In several previous posts (here, here, and here) I addressed the problem of differences in the Gospels, pointing out that what are often taken for contradictions are really just examples of 21st century Westerners trying to impose unrealistic and modern standards of historical reporting on ancient Easterners. Here is another one.
Mk 14:47-54 But one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 48And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 And they all left him and fled. 51 And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked. 53 And they led Jesus to the high priest. And all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes came together. 54 And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he was sitting with the guards and warming himself at the fire. (See also Mt 27:55-8)
In verse 50 we are told that “all” the disciples fled the scene, and yet in verse 54 we are told that Peter followed Jesus from a distance. Because both statements appear in the same Gospel no one complains. But what if Mark only said that all fled, and Luke only said that Peter followed Jesus from a distance? People would claim it was a contradiction. How could Peter be following Jesus if he fled the scene? Of course, the Christian would respond by trying to harmonize the two texts. We would propose that all of the disciples did flee the scene when Jesus was arrested, but Peter returned, and followed Jesus at a distance. Our critics would say we are being imaginative, and the only reason to offer such a harmonization is to avoid concluding that the Gospels are, indeed, contradictory. But when both statements appear in the same Gospels within just a few verses from each other, no one claims contradiction. And guess what, most would agree that Peter must have fled with the rest of the disciples, but returned shortly afterward to learn of Jesus’ fate. Indeed, that would explain why he followed from a distance. He did not want to be seen by the guards lest he be arrested too—the very reason he fled in the first place. I think this goes to show both how overblown the charge of “contradiction is,” as well as why harmonization is a perfectly legitimate enterprise when it comes to reading historical reports.
Thinking to Believe 
July 5, 2018 at 12:30 pm
The number of contradictions in the Bible is vast. There are several hundred. And not just nit-picky kinds either. The Bible is the product of a large number of translators. Historical descriptions were written many years after the events described. There are a large number of different contributors. A lot of Bible content was pretty much decided on by Roman politicians and some politically minded clergy. Some content was discarded. Some might even have been modified to be “acceptable”.
Insisting that the Bible is infallible is a lost cause. And why is that even necessary? Believers are better served by faith, not in words on a page, but by the living God in their hearts and minds.
Insistence that the Bible is infallible drives away intelligent people who can see clearly. Then the religion becomes populated by those of lower ability and intelligence and that further drives away people who are perceptive. The religion becomes lop-sided. Religion and faith become objects of ridicule among educated people because of the obvious errors in the text.
Religion is very important to me personally, but I’m not willing to leave clear thinking behind in the name of faith in something that really cannot be defended.
I think that spending time defending a thousand year old document written in a time of scientific ignorance and tremendously limited word-view is better spent getting in touch with the living God that exists now. We do not need a thousand year old document to do that.
I’m not saying to discard the Bible, but instead to use it as a source of information and inspiration, without the necessity of claiming infallibility or literal accuracy. Personally I find the teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism to be inspiring and sources of deep spiritual knowledge as well. There is no need to insist that any book of spiritual knowledge is infallible. It is up to each of us on our own spiritual path to determine what is useful and what isn’t. That is our sacred duty to ourselves. No one can walk the path for you.
Maybe some people want the simplicity of just insisting that whatever they have chosen as their path is “absolutely true”. This happens most often when people are just “born into” their religions. (US Christians and middle eastern Muslims for example). And then they do not have to think. But I have found that every step of the way you MUST think and choose–that is each individual’s responsibility. If you do not think, choose, and question then you get religious fanaticism and historically and in this age we can see clearly where that leads.
LikeLike
July 5, 2018 at 1:16 pm
Ron, your comments read like someone who gets their information from the internet conspirators rather than real scholars. Clearly you haven’t done your homework on the history of the transmission of the text. I would suggest you read from credible sources – from scholars who work in this field.
LikeLike
July 5, 2018 at 4:45 pm
Ron Larson:
I agree that there are many things about the bible that are too little understood especially in the light of the translations and mis-translations you mention and more especially because readers tend to read bible texts literally without the influence of sayings, idioms, traditional nuance, metaphors, fables, parables, examples, similes; even exaggerations and embellishments, supernaturalism, superstition and miracles. However, there are lots of biblical information that is important to lots of people and to me as well though I am not a believer in theism.
There are seemingly contradictions but sometimes you need to go outside the bible to discover why they seem to be contradictions and that’s where scholars come in. Here is a perfect example of a contradiction apparent. I thought there was an obvious contradiction between Matthew and Mark regarding the Canaanite woman Jesus referred to as a dog.
“Do the two accounts of the woman whose daughter was sick (Mt. 15:21-28; Mk. 7:24-30) refer to the same incident? If so, why is the lady called ‘a Canaanite woman’ in Matthew’s account, but she is referred to as ‘a Greek, a Syrophoenician’ in Mark’s record?”
There is no conflict between the accounts. The explanation has to do with the fact that the two writers — Matthew and Mark — are directing their respective documents to different segments of that ancient society. Thus, they adapt their terminology to the understanding of their targeted recipients.
Matthew tailors his record for the Jews. This is apparent from a number of different vantage points. For example, his heavy reliance upon the Old Testament scriptures indicates this. He is writing for those who accept the Old Testament Scriptures as authoritative.
Accordingly, with reference to this woman who lived in the sea-coast region in northwestern Palestine, he calls her a “Canaanite” lady. The pagan inhabitants of the land which Israel conquered under Joshua were known as Canaanites, being descended from Canaan, the grandson of Noah (Gen. 9:18). Many of the Canaanites had been pushed northward into Phoenicia when the Hebrews invaded the territory. This dear woman was designated as a Canaanite because her ancestry was of these despised enemies of Israel.
Mark, on the other hand, is writing for the benefit of the Romans, who controlled the Mediterranean world of the first century. His Roman interest is seen, for instance, in the Latin forms which he employs to render Greek equivalents (cf. 3:17; 5:41; 7:11,34; 14:36; 15:22,34).
This woman lived in Phoenicia (which, politically speaking, belonged to the province of Syria). Hence, she is designated a Syrophoenician. She is further denominated as a “Greek” because she had absorbed the Greek culture, obviously speaking that language. In the New Testament, the term Hellen (“Greek”) frequently is used in the generic sense of simply a “Gentile” (Jn. 7:35; Acts 9:29; Rom. 1:16, etc.; see: F.W. Danker, Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 318).
These two texts regarding this noble Gentile woman do not conflict at all. Rather, they are wonderfully complimentary, reflecting the individuality of the two writers.
To say that the bible is not infallible is not a sensible statement. There are lots of inspiring passages in the bible; the Book of Proverbs is a super-brainfood for the mind, an insight into history and humanity’s recognition of righteousness and the absence of righteousness, good and the absence of good and the rewards & penalties thereof. The bible is a source of knowledge based on observations and experiences of past giants like Solomon; not the least of which are the accounts of Jesus who came to revolutionize “religion” which leads me to ask what do you mean by the statement “Religion is very important to me personally……”
All religions derive from a person and although most religions in the western world and some eastern religions are based on the bible, that is not to say necessarily, that the bible is not infallible. Once you taint the bible with such a wide brush, as not infallible, then your own religion, if bible based, puts your religion as not infallible so what is it about your not-infallible-religion that is fallible? Any? And if so why is it important to you personally. I don’t get it.
Jesus despised religion, the ritualisms and sacraments associated with that made people play church instead of the higher powers living within you. and from where did you take the comment “……by the living God in their hearts and minds…..”
One more reminder to your statement that “….Believers are better served by faith…..” is a false statement. Faith by definition is unexamined, so in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences and yet if it could it would regulate every action, every word and thought of every single person on this planet.
The best one can say about Faith is that Faith can lead you to knowledge and knowledge will set you free? What does knowledge set you free from? Faith. The truth of Knowledge sets you free from “Faith”.
As I reminded others in past posts:
That’s why it’s absolutely imperative that you understand the nature of faith. And very few Christians understand the nature of faith. Because we’re constantly being brainwashed into the idea that the more you are in the rat race, the more you rush around doing things for God the more you’re demonstrating your faith in God; diametrically opposed to the truth. The more you try to do for God the more you’re demonstrating, not your faith in God, but your faith in yourself. Faith is a disposition that invokes the activity of a second party; it brings somebody, something, into action on your behalf. You’re exercising faith at this moment in the seat that supports your weight.
Faith is like the clutch on a gear shift continental sports car. You could put your foot on the gas, rev the engine until every last window in the district is vibrating with the noise and the whole city lost in a cloud of dust. But if you don’t let the clutch out where will you be when you take your foot off the gas and the dust has settled? Exactly where you started! Because all the clutch does is relate the engine and the power under the hood to the wheels on the road. But the clutch doesn’t drive the car. Can you imagine a kid with his friend, open sports car, zooming down the road, nobody looking, 30, 50, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 miles an hour, wind streaming through his hair and he turns to his friend and says man….man..he says, what a clutch! Well you’d say don’t be so stupid. You’d say Man…what an engine!. All the clutch is doing is letting the engine be an engine.
And all that faith does in terms of your relationship to Jesus Christ is to allow him to move redemptively into your experience and reconcile you to the Higher Power (living within you). If you don’t put your trust in Christ, he’s still the redeemer but you won’t know it.
The simplicity of Faith leads you to knowledge.
LikeLike
July 5, 2018 at 5:23 pm
I agree. Research demands it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 12, 2018 at 11:10 am
PARABLE PARALLELS:
Mk 6: “A prophet is without honor only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own household.” 5 So He could not (would not) perform many miracles there, except to lay His hands on a few of the sick and heal them.…because of their unbelief…….”
Words spoken by Jesus to the people of Nazareth, the town where he grew up. They refused to believe in his teaching because they considered him one of themselves and therefore without authority to preach to them.
To turn a parable:
A prophet is taken for granted in his hometown, his family, circle of friends, on the blog s/he frequents, etc. regarding the many pearls of wisdom s/he can offer up to the community that hears; on the other hand, wisdom pearls are rare, few and far between in certain arenas, home, family, friends, blogs because a prophet cannot and will not leave many pearls of wisdom in s/he’s home town, family, circle of friends and on the blogs s/he frequents because of their hostile indifference.
LikeLike
July 12, 2018 at 1:28 pm
I like the way Huston Smith, author of “The World’s Religions”, classifies religions of the East and West. In the West we have primarily “Faith Based” religious systems, while in the East we have primarily “Wisdom Based” religious systems.
I find that it seems to be quite difficult for Westerner, born and raised in faith based beliefs, especially Christians, to understand the Eastern forms of religions.
I am strongly drawn to the teachings of Buddhism, but I was born in a Christian environment. I am also drawn to the teachings of Hinduism.
People get angry when you say the Christian Bible is not infallible, because that is part of their faith—that it is infallible. it cannot be proven to be infallible and it has many contradictions. Not nit-picky contradictions but very BIG contradictions. You can find them quite easily.
My primary problem with Christianity is the over-all story line. (You know the story). To me the story just doesn’t make sense–unless God himself is fallible–and I do not think that is true. The story line reads like mythology.
My experience is that all religious teachings are probably fallible to some extent, and you must find out for yourself what is true and what isn’t.
A lot of people are bothered by that, but I am not one of them.
Seems like some people just really need to believe that the Bible is infallible. And that is fine but I don’t. There really are no infallible answers like that in life, in my experience.
Personally, I don’t know how to classify what I believe to be true: It’s partly Christian, partly Hindu and partly Buddhist. I don’t need to classify it–it’s fluid and changes as I understand more. The most important answers come from within. If I had “fixed” religious ideas, now would I be able to see the “truth” when it was revealed?
In Buddhism, in very deep meditation, is revealed the “deathless” ( that which is eternal and is not created by causes and conditions). Those who have reached “awakening” speak of this sometimes. Although Buddhist’s do not believe in a creator-God as such, the “deathless” seems to me to be the closest thing to God in that religion.
The unique thing about Buddhism is that the Buddha himself said “Don’t believe it because I said it, know it when you see it clearly for yourself”. This clear seeing can only occur when the mind is quiet in deep meditation.
Attaining this kind of deep meditative awareness is something few people achieve–it is not easy. People want easier answers, it seems, and don’t want to put in the hard work required to achieve real knowledge. There is great appeal to a book that gives them all the answers that they will ever need–and then they don’t have to do what is really difficult–the purification of their own mind and heart.
To me Knowing is better than Believing. I’d rather pursue Knowing than Believing. If you don’t really know, how can you really believe? Many people believe a lot of different things. Even with all the different versions of the Bible there are differences in what is believed. Believing can be just gullibility for some people. I don’t see it as a great virtue unless it is backed by real knowledge, experience, and an inner awareness of the truth–but that is just me.
I am not a “blogger” generally. The blogs are too filled with anger and hatred.
With people who just want a fight. I am not interested in that.
May everyone be truly happy.
LikeLike