or if it's an affectation, like someone faking an accent. Without diving too deep, some scholars think that he intentionally mimics oral Koine.

And they come to Jericho. And as he left Jericho and his disciples did and a large crowd did, Timaeus' son Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, sat beside the road.

This is poor in a literary sense (entering and exiting Jericho with no intervening details, mixed verb tense, and overuse of "and" ("Parataxis:" see page 115 of the linked book). There's also a weird, but possible indication here that Mark may not actually know Aramaic. "Bartimaeus" in Aramaic literally means "son of Timaeus," but Mark seems not to know that. He uses it like a name. Is it meant to be parenthetical, perhaps? "Mark interjected parenthetical phrases as sudden remarks prompted by the thought sequence" (p. 116).

In any case, Matthew and Luke apparently didn't like Mark's sentence, so they each fixed it. Both omit the names entirely and each fixes the "in and out of Jericho" in his own way.

Matthew omits the entering so that though in his narrative they never explicitly arrive, it eliminates the more apparent awkwardness of just passing through in a single sentence.

Matthew 20:29-30a:

And as they were leaving Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, two blind men were sitting by the road...

We also see that Matthew has, somewhat inexplicably, added a second blind man (though neither is a beggar, anymore). While strange, it's a pattern for Matthew. Mark's one demon (Mk 5:2) becomes two in Matthew (Mt 8:28). He also heals a different pair of blind guys (Mt 9:27-31) that is similar to the single blind man in Mark 8:22-26.

Luke does something similar for the in-and-out of Jericho. The events are changed to happen upon entering the town.

Luke 18:35:

It happened, then, when he was approaching Jericho that a certain blind man sat by the road, begging.

The beginning of the next pericope (19:1) explicitly tells us that Jesus is "passing through" Jericho. The setting of the Zaccheus story and some parables is Jericho, following which he implicitly leaves to head toward Jerusalem in 19:28.

If we aren't grinding an inerrancy ax, which explanation best fits? Which way of viewing the text offers more insight into the three authors and their texts?

[Miles]

Eloi and I have derailed otseng's post about inerrancy and its relation to biblical authority by debating once again whether the Bible is inerrant in fact.

The question I asked of Eloi and will consider the debate topic for this thread is this:

Does denying the possibility of biblical error and instead harmonizing (apparent?) contradiction preclude understanding the text?

No, but depending on the subject it could be a poor understanding. If one insists that what Leviticus 1:16 (KJV) says: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you" is true then it would be a poor understanding. Even a gross misunderstanding, because hares do not produce cud to chew. The contradiction here being between what science says about hares and what the Bible says about them. Both assertions cannot be true, and guess who's correct and who's in error.

Of course there are internal contradictions as well where the Bible contradicts itself, e.g. who was the father of Salah (Sala), Arphaxad or Cainan?

Genesis 10:24
24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.


Luke 3:35-36
35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Cherry pick away. Either way the Bible remains in error: Not innerant.


.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #2]
Maybe you didn't understand the event. Jesus had left one of the two Jericho and was entering the other.

An inspired writer remembers the event from the perspective of leaving the Jericho where they were, others from the perspective of the Jericho where they were going to enter.

There is no contradiction and nothing has to be harmonized. The ancient readers of the stories knew what each one meant, or in any other case they asked "coming from / going to which Jericho?" ... Modern readers have to trust the writers who make the account of the event and investigate to understand the difference of both cases.

[benchwarmer]

Modern readers have to trust the writers who make the account of the event and investigate to understand the difference of both cases.

No, modern readers don't have to trust anything. This only shows your bias. You are not investigating the texts to see what they say, you have predetermined what they say and are trying to come up with whatever story makes it fit your presupposed idea. This is backwards.

If we use your method and I hand you the Vedas are you going to become a Hindu? If not, you show the issue with your methodology.

[Eloi]

"Bias" is consider that what you don't like must be wrong. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise ... The reverse is prejudice and ill will.

[bluegreenearth]

"Bias" is consider that what you don't like must be wrong. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise ... The reverse is prejudice and ill will.

That perspective only applies in courts of law where all the defendants, prosecutors, witnesses, and judges are demonstrated to exist in reality. It would be impractical and unreasonable to presume every imaginary thing which has been accused of not existing is innocent of failing to exist until proven to not exist in reality.

[Difflugia]

Maybe you didn't understand the event.

I'm pretty sure you know I do.

Jesus had left one of the two Jericho and was entering the other.

No Gospel account says or implies that. You've invented a different story by creating new events and adding them to the Bible.

An inspired writer remembers the event from the perspective of leaving the Jericho where they were, others from the perspective of the Jericho where they were going to enter.

That's not how the stories are written, though. You've invented a vastly implausible scenario where we must assume that the authors were participants in the event, yet apparently didn't remember the striking detail of passing through a sort of no-man's-land between two Jerichos. They then wrote their narratives in such a way that they appear conflicting, but because of an improbable technicality, are actually historically accurate in all their details.

When a much simpler explanation exists involving a minor change to the story for literary reasons (Occam's razor, anyone?), having the temerity to describe your harmonizing apologetics as "some effort to understand" is chutzpah.

There is no contradiction and nothing has to be harmonized.

Without the details you added to the account yourself, the stories are inconsistent. That is the literally the harmonization we're talking about. Your statement is not only false on its face, but your own explanation of the verses shows the necessity of the harmonization.

The ancient readers of the stories knew what each one meant, or in any other case they asked "coming from / going to which Jericho?"

That's speculation all the way down.

You are drawing what is itself an unwarranted conclusion from a short Jehovah's Witness apologetic that is based on a quote from a 1964 book of archaeology apologetics, itself referring to a 1907 excavation of Jericho by Ernst Sellin, whose name the apologist misspelled. Nobody except the Jehovah's Witnesses repeat this apologetic argument anymore because it turns out that the dates he assigned to the strata he excavated were incorrect, so don't actually apply to Herodian Jericho in the first place:

The first major excavation at Jericho was conducted by an Austro-German expedition under the direction of Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger from 1907 to 1909 and again in 1911. This was before pottery chronology was well developed, so their dating was far off the mark.—Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1990

You and the other Jehovah's Witnesses should really get in the habit of double-checking the dubious claims that Watch Tower publications keep making.

... Modern readers have to trust the writers who make the account of the event and investigate to understand the difference of both cases.

Exactly. The biblical authors knew exactly what they wanted to say. If only modern Christians would take them at their word, such harmonizing gyrations wouldn't be necessary.

[Eloi]

All the accounts of the event were written and read by all new Christians since the 1st century. None of them found it a problem that Jesus was leaving one Jericho and entering another; all of them knew about both cities cause they saw them in their days.

The Bible was not written for the understanding or acceptance of all kind of persons (John 4:23,24).

Matt. 13:10 So the disciples came and said to him: “Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?” 11 In reply he said: “To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. 12 For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’
16 “However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you, many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things you are observing but did not see them, and to hear the things you are hearing but did not hear them.

Have an excellent weekend.

[Difflugia]

All the accounts of the event were written and read by all new Christians since the 1st century.

You're making the unfounded assumption that first century Christians were reading the Gospels as you do. First, there's no reason to think that first century Christians treated them as historical accounts accurate in all detail. Second, even if they were, there's no reason to think that first century Christians were reading any two Gospels together.

None of them found it a problem that Jesus was leaving one Jericho and entering another; all of them knew about both cities cause they saw them in their days.

None of the Gospels mentions two Jerichos, so it wouldn't have mattered to a first century Christian how many Jerichos there were. It's rather anticlimactic, then, that you haven't actually established that there were two Jerichos during the time of Jesus. As far as I can tell, there has only ever been one archaeologist that claimed such and later archaeologists repudiated his conclusions.

The Bible was not written for the understanding or acceptance of all kind of persons (John 4:23,24).

That might be true. Jealous?