...Mark Shea writes:
The Bible is not written to be the Big Perfect Book of Everything. It is written to relay firmly, faithfully and without error those truths God wished us to know for the sake of our salvation. Eyewitness accounts which do not record “ipssissima verbi” (the exact tape-recorded words) are not “contradictory”. They get at the gist of what happened. They can leave out details that don’t concern the author or his readers and include details that do (as, for instance, when both Paul and Luke record that Jesus said the cup is the “new covenant” and not merely the “covenant” in His blood. But varying details do not (except for flat-footed fundamentalists) “prove” the story is worthless. They merely prove that the witnesses are human beings telling about an intensely important memory in a human way. The only thing more foolish than trying to enforce a foolish hyper-consistency on such testimony is to lose your faith when you fail to do so.
Mark Shea is kindly referencing my podcast on Apologetic Thomas - Thomas v. Bart Ehrman, but after the back and forth with Steve Hays at Triablogue, it is palpably clear that the fundamentalist and the atheist are driven by the same foolish need to see perfect consistency.
We don't need to "see" a perfect consistency because "seeing" is not univocal with "believing."
Notice how different this need to "see" is from the approach of St. Thomas Aquinas on dealing with what Bart Ehrman calls - and a wooden literalist like Steve Hays might fear is - a contradiction, i.e., the difference between the Gospel of Mark that implies that Christ was crucified at the "third hour" and the Gospel of John that implies that it was "about the the sixth hour." Ehrman would - actually he does - ullalate in victory, "See, there's a contradiction, it must be all wrong." A wooden literalist would do back-flips trying to explain how "third" really means "six."
What does St. Thomas Aquinas do? Read for yourself:
Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. iii): "'It was about the sixth hour' when the Lord was delivered up by Pilate to be crucified," as John relates. For it "was not quite the sixth hour, but about the sixth--that is, it was after the fifth, and when part of the sixth had been entered upon until the sixth hour was ended--that the darkness began, when Christ hung upon the cross. It is understood to have been the third hour when the Jews clamored for the Lord to be crucified: and it is most clearly shown that they crucified Him when they clamored out. Therefore, lest anyone might divert the thought of so great a crime from the Jews to the soldiers, he says: 'It was the third hour, and they crucified Him,' that they before all may be found to have crucified Him, who at the third hour clamored for His crucifixion. Although there are not wanting some persons who wish the Parasceve to be understood as the third hour, which John recalls, saying: 'It was the Parasceve, about the sixth hour.' For 'Parasceve' is interpreted 'preparation.' But the true Pasch, which was celebrated in the Lord's Passion, began to be prepared from the ninth hour of the night--namely, when the chief priests said: 'He is deserving of death.'" According to John, then, "the sixth hour of the Parasceve" lasts from that hour of the night down to Christ's crucifixion; while, according to Mark, it is the third hour of the day.
Still, there are some who contend that this discrepancy is due to the error of a Greek transcriber: since the characters employed by them to represent 3 and 6 are somewhat alike.
In other words, the first thing that Thomas does is not to read the text of the Bible as a wooden literalist does, ie., like Bart Ehrman. Thomas suggests that maybe, just maybe, the times were collapsing an entire series of events into a single time, which, you know, when you think about it, is what people often do.
The second thing he does is even more interesting - and more precious as a character trait: Thomas says, "Hey, maybe there's an error in the Bibles we are reading."
Thomas points out that there could have been a scribal error because in Greek "three" and "six" are "somewhat alike."
Notice the casual way he concedes the fargin' obvious? Thomas isn't suffering a crisis of faith because of it. He isn't saying, "Woe is us; we can know nothing." To the contrary, he says, in essence, "well if there is a problem, let's work it out."
Jeepers, you mean, just like a scholar?
Also, think about why Thomas might not have been overly-shocked about this prospect, unlike Bart Ehrman and modern folks. Namely, because Thomas actually worked with scribes, who undoubtedly made errors all the time, unlike Bart Ehrman and his audience who think that everything should look like a "Xerox"(TM) brand copy.
On the other hand, if you listen to the podcast, if you listen closely and pay attention, you may just hear the dog that didn't bark in the night.
You know who should have suggested that the so-called discrepancy might be a scribal error? Bart Ehrman, that's who. Ehrman has written books on scribal errors. Yet, he never suggests - as does St. Thomas - that maybe we can answer the question of "contradiction" on the basis that both texts once said "three" or "six," until a scribe came along and confused one for the other because in Greek "three" and "six" are "somewhat alike."
But Bart Ehrman doesn' offer that possibility because he's on record as saying that if the Bible were really and truly God's word, then God would have prevented there ever being any confusion, such as perhaps by inventing photocopiers in the First Century.
Which when you think about it has the same structure as Steve Hays' argument: if God had wanted His truth to be communicated, He wouldn't relay on impermanent, easily confused oral communications; He would only have allowed His word to be communicated in something permanent and less easily forgotten, like a written text.
Fundamentalism and atheism - both want to tell God how He could do His job so much better.
Posts
